If by "background research" you mean finding one off video clips that can out of context contradict and be hilarious then yes. If you mean background research like find the heart of a complicated issue cutting through the tag lines of both sides to see the actual pros and cons of both approaches rather then whatever extremes will make people laugh, then no.
Then yes! They often do a level headed analysis of the issue to the best of their ability... before making the dick joke.
And yet it's more "news" than the news shows. I'll say again: A show that, by everyone's admission isn't a news show, is a better news show than any news show. That, off course, is more of a commentary on news shows than on the Daily Show.
Don't get me wrong, The Daily Show is great, but it's not really journalism - they don't break any stories, send reporters out into the field, etc. It's more editorial or commentary on the news. All of the new clips they show on the program come from other news sources.
They're the only one bothering to do background research, they're the only ones exposing contradictions and bullshit, sure they only comment on news already told, but their analysis is head and shoulders above any of the "real" news shows. And those shows also mostly only retweet news.
I stand by my attack on news organizations: They all suck and a comedy show is better at their job than they are.
Wikileaks and the Daily Show are some of the very few examples of real journalism we can find today, I hope they team up and become a hilarious force of journalistic good.
The initial traffic stop was completely justified and the guy should lose his license if not worse. Don't make him into some kind of innocent victim.
For speeding and a wheelie? Yeah, a gun in his face, 26 hours of jail, threats of 16 years of jail, having his stuff stolen, that's all justified... in fascistopia, where speeders are worse than murderers.
There will be paid vacations and lawsuits. Oh, sorry, "a leave of duty" with pay. Because a week off work with full pay is really punishment enough for cops who murder people, it ought to be enough for cops who just threaten people.
On a side note I can't figure out who is the biggest asshole involved in this: the motorcyclist himself for doing 127mph on a public road while weaving between cars and doing wheelies, the cop for briefly pulling a gun and immediately putting it back into the holster, or the Maryland State Police for going after the guy. I vote for the Maryland State Police, with the motorcyclist himself in close second and the cop in third place.
I'm putting the biker in 4th place and you in third, for saying that waving a gun at someone for a traffic violation is worse than putting oneself in slight danger with a traffic violation. Wheelies on public roads aren't safe, but they're completely unlike waving guns at people.
The motorcyclist would have been 100% within his rights to draw a gun and shoot his attacker in the face. This police officer is extraordinarily lucky to be breathing.
He would have been charged and convicted of first degree murder.
inside a vehicle, which most jurisdictions consider an extension of a person's home or corporation's property, in which case the implied right of "privacy in the home" applies.
Funny, around here if it's visible from a public space, it's public. They bothered to explain that to new drivers because of hormones... and backseats.
Censorship, in the context of being a free speech issue, only applies to government restriction upon it. Are you free to go home and view the website? Then there's no free speech ramifications. At work, your job is to do your job; visiting the Sex Party's website probably doesn't fall into that category for most workers.
Otherwise they would have noticed that creationisms has a massive religious problem. If god created the universe with all the traces of evolution, you have to wonder why god would do that.
"The devil did it." / "God is testing your faith."
Technically, evolution and creationism are separated by about 14 billion years. If your going to teach creationism, shouldn't that be in astronomy class? What does the fact that organisms have DNA which allows them to pass on traits to their offspring have to do with the creation of the universe?
Silly slashdotter, once they have creationism passed off as biology they'll teach their kids that the earth is 6k years old and that the earth is flat and the sky is a dome above us. Just like it says in their bible.
Wrong. Please stop spreading misinformation. Falsifiable means you can't disprove the thing, not that you can't disprove the opposites.
Falsi`fi`a`ble a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.
Seriously, who modded his bullshit up?
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or by a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.
When someone says something that is the opposite of the truth, yo do NOT mod that up informative! Bad moderator! Bad!
Yes, but at the same time, Hitler famously disliked the christian religion. He would often say how it made the people weak, because priests taught compassion and empathy, something he thought should not belong in the Reich, and certainly not on the battlefield. It is clear he much preferred the Norse ideology, as you can see in many of the symbols he used, from the Swastika (looks like a Norse Sun wheel), the wolf's hook, the 'sig' rune (used as the SS symbol), the life rune, the odal rune, etc.
Whether this was just because he also idolised the race of people descended from the Norsemen, or if he truly believed this "religion" or ideology to be superior, is another matter.
He was just a manipulative opportunist, he used the parts of religions that fit his purposes, and ignored the rest.
I hesitate to intrude upon this good-natured colloquy, but I must point out that there were no "Frenchmen" (or French women) for about 1000 years after Caesar and his colleagues conquered Gaul.
I had to look two posts above mine to see what you were talking about, why did you reply to me about historical name places? All I was saying was "the US isn't a saintly force of good, it's a violent hegemony".
After destroying tyrannical governments (ones that murdered their citizens openly and wantonly with disregard for any defensible "justice") -- the Americans said "form a government that allows all your citizens to openly participate" -- and then stick around trying to make sure a genocide doesn't break out between the squabbling factions.
You gloss over the part where they put their own puppet politicians in charge and murder the citizens openly and wantonly with disregard for any defensible "justice". If the US acted the way it says it acts, rather than in the murderous way in which it does act, it wouldn't be hated as much around the world (no, it's not your freedom people hate, it's your shrapnel).
the age-old Trek vs. Wars feud. After all, true Trekkies hate Star Wars
I never understood that. "Hey, let's hate part of what we love". I like sci-fi, why wouldn't I want a lightsaber -and- a tricorder? Silly feuds, silly, stupid feuds.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "background research" you mean finding one off video clips that can out of context contradict and be hilarious then yes. If you mean background research like find the heart of a complicated issue cutting through the tag lines of both sides to see the actual pros and cons of both approaches rather then whatever extremes will make people laugh, then no.
Then yes! They often do a level headed analysis of the issue to the best of their ability... before making the dick joke.
I like the show but it isn't really news.
And yet it's more "news" than the news shows. I'll say again: A show that, by everyone's admission isn't a news show, is a better news show than any news show. That, off course, is more of a commentary on news shows than on the Daily Show.
Don't get me wrong, The Daily Show is great, but it's not really journalism - they don't break any stories, send reporters out into the field, etc. It's more editorial or commentary on the news. All of the new clips they show on the program come from other news sources.
They're the only one bothering to do background research, they're the only ones exposing contradictions and bullshit, sure they only comment on news already told, but their analysis is head and shoulders above any of the "real" news shows. And those shows also mostly only retweet news.
I stand by my attack on news organizations: They all suck and a comedy show is better at their job than they are.
Wikileaks and the Daily Show are some of the very few examples of real journalism we can find today, I hope they team up and become a hilarious force of journalistic good.
The initial traffic stop was completely justified and the guy should lose his license if not worse. Don't make him into some kind of innocent victim.
For speeding and a wheelie? Yeah, a gun in his face, 26 hours of jail, threats of 16 years of jail, having his stuff stolen, that's all justified... in fascistopia, where speeders are worse than murderers.
there will be resignations and law suits
There will be paid vacations and lawsuits. Oh, sorry, "a leave of duty" with pay. Because a week off work with full pay is really punishment enough for cops who murder people, it ought to be enough for cops who just threaten people.
On a side note I can't figure out who is the biggest asshole involved in this: the motorcyclist himself for doing 127mph on a public road while weaving between cars and doing wheelies, the cop for briefly pulling a gun and immediately putting it back into the holster, or the Maryland State Police for going after the guy. I vote for the Maryland State Police, with the motorcyclist himself in close second and the cop in third place.
I'm putting the biker in 4th place and you in third, for saying that waving a gun at someone for a traffic violation is worse than putting oneself in slight danger with a traffic violation. Wheelies on public roads aren't safe, but they're completely unlike waving guns at people.
The motorcyclist would have been 100% within his rights to draw a gun and shoot his attacker in the face. This police officer is extraordinarily lucky to be breathing.
He would have been charged and convicted of first degree murder.
inside a vehicle, which most jurisdictions consider an extension of a person's home or corporation's property, in which case the implied right of "privacy in the home" applies.
Funny, around here if it's visible from a public space, it's public.
They bothered to explain that to new drivers because of hormones... and backseats.
I did carelessly reply to the wrong person. (I meant to reply to your reply's parent ckedge).
No worries, you made good points, I just wondered why you were confrontational whilst essentially agreeing with my less wordy post.
Private censorship is still censorship.
Censorship, in the context of being a free speech issue, only applies to government restriction upon it. Are you free to go home and view the website? Then there's no free speech ramifications. At work, your job is to do your job; visiting the Sex Party's website probably doesn't fall into that category for most workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Policy_of_current_Federal_Government
1. we have become gods
Nemesis was created by the gods to remind those guilty of hubris that they are mortal.
Teach THAT in Louisiana science classes!
creation answers"Why?"
Oh, goody! I've been wondering: Why would gods exist?
Otherwise they would have noticed that creationisms has a massive religious problem. If god created the universe with all the traces of evolution, you have to wonder why god would do that.
"The devil did it." / "God is testing your faith."
Easy peasy.
Technically, evolution and creationism are separated by about 14 billion years. If your going to teach creationism, shouldn't that be in astronomy class? What does the fact that organisms have DNA which allows them to pass on traits to their offspring have to do with the creation of the universe?
Silly slashdotter, once they have creationism passed off as biology they'll teach their kids that the earth is 6k years old and that the earth is flat and the sky is a dome above us. Just like it says in their bible.
Wrong. Please stop spreading misinformation. Falsifiable means you can't disprove the thing, not that you can't disprove the opposites.
Falsi`fi`a`ble
a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.
Seriously, who modded his bullshit up?
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or by a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.
When someone says something that is the opposite of the truth, yo do NOT mod that up informative! Bad moderator! Bad!
Yes, but at the same time, Hitler famously disliked the christian religion. He would often say how it made the people weak, because priests taught compassion and empathy, something he thought should not belong in the Reich, and certainly not on the battlefield. It is clear he much preferred the Norse ideology, as you can see in many of the symbols he used, from the Swastika (looks like a Norse Sun wheel), the wolf's hook, the 'sig' rune (used as the SS symbol), the life rune, the odal rune, etc.
Whether this was just because he also idolised the race of people descended from the Norsemen, or if he truly believed this "religion" or ideology to be superior, is another matter.
He was just a manipulative opportunist, he used the parts of religions that fit his purposes, and ignored the rest.
I hesitate to intrude upon this good-natured colloquy, but I must point out that there were no "Frenchmen" (or French women) for about 1000 years after Caesar and his colleagues conquered Gaul.
I had to look two posts above mine to see what you were talking about, why did you reply to me about historical name places? All I was saying was "the US isn't a saintly force of good, it's a violent hegemony".
After destroying tyrannical governments (ones that murdered their citizens openly and wantonly with disregard for any defensible "justice") -- the Americans said "form a government that allows all your citizens to openly participate" -- and then stick around trying to make sure a genocide doesn't break out between the squabbling factions.
You gloss over the part where they put their own puppet politicians in charge and murder the citizens openly and wantonly with disregard for any defensible "justice". If the US acted the way it says it acts, rather than in the murderous way in which it does act, it wouldn't be hated as much around the world (no, it's not your freedom people hate, it's your shrapnel).
Is this common in your own industry?
Yes, that one's very common.
Just imagine how much less national debt we would have if religions had to pay taxes.
Just imagine how much less national debt we would have if corporations had to pay taxes.
Corporations can leave and exist, virtually, in a place that doesn't charge them as much. Churches need to be where the sheep are.
getting in people's faces about their religion is as bad as when religious folks get in ours
When's the last time an atheist rang your bell to try to get you to join his non-church?
Nazi ideology was based on the master race theory, which had nothing to do with any of the major religions
God's chosen people, complete with tales of racial cleansing right in the bible. "God with us", the Nazis used to say.
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone,
Occam's razor: If your universe needs a creator, so does its creator. He created himself? He's superfluous.
There, now you're sure: The one without the superfluous anthropomorphism is more logical.
the age-old Trek vs. Wars feud. After all, true Trekkies hate Star Wars
I never understood that. "Hey, let's hate part of what we love". I like sci-fi, why wouldn't I want a lightsaber -and- a tricorder? Silly feuds, silly, stupid feuds.