Until Bush's tax cuts expire later this year and Obama doesn't renew them and then NOBODY invests in the stock market because the risk just isn't worth it when 35% of your investment gains are taken away.
I've been around rich people all my life. And I have seen capital gains taxes close to 40 percent. No one went home at 3 in the afternoon and said, "I've worked enough, and because tax rates are so high, I think I'll go to the movies." I mean, people want to maximize their after tax income, and there's two ways to do it: Increase their income, or get Congress to lower the tax rates for them. But I have never seen anybody with capital say, "I'm going on strike. I won't invest." I've been managing capital for 50 years for other people. No one left and said, you know, "The taxation system's too tough. I think I'll just stick it all under my mattress." They can't stick under their mattress. They're going to invest their money regardless.
I'll grant you your points, though I think Chavez' "populism" is a whitewash. Week in and week out, he's exercising dictatorial control over his government. Most recently, he revalued the Venezuelan currency and threatened to nationalize any business that raised prices as a result. Having multiple parties doesn't mean much when Chavez can eliminate term limits and run rigged elections, effectively declaring himself president for life. Current protests demonstrate he's not as popular a leader as he claims.
And I'm saying this as a resident of ultra-liberal San Francisco. I haven't been to Venezuela myself, but a friend went on vacation there recently, expecting to find the enlightened liberal paradise of the Western hemisphere. Instead, he found troops on the streets and a subdued, melancholy mood, and he came back disheartened and depressed.
Morales in Bolivia came to power as a champion of the farming class, but he represents primarily coca farmers. That's worrying enough, but alienating his country from the U.S. isn't going to help his people in the long run. His government is running out of cash, but he resists calls to stimulate private industry. Like Chavez, his brand of socialism is based on populism -- and like Chavez, as his country's economic straits worsen and his policies start to ring hollow, he will have to exert greater and greater authoritarian control to maintain his power: another president for life.
Not to go all Godwin on the thread, but I remind you that dictators are often elected. I call these men dictators in that their style of government is not truly representative of the will of their populations, let alone their best interests, and yet they can't be easily replaced. Dangerous, because they seem myopically focused on local issues to the detriment of world stability and, to a certain extent, the welfare of their own people.
Yes, the U.S. has a bad history in Latin America. I don't see that as an excuse for jingoism. From the average guy on the street, maybe; from leaders, no. It's pathetic.
Note that this is not meant to imply that the Republicans don't take bribes. Though I don't recall a case where a Republican majority leader had to bribe his own guys to get them to vote for the Party's bill.
Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that I've never heard of it.
I'd say your hearing is selective, to say the least.
These so-called bribes are in fact better described as pork. I haven't heard of anyone buying the senator from Nebraska a new BMW. Instead, Nebraska gets exempted form certain Medicaid costs. The senator from Vermont isn't getting breast implants for his mistress, he's getting $10 billion in federal funds to build health clinics. (Cue the Republicans: "They're buying him off with money for abortions!!!!11") Montana, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming are getting higher Medicaid payments because of their dispersed populations. Notice how these "bribes" all curiously have something to do with... dare I say it... healthcare reform.
Representatives want something for their home states in exchange for going along with a difficult vote. This happens every day. As it turns out, it is the residents of Wyoming who vote for senators in Wyoming. No one should be surprised when those senators then look out for the interests of their home state before that of the President. No one, that is, except the Republicans -- who, whenever it's expedient, forget all their huffing and puffing about states' rights and the evils of a big government and choose instead to compare states exerting their rights to "bribery."
At least the Democratic senators are getting "bribes" that have something to do with the issue on the floor. What did Republican hero Ted Stevens of Alaska ask for the last time someone wanted his vote?
Uhhh... what has the NYT done with impunity? You mean all those news scandals you never heard about? Oh wait, you did hear about them. Wonder how.
When you can work every day for 20 years straight and never once do a lousy job, come talk to me. Then do it eight more times and you can compare yourself to the New York Times' record.
Hugo Chavez claimed the presence of U.S. troops in Haiti was evidence of the U.S. using the earthquake as an excuse for American invasion of Haiti. The president of Bolivia said much the same thing. These men are dangerous dictators in a region with a long history of them.
I can confirm the car-crash case, at least anecdotally. It happened to me.
Head-on collision at 60mph, on a stretch of dark freeway. We ran into two cars that were parallel parked, jackknifed across the two lefthand lanes. (Never did find out why they chose that brilliant configuration.)
After that, I could barely sit in a car. All I can say is, once you've slammed into something at speed on a road that you were conditioned to believe would never contain any stationary objects, your brain just snaps. You're in heightened vigilance mode, all the time. I could not see an oncoming pair of headlights without tensing up, in case it might veer into the car. On a curved road, seeing the cars coming the other direction would have me squirming down below the level of the window. The accompanying feeling was so awful that, when I once went on a longish drive with a couple of friends to go to a concert, I just got in the back seat and lay down in a ball on the floor boards. As long as you didn't give me any triggers -- like seeing potential crash hazards -- I was fine. Put me in the front seat, and my teeth would be gritted and I'd be writhing around like a maniac. And I could laugh about it, even then. I knew I was acting like a wimp. I just couldn't do anything about it.
But like you say, the difference is that it's temporary. Long story short, all it took was some seriously reckless driving with a friend to give me another jolt and "snap me out of it." And I was fine, almost literally just like that. I kinda suspect that method is not going to work for the kind of chronic PTSD that military personnel confront.
Where does your mom work? I read a story a couple years ago about how they no longer teach shorthand to journalists in Britain, but that the UK had been the hold-out -- they haven't taught shorthand in American journalism schools in years. I'm curious where your mom picked it up. I don't even completely understand how shorthand works, but it sounds eminently useful.
(Then again, one mistake that note-takers often make is trying to write down everything that's said, which means they aren't really parsing the information in real time. If you're actually listening to the speaker, you can often write down just the germane points, so you don't really need to write as fast as a typist can type.)
I guess for me the real question is are these people really my "contacts"? Typically the people most eager to use social networking are marketing types (see TFA), so great -- now the old VP of Marketing at my old company that I haven't worked for in four years is my contact on LinkedIn. How is that really going to help me, ever?
You seem to use LinkedIn as an online, shared Rolodex. OK, I guess that's a legit usage -- but it's not particularly "social." And as long as I can't count on every single person I've ever worked with to keep an active profile on LinkedIn, then I can't rely on it as a go-to source for contact info. And as far as being up-to-date, what about people like me, who sign up for a LinkedIn profile, can't figure out what it's for, drift away, and stop bothering to keep their contact info updated? I don't see how LinkedIn is any more reliable than my own address book, in that sense.
I guess another thing that bugged me about LinkedIn is that it never really seemed to have any tools that facilitated social interaction. If I remember right, you could join "groups," but they didn't host any discussions or anything like that. Groups just seemed like a way to tag your profile with your "interests" -- which honestly doesn't do much for me. I would expect a "social media" forum to provide some sort of opportunities for casual interaction -- something to reinforce the business relationships. But as far as I can tell, the only activity available on LinkedIn is signing up more people as contacts. It's the equivalent of a MySpace page for grown-up people with marketing jobs: "ZOMG look at how many friends I've got LOLZ!!!11" And asking people you used to work with to write up little blurbs about how great you are at your job? Bleeeccchh.
Then there were the contact requests themselves, and LinkedIn's weird inbox format. It seemed like no matter how many times you read a message, it would never go away. There's no way to delete messages, you can only "archive" them. If I get spammed with a ton of contact requests from people I've never heard of, I don't want to "archive" those messages, I want them to freakin' go away.
So basically, in my mind, my LinkedIn profile is just this big desk with all this crap getting dumped on it all the time, and I'm expected to go through and clean it up constantly (but they won't give me a waste basket). I don't need the extra work!
I seriously never understood what LinkedIn is for. It's supposed to be something to do with "business networking" -- OK, I get that. But how?
You sign up. A bunch of people from your old jobs start to find you and ask to "connect on LinkedIn." Now you're connected. Then what? Nothing much happens. Then if you're in my line of work, a bunch of PR people ask to "connect on LinkedIn." You think about ignoring them. Then you decide, what the hell, maybe they have some good info. So you add them. And... nothing much happens.
I mean, honestly... if they're legitimate business contacts I just call them on the phone or shoot them an e-mail.
To be honest, I wouldn't have guessed that 'marketing executive' would be more than a niche audience, not something worthy of so many books.
Cruise the job listings in your area. What do you see more listings for: engineers and IT folks, or marketing execs?
That, and I once heard it said that there are hundreds of patent applications filed for new, better mouse traps (literally, mouse traps) every year. National Public Radio asked a guy from D-Con, or one of the other big pest control companies, whether he planned to license any of these patents. He said no. He said the reason people keep inventing new mouse traps is not because there's a market need for it. They keep inventing new mouse traps because nothing on this Earth could be easier than catching a mouse.
Greg Brandeau, the new CTO at Disney, is a powerful advocate of open source. He worked very hard (within the bounds of antitrust law) to help various visual effects and animation studios with Linux, addressing common issues to everybody's benefit.
I think that's the real point here. Does anyone seriously believe having access to Disney's software will have them churning out Disney-quality movies in a few weeks? The investment required to produce one of the Pixar movies we all like is incredible. Having good software makes a digital film studio more efficient, but it's not really differentiating. That is, every digital film studio is going to rely on software of some kind, and it's all going to be designed to do more or less the same thing. So why shouldn't Disney's IT department be working with other studios to improve the tools? That's exactly the kind of thing that should be open source, and that competing companies can collaborate on. A studio's real business advantage is going to be tied to the quality of the people operating the software, the quality of the creative folks developing the films, and the effectiveness of the studio's marketing. Meanwhile, the same indy filmmakers who start using Disney's software today might be people Brandeau will want to hire tomorrow.
As this article at The Atlantic [theatlantic.com] points out, the NY Times makes more money from subscriptions than from advertising.
I think you're distorting the meaning of that quote. What the article actually says is, "For the first time ever, the NYT is making more money from circulation than advertising." That doesn't mean current subscription revenue is paying the bills. It just means the NYT is getting less money from advertising than it ever has. That's not encouraging; it's deeply worrying.
The story you linked at the Guardian is by Scott Rosenberg, an actual Salon employee who was close to the Salon Premium effort. As a corollary, here is an older article I commissioned from Scott for Web Techniques magazine in 2001, when the Salon paywall was just going up. It includes some technical details, but mostly it's just interesting to see the bookends of the initial optimism and later disillusionment with the effort.
P.S. Interesting that Scott's lede was, "The Web's great free-for-all is coming to a sudden, sharp end." Not so sudden, I guess, but perhaps even more sharp than expected.
If I write a book when I'm 20, then publish it when I'm 70, my Copyright will extend from the year I published it, not when I wrote it.
That's not true. Since at least the Berne Convention in the 1970s, copyright protection is automatic, and publication is not a prerequisite. Your work is copyrighted the instant you lift your pen. Under the Berne Convention, however, whether you wrote the book when you were 20 or when you were 70, the copyright would still extend to 50 years after your death. Later amendments to copyright law in the United States have extended the term further, and the situation can get fairly complicated for "works for hire" or works owned by a company, as the Jack Benny show may be.
Even Slashdot doesn't require HTTPS connections for anything other than the sign-in process - again because there's no point encrypting things that are not usernames/passwords/sensitive information.
Except that if the only data you ever encrypt is sensitive data, you make the jobs of the people trying to snoop on you that much easier. It may still take some CPU power to crack your encryption, but they know they can discard 99 percent of your packets and focus exclusively on the encrypted ones.
OK, relevant direct quotes in context, and not just from people with the same ideological background.
For fuck's sake, man. When an earthquake has just dropped a few floors' worth of concrete on half your family, what is the preferred "ideological background" you're allowed to have before you can quote "in context"? Are you even listening to yourself?
You seem to be missing the point that the BBC often has better coverage of U.S. news than U.S. newspapers (specifically including the NYT) and by better I mean less chock-full of bullshit and sensationalism. Not that those things aren't in plenty of evidence over at the beeb — they certainly are. The LA Times is twice the paper the NYT ever was, and it blows too.
Your opinion, I guess. It's worth noting that the British just have a different standard of journalism than the U.S. That doesn't mean one is "better" than the other, or that one gets it right more often than the other. The UK might have BBC World News, but it also has the Daily Mail. But if you compare publications across the pond -- New Scientist versus Scientific American, for example -- you'll find that the two tend to have a different tone, a different way of approaching stories, different word choices... it's hard to explain without going into a lot of depth, but I'll just suggest that some people might like one better, while some will prefer the other. I disagree that this constitutes a blanket indictment of either, and obviously I like the NYT.
Rush Limbaugh being misquoted and slandered, never reported by NYT.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. His opinions are not news. Similarly, if I call Rush a doodie-head that's not news, and if some other media organization misquotes Rush it's not news. But since you asked, here is the New York Times topic page for Rush Limbaugh. Find me where he was misquoted and slandered by the Times and you may be onto something.
The list is COUNTLESS
You've almost counted to one so far. You're doing well, don't stop now.
you just don't know about it because you are too ignorant to look up more than one source of news
Based on your own preferred source of news entertainment, I'd reckon the list of my sources of news would be beyond your comprehension.
Slashdot Mirror
Until Bush's tax cuts expire later this year and Obama doesn't renew them and then NOBODY invests in the stock market because the risk just isn't worth it when 35% of your investment gains are taken away.
I trust Warren Buffet's insight more than I trust yours:
I've been around rich people all my life. And I have seen capital gains taxes close to 40 percent. No one went home at 3 in the afternoon and said, "I've worked enough, and because tax rates are so high, I think I'll go to the movies." I mean, people want to maximize their after tax income, and there's two ways to do it: Increase their income, or get Congress to lower the tax rates for them. But I have never seen anybody with capital say, "I'm going on strike. I won't invest." I've been managing capital for 50 years for other people. No one left and said, you know, "The taxation system's too tough. I think I'll just stick it all under my mattress." They can't stick under their mattress. They're going to invest their money regardless.
I'll grant you your points, though I think Chavez' "populism" is a whitewash. Week in and week out, he's exercising dictatorial control over his government. Most recently, he revalued the Venezuelan currency and threatened to nationalize any business that raised prices as a result. Having multiple parties doesn't mean much when Chavez can eliminate term limits and run rigged elections, effectively declaring himself president for life. Current protests demonstrate he's not as popular a leader as he claims.
And I'm saying this as a resident of ultra-liberal San Francisco. I haven't been to Venezuela myself, but a friend went on vacation there recently, expecting to find the enlightened liberal paradise of the Western hemisphere. Instead, he found troops on the streets and a subdued, melancholy mood, and he came back disheartened and depressed.
Morales in Bolivia came to power as a champion of the farming class, but he represents primarily coca farmers. That's worrying enough, but alienating his country from the U.S. isn't going to help his people in the long run. His government is running out of cash, but he resists calls to stimulate private industry. Like Chavez, his brand of socialism is based on populism -- and like Chavez, as his country's economic straits worsen and his policies start to ring hollow, he will have to exert greater and greater authoritarian control to maintain his power: another president for life.
Not to go all Godwin on the thread, but I remind you that dictators are often elected. I call these men dictators in that their style of government is not truly representative of the will of their populations, let alone their best interests, and yet they can't be easily replaced. Dangerous, because they seem myopically focused on local issues to the detriment of world stability and, to a certain extent, the welfare of their own people.
Yes, the U.S. has a bad history in Latin America. I don't see that as an excuse for jingoism. From the average guy on the street, maybe; from leaders, no. It's pathetic.
Note that this is not meant to imply that the Republicans don't take bribes. Though I don't recall a case where a Republican majority leader had to bribe his own guys to get them to vote for the Party's bill.
Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that I've never heard of it.
I'd say your hearing is selective, to say the least.
These so-called bribes are in fact better described as pork. I haven't heard of anyone buying the senator from Nebraska a new BMW. Instead, Nebraska gets exempted form certain Medicaid costs. The senator from Vermont isn't getting breast implants for his mistress, he's getting $10 billion in federal funds to build health clinics. (Cue the Republicans: "They're buying him off with money for abortions!!!!11") Montana, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming are getting higher Medicaid payments because of their dispersed populations. Notice how these "bribes" all curiously have something to do with ... dare I say it ... healthcare reform.
Representatives want something for their home states in exchange for going along with a difficult vote. This happens every day. As it turns out, it is the residents of Wyoming who vote for senators in Wyoming. No one should be surprised when those senators then look out for the interests of their home state before that of the President. No one, that is, except the Republicans -- who, whenever it's expedient, forget all their huffing and puffing about states' rights and the evils of a big government and choose instead to compare states exerting their rights to "bribery."
At least the Democratic senators are getting "bribes" that have something to do with the issue on the floor. What did Republican hero Ted Stevens of Alaska ask for the last time someone wanted his vote?
Uhhh... what has the NYT done with impunity? You mean all those news scandals you never heard about? Oh wait, you did hear about them. Wonder how.
When you can work every day for 20 years straight and never once do a lousy job, come talk to me. Then do it eight more times and you can compare yourself to the New York Times' record.
Hugo Chavez claimed the presence of U.S. troops in Haiti was evidence of the U.S. using the earthquake as an excuse for American invasion of Haiti. The president of Bolivia said much the same thing. These men are dangerous dictators in a region with a long history of them.
I can confirm the car-crash case, at least anecdotally. It happened to me.
Head-on collision at 60mph, on a stretch of dark freeway. We ran into two cars that were parallel parked, jackknifed across the two lefthand lanes. (Never did find out why they chose that brilliant configuration.)
After that, I could barely sit in a car. All I can say is, once you've slammed into something at speed on a road that you were conditioned to believe would never contain any stationary objects, your brain just snaps. You're in heightened vigilance mode, all the time. I could not see an oncoming pair of headlights without tensing up, in case it might veer into the car. On a curved road, seeing the cars coming the other direction would have me squirming down below the level of the window. The accompanying feeling was so awful that, when I once went on a longish drive with a couple of friends to go to a concert, I just got in the back seat and lay down in a ball on the floor boards. As long as you didn't give me any triggers -- like seeing potential crash hazards -- I was fine. Put me in the front seat, and my teeth would be gritted and I'd be writhing around like a maniac. And I could laugh about it, even then. I knew I was acting like a wimp. I just couldn't do anything about it.
But like you say, the difference is that it's temporary. Long story short, all it took was some seriously reckless driving with a friend to give me another jolt and "snap me out of it." And I was fine, almost literally just like that. I kinda suspect that method is not going to work for the kind of chronic PTSD that military personnel confront.
Where does your mom work? I read a story a couple years ago about how they no longer teach shorthand to journalists in Britain, but that the UK had been the hold-out -- they haven't taught shorthand in American journalism schools in years. I'm curious where your mom picked it up. I don't even completely understand how shorthand works, but it sounds eminently useful.
(Then again, one mistake that note-takers often make is trying to write down everything that's said, which means they aren't really parsing the information in real time. If you're actually listening to the speaker, you can often write down just the germane points, so you don't really need to write as fast as a typist can type.)
I guess for me the real question is are these people really my "contacts"? Typically the people most eager to use social networking are marketing types (see TFA), so great -- now the old VP of Marketing at my old company that I haven't worked for in four years is my contact on LinkedIn. How is that really going to help me, ever?
You seem to use LinkedIn as an online, shared Rolodex. OK, I guess that's a legit usage -- but it's not particularly "social." And as long as I can't count on every single person I've ever worked with to keep an active profile on LinkedIn, then I can't rely on it as a go-to source for contact info. And as far as being up-to-date, what about people like me, who sign up for a LinkedIn profile, can't figure out what it's for, drift away, and stop bothering to keep their contact info updated? I don't see how LinkedIn is any more reliable than my own address book, in that sense.
I guess another thing that bugged me about LinkedIn is that it never really seemed to have any tools that facilitated social interaction. If I remember right, you could join "groups," but they didn't host any discussions or anything like that. Groups just seemed like a way to tag your profile with your "interests" -- which honestly doesn't do much for me. I would expect a "social media" forum to provide some sort of opportunities for casual interaction -- something to reinforce the business relationships. But as far as I can tell, the only activity available on LinkedIn is signing up more people as contacts. It's the equivalent of a MySpace page for grown-up people with marketing jobs: "ZOMG look at how many friends I've got LOLZ!!!11" And asking people you used to work with to write up little blurbs about how great you are at your job? Bleeeccchh.
Then there were the contact requests themselves, and LinkedIn's weird inbox format. It seemed like no matter how many times you read a message, it would never go away. There's no way to delete messages, you can only "archive" them. If I get spammed with a ton of contact requests from people I've never heard of, I don't want to "archive" those messages, I want them to freakin' go away.
So basically, in my mind, my LinkedIn profile is just this big desk with all this crap getting dumped on it all the time, and I'm expected to go through and clean it up constantly (but they won't give me a waste basket). I don't need the extra work!
I seriously never understood what LinkedIn is for. It's supposed to be something to do with "business networking" -- OK, I get that. But how?
You sign up. A bunch of people from your old jobs start to find you and ask to "connect on LinkedIn." Now you're connected. Then what? Nothing much happens. Then if you're in my line of work, a bunch of PR people ask to "connect on LinkedIn." You think about ignoring them. Then you decide, what the hell, maybe they have some good info. So you add them. And ... nothing much happens.
I mean, honestly... if they're legitimate business contacts I just call them on the phone or shoot them an e-mail.
To be honest, I wouldn't have guessed that 'marketing executive' would be more than a niche audience, not something worthy of so many books.
Cruise the job listings in your area. What do you see more listings for: engineers and IT folks, or marketing execs?
That, and I once heard it said that there are hundreds of patent applications filed for new, better mouse traps (literally, mouse traps) every year. National Public Radio asked a guy from D-Con, or one of the other big pest control companies, whether he planned to license any of these patents. He said no. He said the reason people keep inventing new mouse traps is not because there's a market need for it. They keep inventing new mouse traps because nothing on this Earth could be easier than catching a mouse.
Let's see, late in the TFA it says this:
Motorola stood to lose a significant amount of business if the issue had it waited for Google to enter the country.
(Hey, I didn't edit the thing.) Anyway, that was preceded immediately by this:
Android, developed originally by Google, is open source, meaning partners are free to use it even if Google decides not to support it.
And so this is a story how? I propose a new headline: "Motorola Not Stupid (full story page B13)"
Greg Brandeau, the new CTO at Disney, is a powerful advocate of open source. He worked very hard (within the bounds of antitrust law) to help various visual effects and animation studios with Linux, addressing common issues to everybody's benefit.
I think that's the real point here. Does anyone seriously believe having access to Disney's software will have them churning out Disney-quality movies in a few weeks? The investment required to produce one of the Pixar movies we all like is incredible. Having good software makes a digital film studio more efficient, but it's not really differentiating. That is, every digital film studio is going to rely on software of some kind, and it's all going to be designed to do more or less the same thing. So why shouldn't Disney's IT department be working with other studios to improve the tools? That's exactly the kind of thing that should be open source, and that competing companies can collaborate on. A studio's real business advantage is going to be tied to the quality of the people operating the software, the quality of the creative folks developing the films, and the effectiveness of the studio's marketing. Meanwhile, the same indy filmmakers who start using Disney's software today might be people Brandeau will want to hire tomorrow.
As this article at The Atlantic [theatlantic.com] points out, the NY Times makes more money from subscriptions than from advertising.
I think you're distorting the meaning of that quote. What the article actually says is, "For the first time ever, the NYT is making more money from circulation than advertising." That doesn't mean current subscription revenue is paying the bills. It just means the NYT is getting less money from advertising than it ever has. That's not encouraging; it's deeply worrying.
The story you linked at the Guardian is by Scott Rosenberg, an actual Salon employee who was close to the Salon Premium effort. As a corollary, here is an older article I commissioned from Scott for Web Techniques magazine in 2001, when the Salon paywall was just going up. It includes some technical details, but mostly it's just interesting to see the bookends of the initial optimism and later disillusionment with the effort.
P.S. Interesting that Scott's lede was, "The Web's great free-for-all is coming to a sudden, sharp end." Not so sudden, I guess, but perhaps even more sharp than expected.
Indeed. Exit polls indicate that those who went to Avatar looking for depth came away with no message at all.
How many passes do you give them?
When they've been publishing every single day for the last 160 years? A few.
950 video at that price why not ion
No free software drivers for Ion.
If I write a book when I'm 20, then publish it when I'm 70, my Copyright will extend from the year I published it, not when I wrote it.
That's not true. Since at least the Berne Convention in the 1970s, copyright protection is automatic, and publication is not a prerequisite. Your work is copyrighted the instant you lift your pen. Under the Berne Convention, however, whether you wrote the book when you were 20 or when you were 70, the copyright would still extend to 50 years after your death. Later amendments to copyright law in the United States have extended the term further, and the situation can get fairly complicated for "works for hire" or works owned by a company, as the Jack Benny show may be.
Uh uh uh, let's see, uhhh.... "That wouldn't be so bad, but it looks like he got stuck with the ugly one."
Oh come on, that was at least a single.
Even Slashdot doesn't require HTTPS connections for anything other than the sign-in process - again because there's no point encrypting things that are not usernames/passwords/sensitive information.
Except that if the only data you ever encrypt is sensitive data, you make the jobs of the people trying to snoop on you that much easier. It may still take some CPU power to crack your encryption, but they know they can discard 99 percent of your packets and focus exclusively on the encrypted ones.
OK, relevant direct quotes in context, and not just from people with the same ideological background.
For fuck's sake, man. When an earthquake has just dropped a few floors' worth of concrete on half your family, what is the preferred "ideological background" you're allowed to have before you can quote "in context"? Are you even listening to yourself?
You seem to be missing the point that the BBC often has better coverage of U.S. news than U.S. newspapers (specifically including the NYT) and by better I mean less chock-full of bullshit and sensationalism. Not that those things aren't in plenty of evidence over at the beeb — they certainly are. The LA Times is twice the paper the NYT ever was, and it blows too.
Your opinion, I guess. It's worth noting that the British just have a different standard of journalism than the U.S. That doesn't mean one is "better" than the other, or that one gets it right more often than the other. The UK might have BBC World News, but it also has the Daily Mail. But if you compare publications across the pond -- New Scientist versus Scientific American, for example -- you'll find that the two tend to have a different tone, a different way of approaching stories, different word choices... it's hard to explain without going into a lot of depth, but I'll just suggest that some people might like one better, while some will prefer the other. I disagree that this constitutes a blanket indictment of either, and obviously I like the NYT.
CRU being hacked and proven to provide false data, never reported by NYT.
Because the stolen e-mails proved no such thing. But since you request: Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research
Rush Limbaugh being misquoted and slandered, never reported by NYT.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. His opinions are not news. Similarly, if I call Rush a doodie-head that's not news, and if some other media organization misquotes Rush it's not news. But since you asked, here is the New York Times topic page for Rush Limbaugh. Find me where he was misquoted and slandered by the Times and you may be onto something.
The list is COUNTLESS
You've almost counted to one so far. You're doing well, don't stop now.
you just don't know about it because you are too ignorant to look up more than one source of news
Based on your own preferred source of news entertainment, I'd reckon the list of my sources of news would be beyond your comprehension.
You may be onto something.
I remember GMail outages. But if your ADSL is down, what is your local email client going to do for you that GMail wouldn't?