Yeah, brainwashed by media that I avoid watching due to its content being somewhere between "drivel" and "worthy of being printed onto toilet paper I can wipe with."
See how easy THAT was? I came to my conclusions from experience, you had to be told what to think.
Funny phrases such as this one only show how stupid liberal bias has crept into everything.
And overly serious comments like your own show how well that "liberal media" brainwashing has been ingrained into the minds of people who are easily convinced of its voracity.
Just tune into NPR yourself for a week or so. I think you'll see the "slant" come through loud and clear.
Meanwhile I can listen to Rush or Fox for 5 minutes and know what I'm getting. If it takes a week for that bias to be clear, maybe that's a sign that they aren't force feeding it to you and requiring that you agree with it to get the news.
Fixed that for you. Bias doesn't just swing to the right. A major complaint of a lot of people is that most of the media bias seems to be to the left.
Really, mind pointing out who "a lot of people" are? I find it funny that so many people reference that the general public is sick of liberal bias in the media, yet I never actually see the evidence that proves it. I never see where the general public even acknowledges that it has a clue what said liberal bias is.
Was it liberal bias that the majority of the nation didn't give two shits about a blowjob yet the media harped over it for a year and a half because a certain party was pushing the story daily?
The so-called "liberal bias" in the media is nothing more than "conservative propaganda" being dished out. Sure, there's liberals in the media utilizing tv and radio just as well as conservatives. But acting like they are more prevalent is horseshit being fed to you by an agenda that's fooling you. Having a couple of segments per day of liberals doesn't make everything you do liberal bias (COUGHCNNCOUGH). Meanwhile Fox News is 24/7 conservative mouthpiece and yet no one has the balls to say the words "conservative media bias." Or maybe it has less to do with having the minerals and more to do with people spreading the word, which they've done blindly and without question in regards to the "liberal media bias."
I tell ya, Murdoch and fellow conservatives have done a great job brainwashing the public. Apparently if you don't read the GOP line word-for-word all day long, you're liberal biased media. How fucking moronic.
Wake me when the media stops sucking and the unwashed masses pull their heads out of their collective asses. The only story I see coming out of any station, CNN, Fox News, etc., is their obvious belief that their viewers are idiots who can't think for themselves. No thanks, I'd rather my media doesn't treat me like I lack the ability to come up with my own conclusions.
Not every report needs to be a 10 page listing of everything going on.
For example, why are protesters relevant? You're clueless if you don't get the idea that they are presenting an opposing viewpoint, but why do we need to know every anti-Democrat opinion there? If you want a story on it, it should be a SEPARATE story (or even editoral) and thus shouldn't be a part of the general convention coverage article. Thus omission isn't bias, it's proper reporting.
By your argument, failing to report the tin-foil hat conspiracy version of stories is biased omission. But what is the cutoff? Presenting "both sides of the story" isn't the basis of unbiased reporting, it is the basis of turning editorials into reporting when it should be left to the opinion pages. I don't need to read the conservative counter to a Democrat's speech in an article about the speech. That counterspeech should be its own story or in the OP-ED.
Unfortunately, digital music formats are driven by the market and not by quality (mp3 would've fallen by the wayside years ago given that it was already inferior almost a decade ago).
Since people are willing to accept that (young and old), they're just going to adapt to it and enjoy what they have. Hopefully someday we'll see the market push better formats but, for now, I'm not counting on much to improve amongst music players.
(Full disclosure: After getting a 1TB hard drive, I go lossless or I don't bother at this point. Not everyone has that capacity but we are moving there quickly.)
You can believe that Metallica destroyed file sharing and insulted their fans,
or you can research and find out that not long after the Napster case they were distributing content to their fans via their website. In other words, they embraced technology and took advantage of it with material that they were willing to distribute without financial reward (like an album sale).
I leave it to you. Realize the reactionaries are blind to the truth or continue to believe that Metallica are nothing but hypocrites for pointing out the truth.
what I do hear about this band, metallica, is that they are anti-technology, anti-consumer and basically a bunch of greedy assholes.
Come to the real world, where spoiled brats don't run everything. Metallica has spent most of the past decade (since the Napster case) giving out content on the net, embracing their fans, and even posting albums on the net for listen before the CDs hit the stores.
You are doing yourself a disservice for avoiding Death Magnetic just because you misunderstand the issues (it is a great album if you can get over the shitty quality from some moron's studio mistake).
Metallica was right, the spoiled brats that continue to hate Metallica were wrong, and the whole debacle has led to a better digital distribution model for everyone.
Hating Metallica at this point should be for one of two reasons: 1) You don't like metal, and/or 2) St. Anger.
You're looking for a logical explanation where none can be found. As I stated in my reply, "Completely Wrong," this is nothing more than spoiled brats continuing to complain about losing their toys.
Trent's done a tremendous job, sure, but Metallica was pimping plenty of their own content on the net while millions of morons were continuing to bad mouth them for "ruining their good thing."
You'll usually find more than one front-runner in prevailing technologies.
If anything, we are in better shape now that we don't have garbage programs like Napster (really, did you EVER use it? It was shit) and rather have torrents and numerous available online music stores.
Metallica's "whining" helped push an industry to take advantage of a new medium (yay capitalism? I digress...). New bands have more avenues than ever to promote themselves (no more Airheads-like situations needed:D) without needing the establishment to back them; how has Lars prevented new artists from entering the industry?
I love that 10 years later everyone still attacks Metallica. 1) They did you a favor regarding that piece of crap Napster, 2) They've been at the forefront of bands distributing content online to their fans pre-sale and, in some cases, for free, and 3) THEY WERE RIGHT! It was stealing content no matter how many idiotic excuses you come up with.
People who continue to bitch like a child about Metallica come off as brats who wish music was free. You want free music? Find a bar with no cover on Friday night.
Get it right? Hardly. Facebook is no different than MySpace and other johnny-come-latelys that define the internet.
When you make sweeping changes to your site and receive nothing but criticism from the majority of users (think less Terms of Service fiasco, more "we changed the layout to serve more advertisements" fiasco), it is obvious you are on the outs and hit your peak a while back. In sites that are "up-and-coming," those kind of big changes are welcomed as the, "We're getting bigger and better," scenario instead of f-ups.
Being popular with the older crowd doesn't give you staying power (typically means you are going to stagger on like a zombie for a while until these newer members move on). How well did AOL do with the green Internet users this decade? I'd say the acceptance of Facebook by greater numbers is the ultimate sign that the original members already moved on and the death knell has begun.
Same ****, different year
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It was 13 years ago. Maybe I'm just young but that is an eternity in the world of computer technology.
Is it really an eternity? What's so different anyway?
Let's take blogging as an example. The concept of posting your thoughts online is a constant of the Internet (it isn't a new concept like some green Internet users/media think). It's just been refined (or redefined if you don't like the implication that it is better now, just more "user-friendly") versus the available methods of the past.
Truth is, things haven't changed much on the net in 13 years. We're just implementing the same concepts with a different interfaces and tools. And some more bandwidth that allows larger, more robust concepts to be more feasible (streaming video for example). YouTube isn't anything new, it's just more realistic now than it was back then.
So if it really is an eternity, we haven't done much other than flood the "pipes" with more "unwashed masses" and make streaming video work a bit better. File sharing, BBS (social sites are just profile-centric forums), IRC/chat rooms, knowledge sharing, and user interaction/arguing are all things that have existed for years and years. The only thing that makes it all "unrecognizable" from 1996 is that we've got fresh paint, newer paintbrushes, and a larger fence to cover.
They had a virtual monopoly on portable devices.
Not they're barely known.
How the mighty have fallen.
Original PDAs lacked a key feature we desperately wanted: Good cell phone support.
When they did add that kind of support, the devices were too expensive for good market saturation, too cumbersome to tie to your own already established technology, and did not compete well with the emerging cell phone market (in other words, why buy an expensive piece of junk that did both PDA and phone when you could spend as much on two devices that did the separate tasks more successfully). The market for the combined devices was niche at best, which is why Palm got smoked.
Now they are playing catch-up on technology. This is NOT a case of free market crushing a monopoly; the "monopoly" in question was the only player in a field that was not desirable to the consumer in comparison to other available technology. The market did speak, yes, but your asinine tangent claim about gov't vs free market is way off base here.
I mean, you can try to spend the next 4 years saying that everything bad happening is because Bush used to be President, but it will get stale after a while and the hate mongers will need someone new to victimize.
Please, the GOP still goes after Bill Clinton like it will never go out of style. "Get stale" my ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, brainwashed by media that I avoid watching due to its content being somewhere between "drivel" and "worthy of being printed onto toilet paper I can wipe with."
See how easy THAT was? I came to my conclusions from experience, you had to be told what to think.
18? I thought you had to get married for sex! Now they legislated it for anyone 18 and older? Shenanigans!
No, bullshit is making a claim with no backing. Asking for evidence instead of blindly agreeing is called DISCOURSE you twat.
Funny phrases such as this one only show how stupid liberal bias has crept into everything.
And overly serious comments like your own show how well that "liberal media" brainwashing has been ingrained into the minds of people who are easily convinced of its voracity.
Got some numbers to back up that claim? Otherwise it's bullshit.
Just tune into NPR yourself for a week or so. I think you'll see the "slant" come through loud and clear.
Meanwhile I can listen to Rush or Fox for 5 minutes and know what I'm getting. If it takes a week for that bias to be clear, maybe that's a sign that they aren't force feeding it to you and requiring that you agree with it to get the news.
Fixed that for you. Bias doesn't just swing to the right. A major complaint of a lot of people is that most of the media bias seems to be to the left.
Really, mind pointing out who "a lot of people" are? I find it funny that so many people reference that the general public is sick of liberal bias in the media, yet I never actually see the evidence that proves it. I never see where the general public even acknowledges that it has a clue what said liberal bias is.
Was it liberal bias that the majority of the nation didn't give two shits about a blowjob yet the media harped over it for a year and a half because a certain party was pushing the story daily?
The so-called "liberal bias" in the media is nothing more than "conservative propaganda" being dished out. Sure, there's liberals in the media utilizing tv and radio just as well as conservatives. But acting like they are more prevalent is horseshit being fed to you by an agenda that's fooling you. Having a couple of segments per day of liberals doesn't make everything you do liberal bias (COUGHCNNCOUGH). Meanwhile Fox News is 24/7 conservative mouthpiece and yet no one has the balls to say the words "conservative media bias." Or maybe it has less to do with having the minerals and more to do with people spreading the word, which they've done blindly and without question in regards to the "liberal media bias."
I tell ya, Murdoch and fellow conservatives have done a great job brainwashing the public. Apparently if you don't read the GOP line word-for-word all day long, you're liberal biased media. How fucking moronic.
Wake me when the media stops sucking and the unwashed masses pull their heads out of their collective asses. The only story I see coming out of any station, CNN, Fox News, etc., is their obvious belief that their viewers are idiots who can't think for themselves. No thanks, I'd rather my media doesn't treat me like I lack the ability to come up with my own conclusions.
Not every report needs to be a 10 page listing of everything going on.
For example, why are protesters relevant? You're clueless if you don't get the idea that they are presenting an opposing viewpoint, but why do we need to know every anti-Democrat opinion there? If you want a story on it, it should be a SEPARATE story (or even editoral) and thus shouldn't be a part of the general convention coverage article. Thus omission isn't bias, it's proper reporting.
By your argument, failing to report the tin-foil hat conspiracy version of stories is biased omission. But what is the cutoff? Presenting "both sides of the story" isn't the basis of unbiased reporting, it is the basis of turning editorials into reporting when it should be left to the opinion pages. I don't need to read the conservative counter to a Democrat's speech in an article about the speech. That counterspeech should be its own story or in the OP-ED.
Might want to double check on the employment status of those individuals responsible for the failure. Hint: They don't work for AIG anymore.
As others pointed out, capacity was the bigger factor. There just wasn't room to store numerous large WAV files.
Unfortunately, digital music formats are driven by the market and not by quality (mp3 would've fallen by the wayside years ago given that it was already inferior almost a decade ago).
Since people are willing to accept that (young and old), they're just going to adapt to it and enjoy what they have. Hopefully someday we'll see the market push better formats but, for now, I'm not counting on much to improve amongst music players.
(Full disclosure: After getting a 1TB hard drive, I go lossless or I don't bother at this point. Not everyone has that capacity but we are moving there quickly.)
Now that's a scary thought
He asked for it Tuesday night, the next day it was so.
Colbert cannot be stopped...EVER!
You can believe that Metallica destroyed file sharing and insulted their fans,
or you can research and find out that not long after the Napster case they were distributing content to their fans via their website. In other words, they embraced technology and took advantage of it with material that they were willing to distribute without financial reward (like an album sale).
I leave it to you. Realize the reactionaries are blind to the truth or continue to believe that Metallica are nothing but hypocrites for pointing out the truth.
what I do hear about this band, metallica, is that they are anti-technology, anti-consumer and basically a bunch of greedy assholes.
Come to the real world, where spoiled brats don't run everything. Metallica has spent most of the past decade (since the Napster case) giving out content on the net, embracing their fans, and even posting albums on the net for listen before the CDs hit the stores.
The stories about them you hear are garbage.
You are doing yourself a disservice for avoiding Death Magnetic just because you misunderstand the issues (it is a great album if you can get over the shitty quality from some moron's studio mistake).
Metallica was right, the spoiled brats that continue to hate Metallica were wrong, and the whole debacle has led to a better digital distribution model for everyone.
Hating Metallica at this point should be for one of two reasons: 1) You don't like metal, and/or 2) St. Anger.
I don't buy all this hate.
You're looking for a logical explanation where none can be found. As I stated in my reply, "Completely Wrong," this is nothing more than spoiled brats continuing to complain about losing their toys.
Goes to show how many brats there still are. The truth hurts too much.
Trent's done a tremendous job, sure, but Metallica was pimping plenty of their own content on the net while millions of morons were continuing to bad mouth them for "ruining their good thing."
You'll usually find more than one front-runner in prevailing technologies.
As a matter fact, not only did I FTP long before Napster, I FTP'd after Napster as well. That's how bad Napster was.
Napster was AOL for file sharing.
If anything, we are in better shape now that we don't have garbage programs like Napster (really, did you EVER use it? It was shit) and rather have torrents and numerous available online music stores.
:D) without needing the establishment to back them; how has Lars prevented new artists from entering the industry?
Metallica's "whining" helped push an industry to take advantage of a new medium (yay capitalism? I digress...). New bands have more avenues than ever to promote themselves (no more Airheads-like situations needed
I love that 10 years later everyone still attacks Metallica. 1) They did you a favor regarding that piece of crap Napster, 2) They've been at the forefront of bands distributing content online to their fans pre-sale and, in some cases, for free, and 3) THEY WERE RIGHT! It was stealing content no matter how many idiotic excuses you come up with.
People who continue to bitch like a child about Metallica come off as brats who wish music was free. You want free music? Find a bar with no cover on Friday night.
Get it right? Hardly. Facebook is no different than MySpace and other johnny-come-latelys that define the internet.
When you make sweeping changes to your site and receive nothing but criticism from the majority of users (think less Terms of Service fiasco, more "we changed the layout to serve more advertisements" fiasco), it is obvious you are on the outs and hit your peak a while back. In sites that are "up-and-coming," those kind of big changes are welcomed as the, "We're getting bigger and better," scenario instead of f-ups.
Being popular with the older crowd doesn't give you staying power (typically means you are going to stagger on like a zombie for a while until these newer members move on). How well did AOL do with the green Internet users this decade? I'd say the acceptance of Facebook by greater numbers is the ultimate sign that the original members already moved on and the death knell has begun.
It was 13 years ago. Maybe I'm just young but that is an eternity in the world of computer technology.
Is it really an eternity? What's so different anyway?
Let's take blogging as an example. The concept of posting your thoughts online is a constant of the Internet (it isn't a new concept like some green Internet users/media think). It's just been refined (or redefined if you don't like the implication that it is better now, just more "user-friendly") versus the available methods of the past.
Truth is, things haven't changed much on the net in 13 years. We're just implementing the same concepts with a different interfaces and tools. And some more bandwidth that allows larger, more robust concepts to be more feasible (streaming video for example). YouTube isn't anything new, it's just more realistic now than it was back then.
So if it really is an eternity, we haven't done much other than flood the "pipes" with more "unwashed masses" and make streaming video work a bit better. File sharing, BBS (social sites are just profile-centric forums), IRC/chat rooms, knowledge sharing, and user interaction/arguing are all things that have existed for years and years. The only thing that makes it all "unrecognizable" from 1996 is that we've got fresh paint, newer paintbrushes, and a larger fence to cover.
They had a virtual monopoly on portable devices. Not they're barely known. How the mighty have fallen.
Original PDAs lacked a key feature we desperately wanted: Good cell phone support.
When they did add that kind of support, the devices were too expensive for good market saturation, too cumbersome to tie to your own already established technology, and did not compete well with the emerging cell phone market (in other words, why buy an expensive piece of junk that did both PDA and phone when you could spend as much on two devices that did the separate tasks more successfully). The market for the combined devices was niche at best, which is why Palm got smoked.
Now they are playing catch-up on technology. This is NOT a case of free market crushing a monopoly; the "monopoly" in question was the only player in a field that was not desirable to the consumer in comparison to other available technology. The market did speak, yes, but your asinine tangent claim about gov't vs free market is way off base here.
Please, the GOP still goes after Bill Clinton like it will never go out of style. "Get stale" my ass.