This is a question that I want answered. I don't want to get modded up/down for it. So if one of you lovely mods know the answer, please let me know.
Is there currently a project out there to port OSX (or something open source and remarkably, illegally similar to OSX) to x86? If so, is there anything an 18-year old International Relations major with no programming ability (I can do HTML!) can do to help?
And no, I don't know what the hell I'm doing on slashdot either.
"It does not follow that a conservative media/newspaper owner == conservative reporting since that would mean that the owner would hire conservative rporters, editors, etc...this cannot be since the large majority of reporters, editors, and news industry workers are liberal in their voting."
You're right - and if you read what I said, I wasn't arguing otherwise. When I wrote that, I was referring to the fact that these conservative owners do have the final say in what the newspaper publishes - and whether or not the paper picks up stories from other sources and reprints them or if the paper comes up with its own material. The conservative owners make the business decision to save resources and homogenize the media.
However, it's quite possible (and pretty likely) that the reporters, down at the bottom, writing the material, lean left. If you read my original post, that's what I said.
As for the other points you make, it may be that Robert Byrd isn't associated with the Klan anymore because he doesn't believe in any of it anymore. However, I do think that people have the right to know about that - and I think that the common person would have no idea that he used to be a Klansman. (I did know, but I only found out a couple weeks ago.) A radical left wing is referred to, but using different words (words that are, more often than not, inaccurate) such as socialist, anarchist, anti-American, etc. Also, hearing the words "left-wing" as opposed to "liberal" often brings a sense of radical thought that "right-wing" doesn't bring, at least not to me. As for the points about Clinton, I always thought of him as pretty half-assed. However, I gotta ask, was Confederate Day an official state holiday, or something that some non-governmental group came up with? If it's something non-governmental, Governor Clinton had no say (nor should he) in what happened. And finally, did Hollings have any say in what happened with the confederate flag? Also, it's not like he's any more politically safe as a senator than as a governor - he gets voted out (or back in) by the same people. He may have been in office when the flag was raised, but that doesn't mean he liked it. If the flag-raising was attached to a budget bill or something that had to be passed quickly, he may have had little say.
I'm rambling, sorry, and I think I asked more questions than I answered, but you ARE right - it's easy to make a story lean one way, and lies of omission can do a lot of damage.
A more general comment on the bias of the media. I do think that the media, on the whole, lean to the left slightly but, due to the fact that such a bias in popular media cannot be very obvious, the liberal cause is VERY poorly demonstrated and ends up looking half-assed. The bias harms liberals/progressives more than it helps.
No it isn't. This is a huge embarrassment for them. And they set up a "hotline" so that readers could report possible fabrications in the future. Even after all the research that I'm sure conservative watchdog groups and the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Entire AM frequency is doing, all they can find is more crap from Jayson Blair, although I could be wrong. Also, I'm pretty sure that the NYT "broke" the Jayson Blair story. This means that once they found out what he was doing, they came out and said it and took decent measures to ensure that nothing of this nature would ever happen again.
Whenever the Times messes up, it lets you know. The corrections and retractions are printed just like any of their news stories, and if I remember correctly, they're printed next to the editorial page - not exactly "buried".
They practically crank out as many pages as a novel each day. Yes, they will fuck up at times and, rarely and unfortunately, hire dishonest people by accident. It's not like this was some conspiracy.
Anyway. Assuming news reporters are liberal (there is some evidence that they lean Democratic in their voting patterns, which doesn't necessarily mean they're liberal but that's a different topic) the stories they write must be approved by assistant editors, "full" editors, and to an extent their fellow reporters. The stories cannot defend one side too much more than the other and a factual basis is needed.
But to get back on topic - the lack of diversity you speak of is a different kind of diversity. Furthermore, it's not as if these "liberal" (using the term very loosely) reporters are making business decisions. Whether or not a newspaper pulls a "me too" is out of their hands - that's what the owner of the newspaper chooses to do.
Guess what? Business owners tend to be conservative.
Another thing (and I'm not being sarcastic)...WHAT liberal media? This is gonna go very far off-topic, so just email me. falsified@gmx.net
I don't know. I live in Southeast Wisconsin (Sheboygan represent, mothafuckazz!) and the big "alternative rock" station here used to play underground techno and industrial stuff from midnight onward a few nights a week. They'd also play stuff from within the past ten years, not the past ten months. If I didn't like what they were playing, I could switch to different stations that played different songs. Now, 90% of the stations play something weird called "contemporary" and the other ten percent seem to have a Godsmack/Creed mix CD on repeat. Sure, I was twelve back in these "good old days" but I was a pretty cynical kid and I was able to watch the radio take a dive, even though my musical tastes hadn't gotten any more eclectic. (Once I could only find twenty musicians on the radio, I became one of those annoying hardcore kids with the tight, brightly colored t-shirts. I apologize to all the metalheads.) I know I'm not the only one that's watched this happen.
But yes, I agree, the entertainment industry has always been "big business" and it's not as if the execs have only recently gotten greedy. It's just that the whole thing has been snowballing and a significant minority of consumers have reached the breaking point.
No, guys, this is how it works. It's illegal. End of story. I don't like to get bitchy, but when an oligopoly (a few firms control the large majority of an industry) secretly meets to keep prices artificially high, it's called collusion and it is ILLEGAL. It's in violation of antitrust laws and US federal law allows the Justice Department to regulate a united oligopoly as if it were a monopoly. From a capitalist, a populist, and a socialist perspective, collusion is indisputably WRONG. It has nothing to do with free enterprise, helping the common man, or empowering the labor class.
Collusion laws are reasons that OPEC will never have a summit in the United States.
This will come off as an overly simplistic troll, but there's already elemental hydrogen in the atmosphere. Shocking, I know, but it makes up quite a bit of the air we breathe. It's not like we're producing more hydrogen - the amount of hydrogen in the Earth's atmosphere cannot change (except during nuclear reactions, which I hope we're not planning to do inside a car). I don't get, and the article didn't explain, how this hydrogen will be any worse than the hydrogen that's already floating around. Will we be releasing a particular isotope of hydrogen, such as the kind in deuterium? Is that any worse for the ozone? And what's keeping this hydrogen from reacting with any other substances in the air, thus keeping it away from the ozone?
I imagine this point may have been stated by now, and answered. If so, I apologize. I don't have time to read the comments right now. Anyway, if there are some people that can help me out (two years of high school chemistry does NOT make me an expert), that could be great. Thanks.
That has nothing to do with the type of economic system you live in. If anything, a more egalitarian system would allow for greater freedom of speech (I never really heard too much about the horrors of the Swedish police state, for example).
No wrath. Just the simple fact that if people invent words and other people start using them, they become words. How do you think languages were created? Or the word "you" as opposed to "thou"? Jesus.
This is gonna sound like a troll or something, but really, what has AOL done to stifle its subprojects? Yeah, AOL did shut down Gnutella. That's probably because AOL is in the music/movie business (the TW of AOLTW). So, while that's a shame, it's also somewhat expected. WASTE was pulled for the same reasons. AOL doesn't wanna shoot itself in the foot. For what it's worth, Nullsoft really DOES remain quite independent of the nice clean scrubbed creppy AOL crap. Yes, you get AOL icons when you install Winamp3, but that's the only AOL fingerprint I see.
$86 million for a free (as in beer) media player is more of a charity than anything else.
No, you will not have the freedom to write p2p programs that are invariably used for piracy if your boss runs movie studios and record labels. This is somehow a surprise?
As far as I can tell, this ruling has nothing to do with your rights online. This has to do with rights everywhere. Can a free society ban factual information about public figures? Nope, and if it tries to do so, it is no longer a free society. Imagine Dubya suing Harper's Weekly for saying unflattering things about him. The list goes on and on and it disgusts me that a judge has just agreed to such a list - without even a hearing. This is a court order, no trial or settlement.
However, I give this about six weeks before it's overturned.
That's very true - like I said, I go nuts at the merch tables, and that includes their CD releases. Also, I don't consider myself "stealing" or otherwise ripping off the artists because I'm a college student from a lower-middle class family. The simple truth is that I wouldn't be buying as many releases as I'd like to, with or without p2p. I think that Kazaa has made me go to more shows, buy more stuff, and put more money into the hands of the artists. I honestly do what I can and I consider my playlist to be the radio station that Clear Channel has systematically denied me over the past several years. Idealistic, yes. Flamebait, no.
But considering how many badly encoded or just wrong files out there, and how slow transfer can be, anyone with a job is better off just paying for the songs and knowing they'll come down right the first time, off a high QoS server.
I swear to God this is not a troll. However, I've never had a major problem downloading from Kazaa. I've gotten maybe a total of five bogus files ever since I started using the network, and I use it pretty regularly. Then again, I download mainly indie stuff so maybe I'm not as much of a target. (Before people start bitching at me, I support the artists by going to their shows and going insane at the merch tables. If I didn't have Kazaa, or Audiogalaxy before that, I wouldn't have a clue that 90% of these bands existed.)
I second that. I live in a city (Sheboygan, Wisconsin) that is approximately 15% Hmong refugees and their descendants. The Hmong is/was an ethnic group that was "compelled" by the CIA and DoD to help the United States defeat the North Vietnamese. They were a pacifist farming community before we showed up. Now their society is destroyed. The CIA denies most of the atrocities that respected Hmong leaders insist happened...I tend to believe the Hmong. None of them can go back home, and there are still tens of thousands of Hmong refugees in Thai camps. My city was involved in a considerable debate about whether or not we should construct a memorial to the Hmong soldiers in our downtown park. The resolution was voted down, saying that it would make the park too cluttered. Bullshit.
The Hmong are a great addition to this community, and they integrated reasonably well - many are in this same college computer lab as me as I type. Not bad for first-generation Americans. It's just a shame they had to come here as refugees in the first place.
My goal in life is to make enough money so I can afford to drop out completely.
It appears to be quite inexpensive, actually...
Re:I can attest to the overvaluation of producers.
on
Cheap Audio Production
·
· Score: 1
I totally agree.
Part of the reason that music is so freakishly expensive is because people are bending over backwards to try to achieve that last ten percent.
Apparently, these people forget Economics 101 and the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. Whatever.
Re:I can attest to the overvaluation of producers.
on
Cheap Audio Production
·
· Score: 1
I have better things to do than troll, like watch reruns of Coach.
Anyway. This will be the third time that I clearly state that we are NOT professionals, nor do we sound a ton like professionals. However, we come considerably close with next to no knowledge of the program we're using. It does NOT equal studio work. My entire point, and I will state this in a third version now, is that we come pretty close without spending a million dollars (or whatever the inflated average is now). I know that we don't have several inputs, and I said that in my first post. I know that would make things more complicated, and I said that in my first post. My ENTIRE POINT is that it sounds decent, certainly decent enough. Sure, if you have three guitarists playing with distortion pedals, echoed screams, etc, our setup is going to blow. (In fact, that band may end up always sounding bad in a recording unless they know what they're doing). Once again, we come close with almost no investment, and we reach the DIY "industry" average, I'm guessing. We don't sound perfect. We really aren't trying to. It's supposed to be funny. We don't tweak and homogenize our voice and guitar like a studio might do.
You are skeptical, and all logical people are, or try to be. I am skeptical too. I am skeptical of the fact that major labels need to spend ten percent of what they spend on production. Mid-sized indie labels have releases that sound JUST as good as the latest Shakira or Aguilera disc, with the bonus of talent. (Intentionally lo-fi releases obviously don't apply here.) I think it's a ploy to keep album prices artifically high. Do you honestly disagree with that?
Slashdot Mirror
Is there currently a project out there to port OSX (or something open source and remarkably, illegally similar to OSX) to x86? If so, is there anything an 18-year old International Relations major with no programming ability (I can do HTML!) can do to help?
And no, I don't know what the hell I'm doing on slashdot either.
And the Best Use Of The Word "Fucking" Award goes to...
You're right - and if you read what I said, I wasn't arguing otherwise. When I wrote that, I was referring to the fact that these conservative owners do have the final say in what the newspaper publishes - and whether or not the paper picks up stories from other sources and reprints them or if the paper comes up with its own material. The conservative owners make the business decision to save resources and homogenize the media.
However, it's quite possible (and pretty likely) that the reporters, down at the bottom, writing the material, lean left. If you read my original post, that's what I said.
As for the other points you make, it may be that Robert Byrd isn't associated with the Klan anymore because he doesn't believe in any of it anymore. However, I do think that people have the right to know about that - and I think that the common person would have no idea that he used to be a Klansman. (I did know, but I only found out a couple weeks ago.) A radical left wing is referred to, but using different words (words that are, more often than not, inaccurate) such as socialist, anarchist, anti-American, etc. Also, hearing the words "left-wing" as opposed to "liberal" often brings a sense of radical thought that "right-wing" doesn't bring, at least not to me. As for the points about Clinton, I always thought of him as pretty half-assed. However, I gotta ask, was Confederate Day an official state holiday, or something that some non-governmental group came up with? If it's something non-governmental, Governor Clinton had no say (nor should he) in what happened. And finally, did Hollings have any say in what happened with the confederate flag? Also, it's not like he's any more politically safe as a senator than as a governor - he gets voted out (or back in) by the same people. He may have been in office when the flag was raised, but that doesn't mean he liked it. If the flag-raising was attached to a budget bill or something that had to be passed quickly, he may have had little say.
I'm rambling, sorry, and I think I asked more questions than I answered, but you ARE right - it's easy to make a story lean one way, and lies of omission can do a lot of damage.
A more general comment on the bias of the media. I do think that the media, on the whole, lean to the left slightly but, due to the fact that such a bias in popular media cannot be very obvious, the liberal cause is VERY poorly demonstrated and ends up looking half-assed. The bias harms liberals/progressives more than it helps.
Whenever the Times messes up, it lets you know. The corrections and retractions are printed just like any of their news stories, and if I remember correctly, they're printed next to the editorial page - not exactly "buried".
They practically crank out as many pages as a novel each day. Yes, they will fuck up at times and, rarely and unfortunately, hire dishonest people by accident. It's not like this was some conspiracy.
Anyway. Assuming news reporters are liberal (there is some evidence that they lean Democratic in their voting patterns, which doesn't necessarily mean they're liberal but that's a different topic) the stories they write must be approved by assistant editors, "full" editors, and to an extent their fellow reporters. The stories cannot defend one side too much more than the other and a factual basis is needed.
But to get back on topic - the lack of diversity you speak of is a different kind of diversity. Furthermore, it's not as if these "liberal" (using the term very loosely) reporters are making business decisions. Whether or not a newspaper pulls a "me too" is out of their hands - that's what the owner of the newspaper chooses to do.
Guess what? Business owners tend to be conservative.
Another thing (and I'm not being sarcastic)...WHAT liberal media? This is gonna go very far off-topic, so just email me. falsified@gmx.net
Why must EVERYTHING turn into SCO around here?!
But yes, I agree, the entertainment industry has always been "big business" and it's not as if the execs have only recently gotten greedy. It's just that the whole thing has been snowballing and a significant minority of consumers have reached the breaking point.
Said the fabled Anonymous Coward.
Collusion laws are reasons that OPEC will never have a summit in the United States.
I imagine this point may have been stated by now, and answered. If so, I apologize. I don't have time to read the comments right now. Anyway, if there are some people that can help me out (two years of high school chemistry does NOT make me an expert), that could be great. Thanks.
That has nothing to do with the type of economic system you live in. If anything, a more egalitarian system would allow for greater freedom of speech (I never really heard too much about the horrors of the Swedish police state, for example).
No wrath. Just the simple fact that if people invent words and other people start using them, they become words.
How do you think languages were created? Or the word "you" as opposed to "thou"? Jesus.
$86 million for a free (as in beer) media player is more of a charity than anything else.
No, you will not have the freedom to write p2p programs that are invariably used for piracy if your boss runs movie studios and record labels. This is somehow a surprise?
However, I give this about six weeks before it's overturned.
That's very true - like I said, I go nuts at the merch tables, and that includes their CD releases. Also, I don't consider myself "stealing" or otherwise ripping off the artists because I'm a college student from a lower-middle class family. The simple truth is that I wouldn't be buying as many releases as I'd like to, with or without p2p. I think that Kazaa has made me go to more shows, buy more stuff, and put more money into the hands of the artists. I honestly do what I can and I consider my playlist to be the radio station that Clear Channel has systematically denied me over the past several years. Idealistic, yes. Flamebait, no.
I swear to God this is not a troll. However, I've never had a major problem downloading from Kazaa. I've gotten maybe a total of five bogus files ever since I started using the network, and I use it pretty regularly. Then again, I download mainly indie stuff so maybe I'm not as much of a target.
(Before people start bitching at me, I support the artists by going to their shows and going insane at the merch tables. If I didn't have Kazaa, or Audiogalaxy before that, I wouldn't have a clue that 90% of these bands existed.)
Ever hear of slander or libel? (Not flamebait.)
So AI is on the right track after all?
That completely sounds like something one of you would say!
Only a joke.
Madonna owns a record label. I believe the one she owns is Matador.
Same with Metallica and Dr. Dre, the only two artists to loudly speak out against Napster.
They aren't speaking as artists, they're speaking as executives.
"There are 1024 kb per megabyte and 1024 mb per gigabyte! God yew are such a l000zzerrrrrr!!! M$ SUXXS!"
No, this was not flamebait. I merely did this so that someone that honestly MEANS to be this hardassed gets discouraged.
My city was involved in a considerable debate about whether or not we should construct a memorial to the Hmong soldiers in our downtown park. The resolution was voted down, saying that it would make the park too cluttered. Bullshit.
The Hmong are a great addition to this community, and they integrated reasonably well - many are in this same college computer lab as me as I type. Not bad for first-generation Americans. It's just a shame they had to come here as refugees in the first place.
It appears to be quite inexpensive, actually...
Part of the reason that music is so freakishly expensive is because people are bending over backwards to try to achieve that last ten percent.
Apparently, these people forget Economics 101 and the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. Whatever.
Anyway. This will be the third time that I clearly state that we are NOT professionals, nor do we sound a ton like professionals. However, we come considerably close with next to no knowledge of the program we're using. It does NOT equal studio work. My entire point, and I will state this in a third version now, is that we come pretty close without spending a million dollars (or whatever the inflated average is now). I know that we don't have several inputs, and I said that in my first post. I know that would make things more complicated, and I said that in my first post. My ENTIRE POINT is that it sounds decent, certainly decent enough. Sure, if you have three guitarists playing with distortion pedals, echoed screams, etc, our setup is going to blow. (In fact, that band may end up always sounding bad in a recording unless they know what they're doing). Once again, we come close with almost no investment, and we reach the DIY "industry" average, I'm guessing. We don't sound perfect. We really aren't trying to. It's supposed to be funny. We don't tweak and homogenize our voice and guitar like a studio might do.
You are skeptical, and all logical people are, or try to be. I am skeptical too. I am skeptical of the fact that major labels need to spend ten percent of what they spend on production. Mid-sized indie labels have releases that sound JUST as good as the latest Shakira or Aguilera disc, with the bonus of talent. (Intentionally lo-fi releases obviously don't apply here.) I think it's a ploy to keep album prices artifically high. Do you honestly disagree with that?