Agreed...but that simply proves that MS did it badly, not that it couldn't be done. Realistically, I think it's a reflection that they didn't give a shit if they made money or not, as long as they competed well enough to cripple Sony, which I think they've done.
They expected to make up the difference in game sales, but that hasn't really worked out too well. This was a pretty stupid move on their part. XBOXes are NOT printers. They do not REQUIRE you to purchase supplies on a regular basis in order for it to continue to function.
I believe Sony and Nintendo both make money with that model. You may not HAVE to buy games, but when the average game has severely limited replay value, you either buy a new game or you have a doorstop that cost a few hundred dollars. I've not seen good numbers on how much money MS has gained/lost on the game business as a whole, when licensing/publishing is taken into account.
Doesn't this highlight another positive for OS? No seriously, so the lead developer is arrested/killed/in a coma. This means the project *is* not dead, someone somewhere can pick up where he/she left off. If it was closed source, and the lead developer was more than just a cog in a large corporation, who could/would pick up the slack? The source code could conceivably being floating in legal limbo until the affairs are settled. Or am I just being myopic?
I'd say that in practice, with open source, if the person responsible for development leaves the project, it often withers. In theory, someone could come along and do it, but theory is just that. Of course companies can fold for the same reason. I'd say in either case - open or closed source - if the project is big enough and has enough developers, it will keep going for better or worse. If it's small, the project can die, whether the source is open or not.
The one major difference is if a company goes bankrupt, at which the code will be part of bankruptcy proceedings for years possibly, and at that point it's a major benefit to being open source.
Now, according to their lessons, google with all their betas must be a rightout disaster, shouldn't it?
Significantly different market. Google has the cash, time, patience, and talent to instead throw 100 products at the wall and see what sticks. Because we're talking web services and not hardware, they can accept a 20% success rate, or lower, and that would be fantastic.
That said, Google would do well to invest more energy in promoting the products that look on the verge of success, like mail. Already Yahoo has come out with a product that many think is now better than gmail (though I don't), in part because google's been dragging its feet with gmail, *and* it has stagnated for over a year.
Thankfully, the safety systems of the bombs prevented a nuclear explosion, but the conventional explosions nevertheless distributed a large quantity of radioactive bomb guts over a wide area (thus the contamination problems mentioned).
I think the safety system is that everything has to be timed very precisely to actually initiate a nuclear reaction, and smacking the ground ain't good for timing.
Maybe that's what happened when NK screwed theirs up.;)
That's insane. You mean I can call you a child molestor, specify dates and times and childrens' names and the court will accept as a defense against libel the fact that I have no idea whether it's true or not? I can't believe any legal system is that bad.
I believe what the previous poster was getting at is that there is more protection in the American legal system for people who make statements they *believed* were true, not statements they simply didn't verify not to be false. So your example would probably be found libellous in pretty much any court, unless you happen to live at 1 Neverland Ranch.
I don't know about the source. The only ones I've seen have been in stores (Best Lie, Circuit Shitty, etc). None of them look impressive
Yeah, I'm not surprised in the least! They adjust the TVs to make all the colors look ridiculously bright, but for someone (like you, perhaps) who wants a lifelike picture, it's not good. They do look better when you set them up at home though, believe me!
which I'm apparently the only one that can hear it (which is suprising due to the number of concerts I've been to before I started using earplugs).
No, I know exactly what you mean. With the volume at an ambient level I can't hear it anymore, though. Can you not hear that sound from CRTs? I'm almost 30, so I'm not supposed to be able to hear that sound anymore. I can hear it from any non-LCD monitor, so that makes it a non-factor in the plasma vs. CRT debate, for me anyway.
I rarely watch TV other than South Park, Family Guy, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, It's Always Sunny in Philedalphia, and Stargate. When I watch tv or movies, I'm usually working on my computer or practicing my guitar and am not focusing on the TV. The few times I do, it's usually a DVD on my 21" CRT second head.
Yeah, those aren't the sorts of things that improve much with high-def. Part of the reason I got mine is that I no longer have the ability to see movies in theaters, so having the plasma is nice for that.
Same here. I've looked at many lcd and plasma TVs, but none of them look good enough to justify their cost. I'd rather stick with a CRT for now. Plus the CRT I have (non-HD) doesn't have that annoying high pitch coming from it.
My first question would be what the source was? Because if the source was non-HD, then certainly no advantage will be evident. My second question is where you checked them out. Usually, in the stores, either the sales staff doesn't know how to set the picture, or they set it on "nuclear" to make it pop. This evidently impresses a lot of people, but it really makes it look like crap. I got mine home and was really disappointed that it looked terrible, but within 5 minutes of changing the ridiculous default settings it looked fantastic.
I'd add that CRT TVs of the same screen size as your typical plasmas (42"-50") are HUUUUUGE. Definitely not an option for those living in smaller houses/apartments.
As for the high pitch, I can hear when any plasma/CRT monitor is on in a room (with no signal, obviously). Period. I haven't noticed it as being any worse with my plasma.
As for whether it's worth it...certainly that's up to you, as they are more expensive. For me, it's hard to deal with regular definition TV having had high-def. Especially for movies and sports. For regular TV like news and such, all you see is scars, moles, wrinkles and the like in higher resolution...yuk!
What you need to ask yourself is this: why is killing someone using a 22 million dollar GPS guilded missle any different that using 22 dollar IED strapped to someone chest? I really want to understand your rationale here.
I didn't. I said the Palestinians weren't "good guys," and that the situation over there doesn't have a protagonist. I never said the Israelis were saints. That said, if I were to rank things, I'd say that targeting military installations is lower on the asshole list than targeting civilians, including children. Note that I won't be forced into defending Israel's actions, but I reserve the right to condemn someone blowing up schoolchildren.
How much Israel targeted civilians in Lebanon has been rather hotly debated. I'd put a lot of the blame on Hezbollah for hiding their military resources in civilian areas. In fact, I'd say that the real tragedy is that Lebanon has been pulled into this thing for no real reason. Hezbollah is not its friend, though it will pretend to be.
but the fact of the matter is that we blindly aid the Isrealis as they morph into the exact same extremism that wanted to exterminate them in WW2. It's assine and must stop now.
Not going to argue with you there. But there needs to be fundamental shifts on all sides, and Israel needs to be recognized diplomatically by its neighbors if peace is to exist. That said, I don't think the bulk of Israel wants the Palestinians wiped out a la the Jews in WWII. So I'd hold off on the overused Nazi comparison here just a bit.
Politics goes in cycles. Palestine had its chance when Barak was offering a rather good deal that most of the international community agreed was a good deal. Arafat refused. Then a few years ago the car bombings started again, and Israel was driven toward a hard-line regime. The point is, Arafat could have had peace if he'd wanted it. I think the plight of the Palestinians will improve when they cease choosing terrorists (Arafat, Hamas) to lead them.
Bandwidth and server maintenance costs too, albeit not nearly as much as DVD packaging/shipping. Or does it?
Nowhere near. And if you're counting server maintenance, add the cost of the store, theft of stock (that gets passed on to the consumer too), and employee salaries, all of which cost much more for a real store.
The BIG difference is that in Sudan, our own countries aren't on the "bad guys" side.
Wait, so the "good guys" side in the Palestine conflict is the one setting off bombs in shopping malls and buses in Israel, right? Gimme a break. This one's a little tough to turn into a black-n-white kind of issue.
See, publishing is a *business*, and books don't get written without an audience of people buying them. Generally, if people are buying how-to books about something, they're at least trying to do it. And if those numbers go up, then it implies that thing is more popular.
There's also the "Good GOD, Myspace is such a shithole, no self respecting adult would WANT to go there" part of it that probably throws people.
The Myspace thing makes sense for kids. They don't have cars (to spend time with real-life friends) and they're angst ridden (thus they need somewhere to gush their little emo selves). But for well adjusted adults, I don't get the appeal.
Huh? Excuse me? Since where did 35+ become synonimous with paedophile?
It may be hard to comprehend for someone whose world revolves around a computer in a basement, but most humans are _social_ beings. Yes, I know, mind boggles. There are plenty of reasons for people, even aged 35+, to interact with other people in a real or virtual community, that _don't_ involve looking for 13 year olds to fuck. Like, you know, interacting with other 35+ people.
It didn't. It's the myspace part. It would be like a 40 year old guy wearing sunglasses and a trenchcoat to a Chuck E. Cheese. You just kind of assume.
Another blind generalization which isn't true. I sense a theme here.
It's not a generalization. The population has been cut by half. What do you not understand?
I'm not trying to defend Detroit so much as open up some god-d*mned minds
An open mind doesn't mean adhering to your opinion. My mind is open. It's waiting for counterevidence that doesn't come. But if you're expecting me to take your word for it that Detroit's a fantastic place, you better be compelling. Which you haven't been to date. In fact, your main gripe isn't that Detroit's a crappy place to live - you seem to be angry that anyone talks about it. Well, tough shit. Until it proves otherwise, Detroit's earned it's reputation.
It's a very difficult task as everyone here displays grand omniscience from reading Wikipedia and a few random online opinion pieces.
And yet you still have no evidence to counter those references? I can cite unemployment rates, crime rates, and poverty rates. How do you argue those away? And your assertion is insufficient, why are you a better reference than those I can find myself?
My 'contention' is that the city may not currently be as horrible as its inflated reputation, which is certainly the only basis from which you're making your judgements and completely prejudiced statements.
I'm not talking 'may.' If you're to refute my assertion that Detroit's not a shithole, you need proof. I've supplied statistics showing that it is in fact a shithole. Where is your proof?
All you're doing is reiterating things you've read in the newspaper, on the internet....or, for God's sake, read in Wikipedia? Get real.
The links are valid, even if Wiki's not. And so far, it's the best source in this discussion, since we're not admitting you as a primary source.
The issue I have is that if people blindly assume it is a shithole without ever having been there, it will continue to be so in their minds even if it becomes less of a shithole, and makes strides to become a better place.
So wait, are you admitting it's a shithole?
You're apparently averse to open-mindedness, or the fact that things can actually change.
Nope, I've asked you to supply evidence to counter my current opinion. I even looked up some stats to see if things changed as you claimed. I found mucho evidence to suggest they haven't changed much at all.
It's the same attitude I see here on slashdot, with so many topics it literally makes me ill.
Don't cry little emo! It'll be OK.;)
In the end, I have to blame this falsely superior, myopic attitude on these craptastic moderators who continue to mark your and others posts as somehow insightful, when they're actually narrow-minded, petty, and at times quite obtuse. They must be so tickled and amused by your wonderful witticisms like 'crap trifecta' that they can't help but add points. I know I was impressed. A+
And in return, instead of countering my points, you whine, piss, and moan. I'm likewise impressed. Like I said, prove me wrong. Until then, a shithole Dee-troit will remain.
A city, by the way, you don't actually live in, I'll point out again. Suburbs ain't the city.
1. Jon Stewart claims Crossfire is political hackery.
2. Tucker Carlson says Jon Stewart sniffed Kerry's throne.
3. Therefore Crossfire is not political hackery.
Does that make any sense?
Yes, when one adds the implicit assumption that sniffing Kerry's throne makes you a political hack, and thus your show political hackery. Carlson's point would be then that Stewart has no business making accusations of which he himself is guilty. Is that an ad hominem? Strictly, yes, but it carries with it the assumption that any attempts Stewart makes to defend himself would apply to Carlson as well, and thus carry no weight in the debate. To make an end around that, Stewart took the craven "I'm a comedian" angle.
Any way you look at it Tucker Carlson wasn't really arguing, he was just being a dick.
Wait, someone around here was talking about ad hominems, who was that...
The fact is this: it's not Jon Stewarts job to ask the hard questions. His job is to be entertaining, to provide a humorous commentary on the top stories in the news.
I still think he's playing it both ways. He really likes the fact that he's given a lot of credibility in some circles, and he used this credibility to attack Carlson (whom I'm not defending, by the way). He then responds to counterattacks by a completely lame "I'm allowed, I'm on comedy central" argument. This gives him an unlimited cop-out to any argument.
If he's going to criticize how some host handles his show, I think it's fair to allow the same from those he's questioning in the name of a fair debate. He criticizes Carlson's show, he should have to answer Carlson's reasonable criticism of bias. I don't have a problem with anything except using comedy central as a crutch.
The hosts even had the nerve to compare their show to his, and he laughed at them and told them it was on comedy central.
Yeah, but that was a completely cowardly way out. He claimed rossfire is biased. The other guy responded by saying Stewart is too. Stewart then responds that that's OK because he's on comedy central.
He wants to play it both ways. If he's just a comedian, why should I listen to him criticize the news? On the other hand, if he's a "respectable" news guy, he should bear the same responsibility for objectivity that he's criticizing the other guy for. So don't give me this "I have sock puppets leading into me" crap.
I never watched Crossfire, so I've got no horse in this race. But that sort of exchange is why I've never been able to stand Stewart's shows (going back to his MTV days). He's snide, condescending, and he doesn't want the same light shined on him that he points everywhere else. In regular society, that's called "hypocritical."
I accidentally drove through there back in '98. I count myself lucky to have gotten out alive!
My old man has a similar story from the 60s. Some things never change, eh?
There's no way I'm taking a trip to Detroit to "see what the city's like first before commenting on it". Cities don't develop reputations that bad for nothing.
Yeah, what, am I going to looked at some bombed-out crackhouses first? #1 unemployment + #1 crime + #1 poverty = stay away.
That and it's simple - when everybody's moving out and no one moves in, what else do you need to know? As for it's self appointed defendant in this thread - he doesn't live in Detroit either. Not in the city. Wonder why?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed...but that simply proves that MS did it badly, not that it couldn't be done. Realistically, I think it's a reflection that they didn't give a shit if they made money or not, as long as they competed well enough to cripple Sony, which I think they've done.
They expected to make up the difference in game sales, but that hasn't really worked out too well. This was a pretty stupid move on their part. XBOXes are NOT printers. They do not REQUIRE you to purchase supplies on a regular basis in order for it to continue to function.
I believe Sony and Nintendo both make money with that model. You may not HAVE to buy games, but when the average game has severely limited replay value, you either buy a new game or you have a doorstop that cost a few hundred dollars. I've not seen good numbers on how much money MS has gained/lost on the game business as a whole, when licensing/publishing is taken into account.
Doesn't this highlight another positive for OS? No seriously, so the lead developer is arrested/killed/in a coma. This means the project *is* not dead, someone somewhere can pick up where he/she left off. If it was closed source, and the lead developer was more than just a cog in a large corporation, who could/would pick up the slack? The source code could conceivably being floating in legal limbo until the affairs are settled. Or am I just being myopic?
I'd say that in practice, with open source, if the person responsible for development leaves the project, it often withers. In theory, someone could come along and do it, but theory is just that. Of course companies can fold for the same reason. I'd say in either case - open or closed source - if the project is big enough and has enough developers, it will keep going for better or worse. If it's small, the project can die, whether the source is open or not.
The one major difference is if a company goes bankrupt, at which the code will be part of bankruptcy proceedings for years possibly, and at that point it's a major benefit to being open source.
Now, according to their lessons, google with all their betas must be a rightout disaster, shouldn't it?
Significantly different market. Google has the cash, time, patience, and talent to instead throw 100 products at the wall and see what sticks. Because we're talking web services and not hardware, they can accept a 20% success rate, or lower, and that would be fantastic.
That said, Google would do well to invest more energy in promoting the products that look on the verge of success, like mail. Already Yahoo has come out with a product that many think is now better than gmail (though I don't), in part because google's been dragging its feet with gmail, *and* it has stagnated for over a year.
Thankfully, the safety systems of the bombs prevented a nuclear explosion, but the conventional explosions nevertheless distributed a large quantity of radioactive bomb guts over a wide area (thus the contamination problems mentioned).
I think the safety system is that everything has to be timed very precisely to actually initiate a nuclear reaction, and smacking the ground ain't good for timing.
Maybe that's what happened when NK screwed theirs up. ;)
That's insane. You mean I can call you a child molestor, specify dates and times and childrens' names and the court will accept as a defense against libel the fact that I have no idea whether it's true or not? I can't believe any legal system is that bad.
I believe what the previous poster was getting at is that there is more protection in the American legal system for people who make statements they *believed* were true, not statements they simply didn't verify not to be false. So your example would probably be found libellous in pretty much any court, unless you happen to live at 1 Neverland Ranch.
I don't know about the source. The only ones I've seen have been in stores (Best Lie, Circuit Shitty, etc). None of them look impressive
Yeah, I'm not surprised in the least! They adjust the TVs to make all the colors look ridiculously bright, but for someone (like you, perhaps) who wants a lifelike picture, it's not good. They do look better when you set them up at home though, believe me!
which I'm apparently the only one that can hear it (which is suprising due to the number of concerts I've been to before I started using earplugs).
No, I know exactly what you mean. With the volume at an ambient level I can't hear it anymore, though. Can you not hear that sound from CRTs? I'm almost 30, so I'm not supposed to be able to hear that sound anymore. I can hear it from any non-LCD monitor, so that makes it a non-factor in the plasma vs. CRT debate, for me anyway.
I rarely watch TV other than South Park, Family Guy, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, It's Always Sunny in Philedalphia, and Stargate. When I watch tv or movies, I'm usually working on my computer or practicing my guitar and am not focusing on the TV. The few times I do, it's usually a DVD on my 21" CRT second head.
Yeah, those aren't the sorts of things that improve much with high-def. Part of the reason I got mine is that I no longer have the ability to see movies in theaters, so having the plasma is nice for that.
Same here. I've looked at many lcd and plasma TVs, but none of them look good enough to justify their cost. I'd rather stick with a CRT for now. Plus the CRT I have (non-HD) doesn't have that annoying high pitch coming from it.
My first question would be what the source was? Because if the source was non-HD, then certainly no advantage will be evident. My second question is where you checked them out. Usually, in the stores, either the sales staff doesn't know how to set the picture, or they set it on "nuclear" to make it pop. This evidently impresses a lot of people, but it really makes it look like crap. I got mine home and was really disappointed that it looked terrible, but within 5 minutes of changing the ridiculous default settings it looked fantastic.
I'd add that CRT TVs of the same screen size as your typical plasmas (42"-50") are HUUUUUGE. Definitely not an option for those living in smaller houses/apartments.
As for the high pitch, I can hear when any plasma/CRT monitor is on in a room (with no signal, obviously). Period. I haven't noticed it as being any worse with my plasma.
As for whether it's worth it...certainly that's up to you, as they are more expensive. For me, it's hard to deal with regular definition TV having had high-def. Especially for movies and sports. For regular TV like news and such, all you see is scars, moles, wrinkles and the like in higher resolution...yuk!
What you need to ask yourself is this: why is killing someone using a 22 million dollar GPS guilded missle any different that using 22 dollar IED strapped to someone chest? I really want to understand your rationale here.
I didn't. I said the Palestinians weren't "good guys," and that the situation over there doesn't have a protagonist. I never said the Israelis were saints. That said, if I were to rank things, I'd say that targeting military installations is lower on the asshole list than targeting civilians, including children. Note that I won't be forced into defending Israel's actions, but I reserve the right to condemn someone blowing up schoolchildren.
How much Israel targeted civilians in Lebanon has been rather hotly debated. I'd put a lot of the blame on Hezbollah for hiding their military resources in civilian areas. In fact, I'd say that the real tragedy is that Lebanon has been pulled into this thing for no real reason. Hezbollah is not its friend, though it will pretend to be.
but the fact of the matter is that we blindly aid the Isrealis as they morph into the exact same extremism that wanted to exterminate them in WW2. It's assine and must stop now.
Not going to argue with you there. But there needs to be fundamental shifts on all sides, and Israel needs to be recognized diplomatically by its neighbors if peace is to exist. That said, I don't think the bulk of Israel wants the Palestinians wiped out a la the Jews in WWII. So I'd hold off on the overused Nazi comparison here just a bit.
Politics goes in cycles. Palestine had its chance when Barak was offering a rather good deal that most of the international community agreed was a good deal. Arafat refused. Then a few years ago the car bombings started again, and Israel was driven toward a hard-line regime. The point is, Arafat could have had peace if he'd wanted it. I think the plight of the Palestinians will improve when they cease choosing terrorists (Arafat, Hamas) to lead them.
Bandwidth and server maintenance costs too, albeit not nearly as much as DVD packaging/shipping. Or does it?
Nowhere near. And if you're counting server maintenance, add the cost of the store, theft of stock (that gets passed on to the consumer too), and employee salaries, all of which cost much more for a real store.
The BIG difference is that in Sudan, our own countries aren't on the "bad guys" side.
Wait, so the "good guys" side in the Palestine conflict is the one setting off bombs in shopping malls and buses in Israel, right? Gimme a break. This one's a little tough to turn into a black-n-white kind of issue.
Can they be held liable since they did not directly control what users uploaded?
Yep. Check out "contributory infringement." Doesn't mean they will, but the central index of content (a la Napster) doesn't help.
See, publishing is a *business*, and books don't get written without an audience of people buying them. Generally, if people are buying how-to books about something, they're at least trying to do it. And if those numbers go up, then it implies that thing is more popular.
...I think we're all dumber for having read that.
Nobody's dictating. But if you do weird shit, people will treat you weird.
There's also the "Good GOD, Myspace is such a shithole, no self respecting adult would WANT to go there" part of it that probably throws people.
The Myspace thing makes sense for kids. They don't have cars (to spend time with real-life friends) and they're angst ridden (thus they need somewhere to gush their little emo selves). But for well adjusted adults, I don't get the appeal.
Its funny how every day the lines between google and microsoft blur. If microsoft tried this an unholy hell would be released..
If MS were doing this, they'd already be talking about how they'll use this to kill Google.
Huh? Excuse me? Since where did 35+ become synonimous with paedophile?
It may be hard to comprehend for someone whose world revolves around a computer in a basement, but most humans are _social_ beings. Yes, I know, mind boggles. There are plenty of reasons for people, even aged 35+, to interact with other people in a real or virtual community, that _don't_ involve looking for 13 year olds to fuck. Like, you know, interacting with other 35+ people.
It didn't. It's the myspace part. It would be like a 40 year old guy wearing sunglasses and a trenchcoat to a Chuck E. Cheese. You just kind of assume.
Another blind generalization which isn't true. I sense a theme here.
It's not a generalization. The population has been cut by half. What do you not understand?
I'm not trying to defend Detroit so much as open up some god-d*mned minds
An open mind doesn't mean adhering to your opinion. My mind is open. It's waiting for counterevidence that doesn't come. But if you're expecting me to take your word for it that Detroit's a fantastic place, you better be compelling. Which you haven't been to date. In fact, your main gripe isn't that Detroit's a crappy place to live - you seem to be angry that anyone talks about it. Well, tough shit. Until it proves otherwise, Detroit's earned it's reputation.
It's a very difficult task as everyone here displays grand omniscience from reading Wikipedia and a few random online opinion pieces.
And yet you still have no evidence to counter those references? I can cite unemployment rates, crime rates, and poverty rates. How do you argue those away? And your assertion is insufficient, why are you a better reference than those I can find myself?
My 'contention' is that the city may not currently be as horrible as its inflated reputation, which is certainly the only basis from which you're making your judgements and completely prejudiced statements.
I'm not talking 'may.' If you're to refute my assertion that Detroit's not a shithole, you need proof. I've supplied statistics showing that it is in fact a shithole. Where is your proof?
All you're doing is reiterating things you've read in the newspaper, on the internet....or, for God's sake, read in Wikipedia? Get real.
The links are valid, even if Wiki's not. And so far, it's the best source in this discussion, since we're not admitting you as a primary source.
The issue I have is that if people blindly assume it is a shithole without ever having been there, it will continue to be so in their minds even if it becomes less of a shithole, and makes strides to become a better place.
So wait, are you admitting it's a shithole?
You're apparently averse to open-mindedness, or the fact that things can actually change.
Nope, I've asked you to supply evidence to counter my current opinion. I even looked up some stats to see if things changed as you claimed. I found mucho evidence to suggest they haven't changed much at all.
It's the same attitude I see here on slashdot, with so many topics it literally makes me ill.
Don't cry little emo! It'll be OK. ;)
In the end, I have to blame this falsely superior, myopic attitude on these craptastic moderators who continue to mark your and others posts as somehow insightful, when they're actually narrow-minded, petty, and at times quite obtuse. They must be so tickled and amused by your wonderful witticisms like 'crap trifecta' that they can't help but add points. I know I was impressed. A+
And in return, instead of countering my points, you whine, piss, and moan. I'm likewise impressed. Like I said, prove me wrong. Until then, a shithole Dee-troit will remain.
A city, by the way, you don't actually live in, I'll point out again. Suburbs ain't the city.
1. Jon Stewart claims Crossfire is political hackery. 2. Tucker Carlson says Jon Stewart sniffed Kerry's throne. 3. Therefore Crossfire is not political hackery. Does that make any sense?
Yes, when one adds the implicit assumption that sniffing Kerry's throne makes you a political hack, and thus your show political hackery. Carlson's point would be then that Stewart has no business making accusations of which he himself is guilty. Is that an ad hominem? Strictly, yes, but it carries with it the assumption that any attempts Stewart makes to defend himself would apply to Carlson as well, and thus carry no weight in the debate. To make an end around that, Stewart took the craven "I'm a comedian" angle.
Any way you look at it Tucker Carlson wasn't really arguing, he was just being a dick.
Wait, someone around here was talking about ad hominems, who was that...
The fact is this: it's not Jon Stewarts job to ask the hard questions. His job is to be entertaining, to provide a humorous commentary on the top stories in the news.
I still think he's playing it both ways. He really likes the fact that he's given a lot of credibility in some circles, and he used this credibility to attack Carlson (whom I'm not defending, by the way). He then responds to counterattacks by a completely lame "I'm allowed, I'm on comedy central" argument. This gives him an unlimited cop-out to any argument.
If he's going to criticize how some host handles his show, I think it's fair to allow the same from those he's questioning in the name of a fair debate. He criticizes Carlson's show, he should have to answer Carlson's reasonable criticism of bias. I don't have a problem with anything except using comedy central as a crutch.
The hosts even had the nerve to compare their show to his, and he laughed at them and told them it was on comedy central.
Yeah, but that was a completely cowardly way out. He claimed rossfire is biased. The other guy responded by saying Stewart is too. Stewart then responds that that's OK because he's on comedy central.
He wants to play it both ways. If he's just a comedian, why should I listen to him criticize the news? On the other hand, if he's a "respectable" news guy, he should bear the same responsibility for objectivity that he's criticizing the other guy for. So don't give me this "I have sock puppets leading into me" crap.
I never watched Crossfire, so I've got no horse in this race. But that sort of exchange is why I've never been able to stand Stewart's shows (going back to his MTV days). He's snide, condescending, and he doesn't want the same light shined on him that he points everywhere else. In regular society, that's called "hypocritical."
Hey, he's got no excuse, real estate down there is practically free.
I accidentally drove through there back in '98. I count myself lucky to have gotten out alive!
My old man has a similar story from the 60s. Some things never change, eh?
There's no way I'm taking a trip to Detroit to "see what the city's like first before commenting on it". Cities don't develop reputations that bad for nothing.
Yeah, what, am I going to looked at some bombed-out crackhouses first? #1 unemployment + #1 crime + #1 poverty = stay away.
That and it's simple - when everybody's moving out and no one moves in, what else do you need to know? As for it's self appointed defendant in this thread - he doesn't live in Detroit either. Not in the city. Wonder why?