The continents as mainlands have been "set in stone" as concepts for decades. Or longer. The only vagueness is when you get to islands (the East Indies, the West Indies, etc). Asia and Europe vs Eurasia is fairly cut-and-dried too, but many do forget that western Russia makes up a good chunk of Europe.
"And learn how to use it, it is so much better than the un-geek like crossnig of arms to move cursor and use buttons..."
The click buttons are typically located right next to the track area: no arm-crossing needed. "Learn how to use it" is a bothersome change to "move finger to drag pointer, that is all! no erroneous clicks will happen just by dragging stuff". It's better to have it so you can't accidentally click just by dragging.
"Pixar is the fifth-highest rated brand in North America? Come off it"
I doubt that Mexicans are more likely to know Pixar. Their sloppy results left them off of "North America", and Mexico's population is much greater than that of Canada.
"Anyone remember the old Compaq laptops with the track ball on the inside of the screen and the clickers on the outside? "
Can you describe this any better? Sounds like you had to remove the clear display panel to get to the track ball!
" must have been pretty bad for lefties"
There is no reason not to make sure that any permanently-installed pointing device is in the center. Wal-Mart's job kiosks have them on the right, basically saying "if you are left handed, we don't want you working at Wal-Mart".
North America is a continent that includes Central America. Central America is a region, and has never been considered to be a continent (just as Iberia is a region of Europe). See the dictionary:
"The northern continent of the Western Hemisphere, extending northward from the Colombia-Panama border and including Central America, Mexico, the islands of the Caribbean Sea, the United States, Canada, the Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland."
Always striving to correct errors of basic geography....
"Over here in North America, we consider those countries Central America."
"We" also consider them to be part of North America. Central America is a sub-region of it. Latin America includes soutbern North America, and all of South America.
From dictionary.com: "The northern continent of the Western Hemisphere, extending northward from the Colombia-Panama border and including Central America, Mexico, the islands of the Caribbean Sea, the United States, Canada, the Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland.
It is a common geographic error, like those who think that Asia only means the Pacific shore at the very eastern edge of the Asian continent.
"It only flies if you can give any evidence of CNN bias, but really, they were not then and are not now 1/100 as partisan as Murdoch's "Fox News" and you know it"
Do you want links to right-wing sites similar to the left-wing sites you use as your only authority? There are plenty for CNN. Let me know if you want them.
"One minute you agonize over the Fairness Doctrine, and the next minute you pretend it didn't have any effects"
I don't think it would have much effect on cable news if applied to it. Fox would try to satisfy it by including token liberals on its shows. Hannity's show would get a partner.... someone like Alan Colmes, wow!. Brit Hume's show would get a couple of NPR liberals like Maura Liasson and Juan Williams. O'Reilly would read letters from angry opponents. There, it is satisfied! Is this much different?
AM radio would be a different story. Stations would probably drop Limbaugh than have the government force them to give 3 hours to a ratings dog.
"You will say everybody from Michael Moore to Mickey Mouse is part of a giant, scary conspiracy to crush conservatism in America. "
I've mentioned Moore, not Mickey Mouse (or Spongebob, which you also mentioned). Moore wants to crush conservatism, but he and the other parts of the left-wing media are not part of any conspiracy. It is the way they think. They do not coordinate it with others or take marching orders. The same is true for right-wing media. This coordination is necessary for a conspiracy theory. Where have I claimed such? I haven't, and you know it.
For some reason, many of these pads have "tap for click" turned on. This causes nothing but problems: you'll get erroneous mouse-clicks registered just by dragging and moving stuff around the screen. "But I never intended to drag that to the trash can!" Turn this off to make things more bearable.
It appears that their North America ratings leave out a large number of countries from Mexico south to the Colombian border which are also part of North America.
"Actually, it's basically the opposite of what you're saying. The definition [bennetyee.org] (which you don't provide, probably because you know it doesn't back you up) deals with deleting."
I did not provide your definition/link because I'd never heard before of a dictionary called Bennet Yee! It does not contradict me, anyway. Government silencing is not the opposite of government deleting.
"From that point on, the people who get to broadcast have a duty to the rest; "to serve the public trust" as we say in this country."
I agree. The ratings system is the most accurate measure of how much the public trust is being served.
"I've now pointed out that no censorship is involved"
There is plenty of censorship involved with this. Let's say you want to air a program. The government says "no, you can't. This time must be given to someone else for what we think is "fair"".
"because there aren't really that many questionable things compared to the Murdoch companies, Sinclair, the radio networks, etc."
There's plenty. However, about Sinclair. Before they ran that Kerry piece, I heard nothing about how evil it was all over the media, including on Fox News.
"By the way, though, even if you demolished FAIR (which you can't, let's be honest), they are far from the only watchdog"
Here's a nice list of watchdogs: left, center and right: click here
"All propaganda is dangerous to democracy"
If we look at what the word means, "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause", it's rather clear that such advocacy is necessary for democracy. Everyone will agree, as long as we make sure they know it means "it includes advocating for your side".
"and it is not my fault if liberals don't give me enough good examples to match with the conservative ones."
You have stuck with the left wingers (mainly one) who bash right wingers. Go look at the right-wing sites and you will find examples for the other side as "good" as the ones you have given.
By the way, you earlier mentioned media consolidation. There is none. For the past 25
years or so, the number of voices has grown:
There are 6 national TV networks where there were only 4 before. All are owned by different companies. If you want, you can count the "barely there" UPN network, which is owned by CBS. This is the only example of consolidation, but UPN barely counts as a network with its small list of shows and no news presence.
There are a lot more newspapers than there were 25 years ago, due the the explosion of "alternative media".
There are 3+ MORE national TV news-and-affairs channels than there were 25 years ago. To PBS,CBS,ABC,NBC we have added Fox, CNN, and C-Span. There are several other other misc. cable networks that have at least some current-affairs documentary or news content, like Court TV, MTV, HBO and Sundance (Al Franken radio show), which I include in the +. None have been lost or eaten by others, except for the stillborn SNN which CNN took over. MSNBC and CNBC are not on my list of new ones since they are branches of NBC.
The web.
Radio. There are more and more stations all the time. Clear Channel controls less than 8% of them.
"But maybe you enjoy the dominance of conservative media in our country"
Dominance? Talk about a vast right wing conspiracy! According to FAIR, Fox News has about a million daily viewers. Do you realize what a small share of the TV audience this is?
Identifying media outlets that are left-of-center is not the same as identifying a "VLWC".
"(hoping you would back off) What... you really believed you could fool anyone?"
Seeing that I was referring to hoping you would back off on making stuff up, this response is pretty much off-topic.
Did I say there was conservatism on one side and truth on the other? Anywhere, at any time? Even in jest?
Yes, you did, when comparing right-wing media to left-wing media.
"despite your vast left-wing conspiracy theory"
I don't have one. You are working once again from a false premise.
It was their job to tell the truth. It was their job to be nobody's friend - to be impartial and fair.
Yet, there are right-wing watchdog groups that document their "offenses", just as left-wing groups like FAIR document the "offenses" of Fox News.
"...that liberals are a vast conspiracy to be valiantly resisted by struggling conservative outsiders"
Not my view. My view has been to let them speak regardless of someone's perception of balance. I don't think that Fox News and conservatives are "needed" for any sort of "Balance". Just let them say whet they want to say.
"I'm saying conservatives are the only ones who have a real proapganda machine. You're trying to paint me as accusing them of only having propaganda."
Your new reworded statement only proves your strong left-wing bias even more.
"You cannot do the same for Franken."
Yes you can. There are right-wing sites that bash Franken just as there are left-wing sites that bash Limbaugh. They are both the same in manner, demeanor, and overall accuracy. Only a real wing-nut would think that one is so much different from the other.
You may claim "I have a lot of evidence, I just don't have to give it."
No, I claim there is evidence, and make sure to give it. Next...
"I am not even saying there are not crackpot, liar liberals out there. Just that they are nowhere near what the conservatives have."
To a left-winger, the left-wing kooks are pretty much OK, just like the right-wingers who say "I am not even saying there are not crackpot, liar conservatives out there. Just that they are nowhere near what the liberals have."
"If you had any real reason not to trust FAIR you would share it with us."
I already shared very specific points, including founder Jeff Cohen's credentials as a left-wing activist, their refusal to bash left-wingers like they bash right wingers, and how they got the facts wrong several times in their war with Limbaugh.
However, here is another link. It is centrist. It lists a centrist media watchdog link (something you were not capable of doing), and gives both the right and left wing "watchdogs" (AIM and FAIR) hell:
I'm sure you will ignore this. However, here is one you will find hard to ignore. Go to this page at FAIR.ORG. They claim they are a "progressive group" in this page. Progressive is to conservative as left is to right. They admit their own bias. I'm almost afraid to link to a definition of "progressive", considering that you blew a gasket when I pointed out (using the definition) what "propaganda" meant.
"It was ridiculous the first time you tried this VLWC hokum and it's ridiculous now"
I never did. I was hoping you would back off from making stuff up. For much of the post, you winged from this false claim, which I never made, would never make, and feel no need to bother making. I spit in the face of the idea of a "VLWC".
"Well said. They are not they conservative's friend. They were more the truth's friend"
So here we have it: on one side, conservatism. On the other side: Truth! That is why there is so little common ground between us through this ridiculous profusion of posts (except when it comes to Art Bell). I find plenty of truth in both the liberal and conservative sides. I also find plenty of bias, "propagandizing", discreditable assertions, and valid points in both sides.
"Meanwhile conservatives are the only ones with real propaganda"
Explained another way, even! Conservative views are always "propaganda", while liberal views are always well-expressed unbiased analyses/etc/etc. (You drove this point of yours home in a major way earlier when you made it as if there was some substantive difference between Franken and Limbaugh: two arrogant bullyish puffed-up comedic one-sided blowhards who have no real difference what so ever except in the "side" they advocate.)
"I wasn't expecting an apology, yet strangely, this almost feels like one"
You used Art Bell's name in an appropriate context, and I agreed with it. With this, as other times, I have indicated agreement with you. Don't read too much into it.
If anyone else is still reading this, is there a good balanced centrist media watchdog group? I do not trust FAIR for its left-wing bias, nor do I trust AIM for its right-wing bias.
I never even got that far: the shaving creme shorted out the iPod so I could never turn it on. It is hard to get a good shaze these days. I tried to shave with this razor, and all I received were massive facial bruises.
I'm considering getting an iPod, but the only iTMS songs I'd get would be "free Mt Dew cap" songs. I do not plan on using iTMS. I already checked their meagre listings and could not find most of the music I was looking for.
"I thought it was just perfect... doesn't need to be re-done"
Same here, actually. I hated everything about Dr. Who, but loved everything about the HHGTTG adaptation (which, I believe, was made by the same outfit!).
While George Pal's "Time Machine" film is more than respectible, his "War of the Worlds" movie is awful. It replace the scary tripods from the book with awful Jetsons-style vacuum cleaners.
I have to admit I was one of those turned off by the first still I saw: the awful looking Marvin that looked like a pokemon. Whatever the visual flaws of the old BBC production, I thought the clunky boxy look of the Paranoid Android was perfect. This new one makes "Twikki" from Buck Rogers seem like Robby the Robot in comparison. I also read that they got rid of Zaphod's extra head and put it on his tongue. Hope that is a wild rumour.
"....with rich liberals buying up media companies left right and center. You turn on the TV one morning and are inundated with "liberal" propaganda."
Been there already. I remember the years when the the only cable news network was CNN, run by a significant rich left-wing activist named Ted Turner. There was no Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of opinion of "vast left wing conspiracies", NBC, ABC, CBS were then (as now) not the conservative's friend.
Did I feel ideologically impinged? Not in the least. I enjoyed CNN as the only cable news network.
"Fox News is still on the air, but now there are five or ten liberal stations for every one conservative one"
Instead of the 4 to 1 there is now?
"I truly believe that on that morning you would finally understand it."
I've seen that morning. Did not bother me.
"Really? I'm not a regular listener, but I have turned them on now and again for years and I can't see any difference between the time we had it and the time since"
Before, there were plenty of NPR stations with a couple of hours of news/comment, the rest were music. There were a very few all-news stations. Now there are a lot of all news-and-comment NPR stations.
"All public radio is different; some stations I have heard are of the Art Bell school of wacko conspiracy theory"
Thanks for mentioning Art Bell in an appropriate context. I was hoping he would come up at one point, his name is good for proving something. I thought of mentioning him before. Never got around to bringing him up.
Slashdot Mirror
The continents as mainlands have been "set in stone" as concepts for decades. Or longer. The only vagueness is when you get to islands (the East Indies, the West Indies, etc). Asia and Europe vs Eurasia is fairly cut-and-dried too, but many do forget that western Russia makes up a good chunk of Europe.
The click buttons are typically located right next to the track area: no arm-crossing needed. "Learn how to use it" is a bothersome change to "move finger to drag pointer, that is all! no erroneous clicks will happen just by dragging stuff". It's better to have it so you can't accidentally click just by dragging.
I doubt that Mexicans are more likely to know Pixar. Their sloppy results left them off of "North America", and Mexico's population is much greater than that of Canada.
Can you describe this any better? Sounds like you had to remove the clear display panel to get to the track ball!
" must have been pretty bad for lefties"
There is no reason not to make sure that any permanently-installed pointing device is in the center. Wal-Mart's job kiosks have them on the right, basically saying "if you are left handed, we don't want you working at Wal-Mart".
"The northern continent of the Western Hemisphere, extending northward from the Colombia-Panama border and including Central America, Mexico, the islands of the Caribbean Sea, the United States, Canada, the Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland."
Always striving to correct errors of basic geography....
"We" also consider them to be part of North America. Central America is a sub-region of it. Latin America includes soutbern North America, and all of South America.
From dictionary.com: "The northern continent of the Western Hemisphere, extending northward from the Colombia-Panama border and including Central America, Mexico, the islands of the Caribbean Sea, the United States, Canada, the Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland.
It is a common geographic error, like those who think that Asia only means the Pacific shore at the very eastern edge of the Asian continent.
Do you want links to right-wing sites similar to the left-wing sites you use as your only authority? There are plenty for CNN. Let me know if you want them.
"One minute you agonize over the Fairness Doctrine, and the next minute you pretend it didn't have any effects"
I don't think it would have much effect on cable news if applied to it. Fox would try to satisfy it by including token liberals on its shows. Hannity's show would get a partner.... someone like Alan Colmes, wow!. Brit Hume's show would get a couple of NPR liberals like Maura Liasson and Juan Williams. O'Reilly would read letters from angry opponents. There, it is satisfied! Is this much different?
AM radio would be a different story. Stations would probably drop Limbaugh than have the government force them to give 3 hours to a ratings dog.
"You will say everybody from Michael Moore to Mickey Mouse is part of a giant, scary conspiracy to crush conservatism in America. "
I've mentioned Moore, not Mickey Mouse (or Spongebob, which you also mentioned). Moore wants to crush conservatism, but he and the other parts of the left-wing media are not part of any conspiracy. It is the way they think. They do not coordinate it with others or take marching orders. The same is true for right-wing media. This coordination is necessary for a conspiracy theory. Where have I claimed such? I haven't, and you know it.
For some reason, many of these pads have "tap for click" turned on. This causes nothing but problems: you'll get erroneous mouse-clicks registered just by dragging and moving stuff around the screen. "But I never intended to drag that to the trash can!" Turn this off to make things more bearable.
It appears that their North America ratings leave out a large number of countries from Mexico south to the Colombian border which are also part of North America.
Sounds like a case for Homeland Security. Time to deport him to Italy, along with his ahem "brother" Luigi.
I did not provide your definition/link because I'd never heard before of a dictionary called Bennet Yee! It does not contradict me, anyway. Government silencing is not the opposite of government deleting.
"From that point on, the people who get to broadcast have a duty to the rest; "to serve the public trust" as we say in this country."
I agree. The ratings system is the most accurate measure of how much the public trust is being served.
There is plenty of censorship involved with this. Let's say you want to air a program. The government says "no, you can't. This time must be given to someone else for what we think is "fair"".
"because there aren't really that many questionable things compared to the Murdoch companies, Sinclair, the radio networks, etc."
There's plenty. However, about Sinclair. Before they ran that Kerry piece, I heard nothing about how evil it was all over the media, including on Fox News.
"By the way, though, even if you demolished FAIR (which you can't, let's be honest), they are far from the only watchdog"
Here's a nice list of watchdogs: left, center and right: click here
"All propaganda is dangerous to democracy"
If we look at what the word means, "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause", it's rather clear that such advocacy is necessary for democracy. Everyone will agree, as long as we make sure they know it means "it includes advocating for your side".
"and it is not my fault if liberals don't give me enough good examples to match with the conservative ones."
You have stuck with the left wingers (mainly one) who bash right wingers. Go look at the right-wing sites and you will find examples for the other side as "good" as the ones you have given.
By the way, you earlier mentioned media consolidation. There is none. For the past 25 years or so, the number of voices has grown:
There are 6 national TV networks where there were only 4 before. All are owned by different companies. If you want, you can count the "barely there" UPN network, which is owned by CBS. This is the only example of consolidation, but UPN barely counts as a network with its small list of shows and no news presence.
There are a lot more newspapers than there were 25 years ago, due the the explosion of "alternative media".
There are 3+ MORE national TV news-and-affairs channels than there were 25 years ago. To PBS,CBS,ABC,NBC we have added Fox, CNN, and C-Span. There are several other other misc. cable networks that have at least some current-affairs documentary or news content, like Court TV, MTV, HBO and Sundance (Al Franken radio show), which I include in the +. None have been lost or eaten by others, except for the stillborn SNN which CNN took over. MSNBC and CNBC are not on my list of new ones since they are branches of NBC.
The web.
Radio. There are more and more stations all the time. Clear Channel controls less than 8% of them.
Dominance? Talk about a vast right wing conspiracy! According to FAIR, Fox News has about a million daily viewers. Do you realize what a small share of the TV audience this is?
Identifying media outlets that are left-of-center is not the same as identifying a "VLWC".
"(hoping you would back off) What... you really believed you could fool anyone?"
Seeing that I was referring to hoping you would back off on making stuff up, this response is pretty much off-topic.
Did I say there was conservatism on one side and truth on the other? Anywhere, at any time? Even in jest?
Yes, you did, when comparing right-wing media to left-wing media.
"despite your vast left-wing conspiracy theory"
I don't have one. You are working once again from a false premise.
It was their job to tell the truth. It was their job to be nobody's friend - to be impartial and fair.
Yet, there are right-wing watchdog groups that document their "offenses", just as left-wing groups like FAIR document the "offenses" of Fox News.
"...that liberals are a vast conspiracy to be valiantly resisted by struggling conservative outsiders"
Not my view. My view has been to let them speak regardless of someone's perception of balance. I don't think that Fox News and conservatives are "needed" for any sort of "Balance". Just let them say whet they want to say.
"I'm saying conservatives are the only ones who have a real proapganda machine. You're trying to paint me as accusing them of only having propaganda."
Your new reworded statement only proves your strong left-wing bias even more.
"You cannot do the same for Franken."
Yes you can. There are right-wing sites that bash Franken just as there are left-wing sites that bash Limbaugh. They are both the same in manner, demeanor, and overall accuracy. Only a real wing-nut would think that one is so much different from the other.
You may claim "I have a lot of evidence, I just don't have to give it."
No, I claim there is evidence, and make sure to give it. Next...
"I am not even saying there are not crackpot, liar liberals out there. Just that they are nowhere near what the conservatives have."
To a left-winger, the left-wing kooks are pretty much OK, just like the right-wingers who say "I am not even saying there are not crackpot, liar conservatives out there. Just that they are nowhere near what the liberals have."
"If you had any real reason not to trust FAIR you would share it with us."
I already shared very specific points, including founder Jeff Cohen's credentials as a left-wing activist, their refusal to bash left-wingers like they bash right wingers, and how they got the facts wrong several times in their war with Limbaugh.
However, here is another link. It is centrist. It lists a centrist media watchdog link (something you were not capable of doing), and gives both the right and left wing "watchdogs" (AIM and FAIR) hell:
Grading the Political Web.
I'm sure you will ignore this. However, here is one you will find hard to ignore. Go to this page at FAIR.ORG. They claim they are a "progressive group" in this page. Progressive is to conservative as left is to right. They admit their own bias. I'm almost afraid to link to a definition of "progressive", considering that you blew a gasket when I pointed out (using the definition) what "propaganda" meant.
If it does not have Amarok, it's not worth it.
I never did. I was hoping you would back off from making stuff up. For much of the post, you winged from this false claim, which I never made, would never make, and feel no need to bother making. I spit in the face of the idea of a "VLWC".
"Well said. They are not they conservative's friend. They were more the truth's friend"
So here we have it: on one side, conservatism. On the other side: Truth! That is why there is so little common ground between us through this ridiculous profusion of posts (except when it comes to Art Bell). I find plenty of truth in both the liberal and conservative sides. I also find plenty of bias, "propagandizing", discreditable assertions, and valid points in both sides.
"Meanwhile conservatives are the only ones with real propaganda"
Explained another way, even! Conservative views are always "propaganda", while liberal views are always well-expressed unbiased analyses/etc/etc. (You drove this point of yours home in a major way earlier when you made it as if there was some substantive difference between Franken and Limbaugh: two arrogant bullyish puffed-up comedic one-sided blowhards who have no real difference what so ever except in the "side" they advocate.)
"I wasn't expecting an apology, yet strangely, this almost feels like one"
You used Art Bell's name in an appropriate context, and I agreed with it. With this, as other times, I have indicated agreement with you. Don't read too much into it.
If anyone else is still reading this, is there a good balanced centrist media watchdog group? I do not trust FAIR for its left-wing bias, nor do I trust AIM for its right-wing bias.
Yes, I think Unkown Jaabez was a rug merchant in Cairo.
I never even got that far: the shaving creme shorted out the iPod so I could never turn it on. It is hard to get a good shaze these days. I tried to shave with this razor, and all I received were massive facial bruises.
I'm considering getting an iPod, but the only iTMS songs I'd get would be "free Mt Dew cap" songs. I do not plan on using iTMS. I already checked their meagre listings and could not find most of the music I was looking for.
Same here, actually. I hated everything about Dr. Who, but loved everything about the HHGTTG adaptation (which, I believe, was made by the same outfit!).
While George Pal's "Time Machine" film is more than respectible, his "War of the Worlds" movie is awful. It replace the scary tripods from the book with awful Jetsons-style vacuum cleaners.
Here's one: "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (adapted from "Who Censored Roger Rabbit")
I have to admit I was one of those turned off by the first still I saw: the awful looking Marvin that looked like a pokemon. Whatever the visual flaws of the old BBC production, I thought the clunky boxy look of the Paranoid Android was perfect. This new one makes "Twikki" from Buck Rogers seem like Robby the Robot in comparison. I also read that they got rid of Zaphod's extra head and put it on his tongue. Hope that is a wild rumour.
Been there already. I remember the years when the the only cable news network was CNN, run by a significant rich left-wing activist named Ted Turner. There was no Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of opinion of "vast left wing conspiracies", NBC, ABC, CBS were then (as now) not the conservative's friend.
Did I feel ideologically impinged? Not in the least. I enjoyed CNN as the only cable news network.
"Fox News is still on the air, but now there are five or ten liberal stations for every one conservative one"
Instead of the 4 to 1 there is now?
"I truly believe that on that morning you would finally understand it."
I've seen that morning. Did not bother me.
"Really? I'm not a regular listener, but I have turned them on now and again for years and I can't see any difference between the time we had it and the time since"
Before, there were plenty of NPR stations with a couple of hours of news/comment, the rest were music. There were a very few all-news stations. Now there are a lot of all news-and-comment NPR stations.
"All public radio is different; some stations I have heard are of the Art Bell school of wacko conspiracy theory"
Thanks for mentioning Art Bell in an appropriate context. I was hoping he would come up at one point, his name is good for proving something. I thought of mentioning him before. Never got around to bringing him up.
It keeps the budget very low. You don't need to hire any actors or stage anything. Just sneak a camcorder into any typical sci fi con.