"In this imaginary world my words actually say propaganda is worse by some than others."
You have only labelled conservative views as "propaganda" and called for their censorship.
"is it alright to rebut this ridiculous statement by pointing out that German Jews would probably disagree with you?"
Maybe some would, or some would not. However, the fact remains that bad Nazi information killed not one single Jew or anyone else. Bad guys with guns did the deed.
"the propagandists at Fox, by their dishonesty in stumping for the war, have the blood of American soldiers on their hands."
This is an opinion you have about Fox, not a fact. Many share it with you. Many do not share it. It is, in fact, a very disputed issue. It is one of the hot political issues of the time. Yet you would have Fox News censored over your opinion about it: you would censor those who do not share your opinion about an important political issue that divides the country.
"I advocate restoring the Fairness Doctrine. This is precisely the opposite of what you are saying"
You advocate having AM radio stations replace Limbaugh with music (so far so good, you say). You advocate NPR news-only stations and "AirAmerica" going off the air. The Fairness Doctrine would demand this. And guess what? Fox News would be unaffected, despite your opinion that it is bad.
"Not everyone can have their own cable, TV or radio station. In fact, hardly anyone can. So we put limits on what those few people who do have that privilege are allowed to do"
Why place any limitations on them more than anyone else (fire in crowded theatre, etc) ????
"Hence, the doctrine was eliminated by conservatives to silence political opposition on the "channels" they control"
If this is true, then these conservatives must be angry. The removal of this pernicious "doctrine" has resulted in more liberal/left voices in media as well as more conservative/right. Under the "Fairness Doctrine" AirAmerica with Al Franken would not exist.
Also, your "doctrine was eliminated" statement does not take into account a certain consideration: which came first. The doctrine was eliminated before Rush Limbaugh, and before Fox News (which is not affected by it anyway). In other words, there were no "channels controlled by conservatives" at the time it the doctrine was eliminated.
"Why don't these companies understand that people are looking for three things in music players: 1) Useful 2) Small 3) Beautiful"
Useful? Sounds like it, especially with extra buttons to make things easier (lacking on many music players). Small? Small enough. Beautiful? A picture is worth a thousand words, and 10,000 worth tiny "bug zapper" displays as seen on iPod and Gameboy. The nice large screen means displaying more info about the music and/or more song titles: less of a compromise.
This video was captured live on-the-set in 1984 using a Sony MiniDV camcorder. The file was then edited on a (then state of the art) Apple//GS, using iMovie software. After this, it languished on someone's DVD-ROM for 21 years. Now at last we have it.
"I mean, ignorantly trolling an issue, and then calling your political opponents Nazis."
Your wanting to censor people just because they do not share your opinion about issues such as the Iraq war is rather extreme, isn't it? I am not surprised that someone equated you to a Nazi. I can't recall the last time a major voice of either the Left or Right actually went as far as you did and called for government to (so to speak) smash the presses of the infidel.
The best way to fight the free speech of Fox News is with other free speech, and NOT with the jackbooted oppression of government censorship. Al Franken's book, and the "Outfoxed" documentary are the way to go. Fight ideas with ideas, not thuggery.
Your idea could backfire, too: If the government did what you wanted them to and barred Fox News from cable, Fox News' reputation would do nothing but grow: "Fox News: the news the government does not want you to see!" The first court case of someone being jailed for illegally getting Fox on their satellite dish would be very interesting.
The action you want would turn Fox News into a symbol of resistance to government oppression of expression world wide.
"(1) Moderation on Slashdot does censor things, that's the bloody point"
You are making a lot of sense, but moderation on Slashdot is an expression of free speech. It is not in any way censorship. Or do you think that Roger Ebert is "Censoring" a Pauly Shore movie when he gives it a thumbs-down? No, he is not. Free speech includes the freedom to criticize and "mod down".
Never thought of effecting security by relocating my home server to the no-man's-land in the middle of the Korean peninsula. I think you may be on to something. No one would ever think to check there!
My computer is encased in Carbonite, and it is stored in a file cabinet in the basement with a sign on the door "Beware of Leopard". The password? I tore it to bits, put bacon grease on it, and fed it to the dog. However, these measures are not enough for security: the machine itself happens to be one of those cardboard replica PCs you find on furniture in the back of "Staples". No WAY you gonna hack this sucker!
I would not care as long as the linked ad pages contained the actual phrase being searched for. However, accuracy and relevance is too much to ask for a search engine these days. Do a search on "miserable failure" on Google, and the top few hits do not even contain the phrase. Instead of accurate and relevant results, you can see how much Democrats and Republicans hate each other.
Altavista is much more accurate, but they pollute their results with ad pages made to look like real hits.
"In other news, I've personally signed an exclusive deal with the NHL to develop and market simulation, arcade and manager-style hockey video games that let you re-live the excitement of the 2004-2005 NHL season"
Oh. I wondered who was buying, re-labelling, and re-selling those old "Tiger Woods 2002" game CD's. What better way to show what the players and owners did during the 2004-2005 season!
"How pissed would YOU be if we had a scripture from the Korean or Torah in front of a courthouse? How pissed would YOU be if before every court-session, the presiding Judge recited a passage from the Koran?"
I would not be pissed, but maybe that is just me. I just happen to be one of those who doesn't turn into a censor-happy intolerant brute just because someone has a religious opinion different from mine and dares to express it. I guess such attitudes are "un-American".
Why not just "get over it" and learn tolerance? It was a waste of money, and questionable for the government to go to the expense to place those religious monuments (at the behest of the faithful). It is also a waste to go to all the expense of removing such things (at the behest of other faithful). Why not just learn not to be offended? Intolerant religious zealots are also at work trying to get a cross removed from a government seal in L.A.:wonder how much it is going to cost to redo this, from buildings all the way down to stationery, all because of closed-minded cromags who can't stand the public display of things they do not agree 100% with?
"Is "evidence" for you like fairy dust? If you sprinkle it on a post and think happy thoughts, can you fly?"
I gave specifics about the activities of one of the two co-founders of FAIR, to promote what FAIR called "liberal" ideas. Since it shows actual evidence of bias at the very top of FAIR, this is "fairy dust" to you.
"You want to try to confuse... "what gets broadcast on TV" with everyone's expression of political opinion."
It is someone's idea. Why censor it?
"And all that is positively peanuts, absolutely small time, compared to propaganda designed to..."
You go on to describe your opinion of Iraq war events: an opinion people are deeply divided on. For all your defense of presenting "both sides", here is one of many places where only your side counts.
"justify being a victim of propaganda as a kind of life choice"
You have only used the term "propaganda" to involve political expression you do not like. For any political speech, there are never any "victims". Remember the old "sticks and stones" adage.
"out conservatives love to censor stuff, and they do it every day. They just don't like to censor political propaganda"
There are plenty of conservatives (too many) that like to censor political speech ("propaganda") of the "other side", just as you, as a liberal, want to censor the side you are not on.
"I would love it if giving the people what they want were a major force in politics today. People want legalized drugs and gambling. They want prostitution"
Overall, the system serves the democratic wishes here. There is majority support only for medical marijuana: minority support for legalization overall. Prostitution enjoys small support among voters. "Legalized gambling" is complicated. Many states have a lot of casinos and lotteries, so legalized gambling is found in much of the country. However, in the last election, the voters in some places voted to restrict expansion of gambling.
"Where did I attach a positive attribute to liberals?"
Your posts are stepped in such bias. A left-wing group that only slams conservatives (FAIR) is called "centrist". You repeatedly call conservative viewpoints "propaganda" and call for their censorship (while not calling for the same for liberal viewpoints).
At least I am consistent. I do not falsely and pejoratively label any political opinion from any side "propaganda", and I have yet to ask for any of it to be censored.
"Conservatives run the country. Why should I refrain from dissent? Are you really American?"
Yet, you want conservative media to refrain from dissent....
"No surprise you're here defending [free political expression] on TV"
"What was illegal was having a TV or radio broadcaster not giving both sides of the issue"
You are forgetting that this involved what the government said was "both sides", even if there are far more than two sides. It is obvious how this silenced opinion: before the "fairness doctrine", radio stations did not give "both sides". They chose to give "no sides" rather than have government micro-manage their content. News and issues radio was rare under the "fairness doctrine". Without it, the way things are now, not only are both sides presented, but many other sides as well.
Again and again, you also ignore the freedom of the press issue. If you are going to put out something to represent your own view (as is our Constitutional right), why should the government be allowed to meddle and change the content?
"The Fairness Doctrine is about preventing censorship"
It is, only if you believe the Spanish Inqusition is about protecting religious freedom. Consider this fact:
The "Fairness Doctrine" involved the government intruding into expression and banning people from saying certain things.
How is this not "censorship"? You also added that only conservatives oppose it. This is not true. Proponents and beneficiaries of free political expression do exist on both sides. Public radio all-news stations (discouraged under the "Fairness Doctrine") have flourished. These tend to be loved by the left more than the right.
You are going off on a wild tangent, as well. The "Fairness Doctrine" involved broadcast media, especially radio. You mention it because you think that if it was in place, it would censor Fox News. This is not the case. Cable TV was never regulated by the "Fairness Doctrine". If you want to censor Fox News, bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" would not do it. Perhaps a "You Cannot Say it Unless I Like It" doctrine would do it for you?
Concerning a statement of yours about Fox News way up the thread. You said that Fox News should be censored, and gave reasons about the war and profiteering. However, the reason you gave were opinions, and that was all. Half of the people agree with you, and half do not. Why censor someone for doing something that it did is only the opinion of half of the people? Assuming that such "majority wants it banned" censorship is OK in the first place.
Once more, this is not a defense of Fox News, but a defense of news media and opinionatorsto report even if a wing of political opinion does not like it (I defend CBS News, The Nation, The Limbaugh Letter, The Christian Science Monitor as well as Fox News).
Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, biblical?
Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Venkman: Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos.
Winston:The dead rising from the grave!
Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!
Here is what he did say: "During my years on the stellar construction advisory board, I was involved in a lot of initiatives. Not only did I create the sun, I created the moon and planets and a pair of really swell comets."
"On another note, I wonder how the IE team feels knowing that an intern who had to share an apartment with his mom and have her drive him to work basically outperformed their entire team"
Studies have shown that a million monkeys,
banging on a million typewriters, will produce Microsoft-standards-compliant IE releases on an average of once every 6 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
You have only labelled conservative views as "propaganda" and called for their censorship.
"is it alright to rebut this ridiculous statement by pointing out that German Jews would probably disagree with you?"
Maybe some would, or some would not. However, the fact remains that bad Nazi information killed not one single Jew or anyone else. Bad guys with guns did the deed.
"the propagandists at Fox, by their dishonesty in stumping for the war, have the blood of American soldiers on their hands."
This is an opinion you have about Fox, not a fact. Many share it with you. Many do not share it. It is, in fact, a very disputed issue. It is one of the hot political issues of the time. Yet you would have Fox News censored over your opinion about it: you would censor those who do not share your opinion about an important political issue that divides the country.
"I advocate restoring the Fairness Doctrine. This is precisely the opposite of what you are saying"
You advocate having AM radio stations replace Limbaugh with music (so far so good, you say). You advocate NPR news-only stations and "AirAmerica" going off the air. The Fairness Doctrine would demand this. And guess what? Fox News would be unaffected, despite your opinion that it is bad.
Why place any limitations on them more than anyone else (fire in crowded theatre, etc) ????
"Hence, the doctrine was eliminated by conservatives to silence political opposition on the "channels" they control"
If this is true, then these conservatives must be angry. The removal of this pernicious "doctrine" has resulted in more liberal/left voices in media as well as more conservative/right. Under the "Fairness Doctrine" AirAmerica with Al Franken would not exist.
Also, your "doctrine was eliminated" statement does not take into account a certain consideration: which came first. The doctrine was eliminated before Rush Limbaugh, and before Fox News (which is not affected by it anyway). In other words, there were no "channels controlled by conservatives" at the time it the doctrine was eliminated.
Useful? Sounds like it, especially with extra buttons to make things easier (lacking on many music players). Small? Small enough. Beautiful? A picture is worth a thousand words, and 10,000 worth tiny "bug zapper" displays as seen on iPod and Gameboy. The nice large screen means displaying more info about the music and/or more song titles: less of a compromise.
Courage.
Your wanting to censor people just because they do not share your opinion about issues such as the Iraq war is rather extreme, isn't it? I am not surprised that someone equated you to a Nazi. I can't recall the last time a major voice of either the Left or Right actually went as far as you did and called for government to (so to speak) smash the presses of the infidel.
The best way to fight the free speech of Fox News is with other free speech, and NOT with the jackbooted oppression of government censorship. Al Franken's book, and the "Outfoxed" documentary are the way to go. Fight ideas with ideas, not thuggery.
Your idea could backfire, too: If the government did what you wanted them to and barred Fox News from cable, Fox News' reputation would do nothing but grow: "Fox News: the news the government does not want you to see!" The first court case of someone being jailed for illegally getting Fox on their satellite dish would be very interesting.
The action you want would turn Fox News into a symbol of resistance to government oppression of expression world wide.
You are making a lot of sense, but moderation on Slashdot is an expression of free speech. It is not in any way censorship. Or do you think that Roger Ebert is "Censoring" a Pauly Shore movie when he gives it a thumbs-down? No, he is not. Free speech includes the freedom to criticize and "mod down".
Never thought of effecting security by relocating my home server to the no-man's-land in the middle of the Korean peninsula. I think you may be on to something. No one would ever think to check there!
You obviously never tuned in to "Art Bell" that night he revealed that all UPC codes have been embedded with RFID for years now.
My computer is encased in Carbonite, and it is stored in a file cabinet in the basement with a sign on the door "Beware of Leopard". The password? I tore it to bits, put bacon grease on it, and fed it to the dog. However, these measures are not enough for security: the machine itself happens to be one of those cardboard replica PCs you find on furniture in the back of "Staples". No WAY you gonna hack this sucker!
Altavista is much more accurate, but they pollute their results with ad pages made to look like real hits.
This is easy to do in Altavista. Go there and do a search on "ads". After few times of this confusion, I basically stopped using them entirely.
Oh. I wondered who was buying, re-labelling, and re-selling those old "Tiger Woods 2002" game CD's. What better way to show what the players and owners did during the 2004-2005 season!
I would not be pissed, but maybe that is just me. I just happen to be one of those who doesn't turn into a censor-happy intolerant brute just because someone has a religious opinion different from mine and dares to express it. I guess such attitudes are "un-American".
Why not just "get over it" and learn tolerance? It was a waste of money, and questionable for the government to go to the expense to place those religious monuments (at the behest of the faithful). It is also a waste to go to all the expense of removing such things (at the behest of other faithful). Why not just learn not to be offended? Intolerant religious zealots are also at work trying to get a cross removed from a government seal in L.A. :wonder how much it is going to cost to redo this, from buildings all the way down to stationery, all because of closed-minded cromags who can't stand the public display of things they do not agree 100% with?
I gave specifics about the activities of one of the two co-founders of FAIR, to promote what FAIR called "liberal" ideas. Since it shows actual evidence of bias at the very top of FAIR, this is "fairy dust" to you.
"You want to try to confuse... "what gets broadcast on TV" with everyone's expression of political opinion."
It is someone's idea. Why censor it?
"And all that is positively peanuts, absolutely small time, compared to propaganda designed to..."
You go on to describe your opinion of Iraq war events: an opinion people are deeply divided on. For all your defense of presenting "both sides", here is one of many places where only your side counts.
You have only used the term "propaganda" to involve political expression you do not like. For any political speech, there are never any "victims". Remember the old "sticks and stones" adage.
"out conservatives love to censor stuff, and they do it every day. They just don't like to censor political propaganda"
There are plenty of conservatives (too many) that like to censor political speech ("propaganda") of the "other side", just as you, as a liberal, want to censor the side you are not on.
Overall, the system serves the democratic wishes here. There is majority support only for medical marijuana: minority support for legalization overall. Prostitution enjoys small support among voters. "Legalized gambling" is complicated. Many states have a lot of casinos and lotteries, so legalized gambling is found in much of the country. However, in the last election, the voters in some places voted to restrict expansion of gambling.
Your posts are stepped in such bias. A left-wing group that only slams conservatives (FAIR) is called "centrist". You repeatedly call conservative viewpoints "propaganda" and call for their censorship (while not calling for the same for liberal viewpoints).
At least I am consistent. I do not falsely and pejoratively label any political opinion from any side "propaganda", and I have yet to ask for any of it to be censored.
"Conservatives run the country. Why should I refrain from dissent? Are you really American?"
Yet, you want conservative media to refrain from dissent....
"No surprise you're here defending [free political expression] on TV"
That is what I am doing.
You are forgetting that this involved what the government said was "both sides", even if there are far more than two sides. It is obvious how this silenced opinion: before the "fairness doctrine", radio stations did not give "both sides". They chose to give "no sides" rather than have government micro-manage their content. News and issues radio was rare under the "fairness doctrine". Without it, the way things are now, not only are both sides presented, but many other sides as well.
Again and again, you also ignore the freedom of the press issue. If you are going to put out something to represent your own view (as is our Constitutional right), why should the government be allowed to meddle and change the content?
It is, only if you believe the Spanish Inqusition is about protecting religious freedom. Consider this fact: The "Fairness Doctrine" involved the government intruding into expression and banning people from saying certain things.
How is this not "censorship"? You also added that only conservatives oppose it. This is not true. Proponents and beneficiaries of free political expression do exist on both sides. Public radio all-news stations (discouraged under the "Fairness Doctrine") have flourished. These tend to be loved by the left more than the right.
You are going off on a wild tangent, as well. The "Fairness Doctrine" involved broadcast media, especially radio. You mention it because you think that if it was in place, it would censor Fox News. This is not the case. Cable TV was never regulated by the "Fairness Doctrine". If you want to censor Fox News, bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" would not do it. Perhaps a "You Cannot Say it Unless I Like It" doctrine would do it for you?
Once more, this is not a defense of Fox News, but a defense of news media and opinionatorsto report even if a wing of political opinion does not like it (I defend CBS News, The Nation, The Limbaugh Letter, The Christian Science Monitor as well as Fox News).
Even if they don't raise any money, this is sure to reduce the teen pregnancy rate at the school.
Is there a mod for this that changes the weapons systems to Nerf guns?
Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Mayor: What do you mean, biblical?
Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Venkman: Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos. Winston:The dead rising from the grave!
Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!
Here is what he did say: "During my years on the stellar construction advisory board, I was involved in a lot of initiatives. Not only did I create the sun, I created the moon and planets and a pair of really swell comets."
Studies have shown that a million monkeys, banging on a million typewriters, will produce Microsoft-standards-compliant IE releases on an average of once every 6 minutes.