A quick google search for "ruby ide" found: FREE http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?HomePag e
http://homepage2.nifty.com/sakazuki/rde_e.html
NOT-FREE http://www.ruby-ide.com/
There are probably many others that support multiple languages including ruby. For example:
http://www.zeusedit.com/ruby.html...
IMHO, nothing beats Source Insight (too bad it only runs in Windows tho). My head will explode if Source Insight ever comes out for Linux and supports vi/Vim keybindings. Language bindings files makes it able to support any language. And yes, I've used Multi-Edit and Visual SlickEdit on a few project. Also tried "Understand for C++" which is nice.
A quick google search for "ruby ide" found:
FREE
http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?HomePag e
http://homepage2.nifty.com/sakazuki/rde_e.html
NOT-FREE
http://www.ruby-ide.com/
There are probably many others that support multiple languages including ruby. For example:
http://www.zeusedit.com/ruby.html...
IMHO, nothing beats Source Insight (too bad it only runs in Windows tho). My head will explode if Source Insight ever comes out for Linux and supports vi/Vim keybindings. Language bindings files makes it able to support any language. And yes, I've used Multi-Edit and Visual SlickEdit on a few project. Also tried "Understand for C++" which is nice.
Imagine....thousands of authors being busted for plagiarism because of Amazon's search feature.
What a nightmare it must be for those that built up lucrative careers and solid reputations on the backs of others--they're hoping they can hide behind the lawyers.
I think what the guy was suggesting was that if GPG used a more corporate-friendly license like BSD, MIT, etc. that it would have much more wide-spread adoption. Sure, there'd be a few leeches feeding off of that but it would be worth it if it means 25% of computer users have GPG rather than 0.1% of users.
Apache uses a BSD-style license and doesn't seem to have suffered much as a result.
Which do you prefer when it comes to GPG? Smaller marketshare and fewer leeches? Or much larger marketshare and more leeches?
Also keep in mind that Linux didn't need BSD-style license to get popular so his point shouldn't be assumed true for all software.
Is Linux a decent OS for server-side gaming? IMHO, yes and we see a lot more Linux servers hosting games like Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and others.
Is Linux a decent OS for client-side gaming? It depends on the type of game and what your alternatives are.
On the same hardware, why should I lose 1/2 of my framerate (FPS) just to use a different OS than Windows? As long as the game doesn't crash while I play it, then I could care less--although the security issues are of a concern on multiplayer games.
Games like Half-life 2 will probably be much better when played on Windows until Linux finds something better than XFree86 for gaming.
Anyhow, we have only 2 choices.
1. H-1B employment but no outsourcing.
2. Outsourcing but no H-1B employment.
The second choice is best and will result in the long-term gain of jobs for Americans.
Hmmm...seems very obvious to me that if those were the only choices, we'd be better off with #1 rather than #2.
With the 2nd choice, we lose all the income taxes we'd collect if the jobs were located in the USA. And we'd also lose out on all the purchasing/consumption that would take place here by the programmers located in the USA. How much does this add up to? BILLIONS PER YEAR! Has it occurred to anyone that California is in deep shit partly as a result of all the high-paying tech jobs formerly in CA being shipped overseas?!?
As you know, budgets eventually need to get balanced so we'll need to cut government spending to offset the declining revenues (taxes). This means firing govt. workers and cutting back on programs like education, scholarships, medicare and social security. (in other words: make it too expensive to get educated, keep only the rich healthy, and screw over Americans who worked hard and diligently paid into social security every paycheck for dozens of years)
So the laid-off techies and govt workers will have to fight over who gets to flip burgers. But it isn't about techies and govt workers...it will be about ANY job that can be offshored (like doctors who read x-rays overseas and send back diagnosis via internet).
When the purchasing power of the population declines in the USA while growing rapidly in places like India, why would executives and marketing folks be needed here at current levels? Many will need to get their asses out to where the customers are located. Keep in mind that we're not talking about low-paying jobs--we're offshoring six-figure jobs and will continue to do so.
In the end, some of you will get your revenge because you'll be managers at the burger joints when the execs and marketing folks start to get laid off. The smart execs will retire to avoid the bullshit & humiliation but the others who've spent their income on flashy cars and clothes will be sending in their resumes to flip burgers under your supervision.
Toyota and Honda are excellent examples; they have built huge manufacturing and design facilities in the USA.
You were right when you said, "Common sense can be deceptive"--among other things, automobiles weigh more and take up more space than software so consequently, autos cost a lot more to ship across the ocean than transmitting software over the internet.
in order to get cross platform support with the Borland compiler... with all the frills anyways... you would have to use the borland libraries... this is something I can imagine most opensource projects would shy away from.
Couple questions:
1. Why be limited to using the Borland compiler within Borland C++ BuilderX? Why not use the now tightly integrated GCC or Intel C++ compiler within Borland C++ BuilderX IDE? By the looks of the demo, it looks like even the various debuggers work the same way within this IDE.
2. Do people really "have to" use Borland libraries for cross-platform projects? Why can't they simply use something like wxWindows or any other cross-platform library supported by the compiler of choice?
IMHO, a tool giving developers more choices will attract rather than push away developers. The freedom to CHOOSE the development OS, CHOOSE the target OS, CHOOSE the specific compiler & debuggers,CHOOSE the cross-platform libraries, etc.
1.
C++BuilderX development environment runs on Windows, Linux, and Solaris
2.Tight integration between C++BuilderX and multiple industry leading C and C++ compilers -- Borland C++ for Windows, Intel 32-bit compilers for Windows and Linux, Microsoft Visual C++ 7.1,
Sun Forte C++, Metrowerks C++ and the GNU C++ Compiler Collection -- keeps you in control of your technology decisions.
3. C++BuilderX is designed to simplify the concurrent management of source code through tight integration with Borland(R) StarTeam,(R) an automated configuration and change management system, as well as Concurrent Versions System (CVS), Rational(R) ClearCase,(R) and Microsoft(R) Visual SourceSafe.(R)
You haven't described censorship, you described propaganda.
That is correct Captain Obvious, hence the subject of the post and other statements in my post that make this clear to anyone who understands English. In other news, water was discovered to be wet.
You're pretty good at it[propaganda], since you engage in a fair amount of it in your so-called explanation.
I challenge you to cite specific examples from my original post to support your accusation.
Personally, the examples I would have given would be No Blood for Oil, Haliburton is behind the war, Bush=Hitler and other purely propagandistic statements that use trigger-words to evoke visceral emotional reactions.
I'm not familiar with ANY major media organization presenting any of your examples as fact. And if they did, they should be sued for slander & libel unless they can proove it. Just because Haliburton reportedly continues to pay VP Cheney around $160K/year and just because Halliburton received $1.7 billion in Iraq reconstruction contracts doesn't mean they are behind the war even if part of those contracts were NO-BID (no other companies allowed to bid). I propose that a full and open bipartison investigation regarding this matter take place immediately so that you wackos and other opposing nations can clearly see we've done nothing wrong.
And as far as I know, Hitler died years ago so it is IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to be Hitler!!! You conspiracy theorists need to take a break and get a clue.
But if you want to fixate on Sean Hannity calling Cynthia McKinney a socialist idiot,
I've never even heard of Cyntia McKinney, what the hell are you talking about? If you continue to imagine others saying/posting things that obviously never actually happened, perhaps professional counseling is in order.
Simply put, people understand pictures so presenting a link to a page showing a picture of both Hannity and Colmes was the EASIEST way to show a very effective tactic used for winning the public to your point of view. For the purposes of illustrating my point, it doesn't matter what Hannity's views are as long as he's the one in alignment with Fox's views and the ugly/creepy one is in opposition to Fox's views.
---
Message to politicians: Democrats, Independents and Republicans Unite Now! Fight media bias even when they support your own views and fight corporate corruption! Support campaign finance reform and tax reform so that offshore havens can't be used by unpatriotic companies to shift the tax burden to other hard-working Americans. Fight terrorism & unemployment by spending more money to secure our shipping ports NOW! Bring terrorists like Bin Laden to justice before attacking any other countries based on unconfirmed assumptions--our job is to protect America, not to help Bin Laden in his recruiting efforts! Disable well-known threats like N. Korea now with international support because they've ADMITTED to building nuclear capability and is attempting to blackmail America into paying them! Balance our budget!!! Most importantly, please stop sacrificing America's long-term security for personal short-term gain. Do these instead of dividing us with religion, abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action and other issues frequently used as diversions.
All the major media surveys for the past 20 years have shown that 80 to 90 percent of the mainstream media consistently vote for Democrats."
COMMON SENSE DISAGREES WITH AIM.ORG:
You can tell the media is biased based by actually measuring airtime they give to views/opinions/people categorized as conservative, centrist and liberal. There is no better method than this if you do your own measuring instead of relying on others unlike surveys which can easily be distorted (i.e. survey only well-known liberals while avoiding conservatives so we can say that the media are mostly Democrats or survey the idealistic journalists fresh out of college instead of the editors in charge).
Don't take their word for it, do your own measuring of airtime and see for yourself.
Gee, the media keeps telling us they are biased left while giving 400% more airtime to conservative views & guests. Do they think we're retarded?
Whether you are left or right, bias and distorted reporting hurts America. Fight fictional news even if it promotes your own views--if your views are sound, they won't need biased reporting as a crutch.
But if your views are not sound, they'll need to use biased reporting, ugly weirdos representing opposing views on TV, decent-looking people representing your views on TV and carefully worded survey/polling questions to make the masses think more people agree with you than them (and the few that disagree with you are ugly/weird/wimpy).
Check out the bio pictures on this page and ask yourself who you'd hire to represent your views and who you'd hire to represent your oppositions views. The confident jock or the wimpy/creepy Frankenstein mutant?
Whether you are left or right, media bias and distorted reporting hurts America.
Since we repeatedly keep hearing from the media that the media has liberal bias, my bullshit detector won't stop sounding the alarm for me to wear rubber boots.
If you want to know if the media is really biased, find out which opinions/views/guests get the most airtime and you can quantifiably determine actual bias.
For example, make a list of current news anchors & TV personalities that have their own UNSHARED TV news/editorial shows and see if there are actually more liberals vs conservatives. Seriously, count them and see what you get.
If the media were indeed biased left, why would they keep telling us they are biased left while giving conservative think tanks over 400% more airtime than progressives? You'd have to be a moron to fall for that one and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you.
Actions speak louder than words--this is precisely why smart citizens look at the actions of politicians rather than their highly agreeable platitudes to see where they actually stand on issues. The same goes with media bias--see which views/people they give more coverage to in order to determine their bias.
But again, don't take my word for it (or the media's) about bias--do your own thinking and examine factual evidence from a variety of sources rather than mere opinions to form your own conclusions. Good luck.
1. who sponsored or conducted the poll? 2. what were the exact wording of the questions? 3. how were the people polled selected and what are the demographics? 4. how many people were polled? 5. how many answers were rejected or discarded?
There's more but this covers the basics we should to know about each poll before you accept the results as relevant.
We all know that censorship doesn't work as well as it used to in the past.
The best strategies are to debunk, ridicule and associate valid stories/opinions with undesirable words/people like "communists", "lefties", "conspiracy theorists", etc.
For example, when interviewing "people off the street" make sure you have only the wackos presenting opposing views while you pick out "decent-looking, well-dressed" people to present your own views. And if there aren't enough people who share your views, hire some people off the street or go with local actors/models if your budget allows. Even if both views get equal airtime, the opposing views will be associated with ugly weirdos and who the hell wants to share the same views as them even if they're right?
A similar strategy is to hire strong-looking & charismatic tv/news personalities that support your own views while hiring ugly-assed & uncharasmatic "wimps" to offer very pitiful opposition. I'm sure you can find a decent example of this tactic by watching TV.
As you can see, your previously unpopular views can be easily associated with "winners" and opposing views are associated with "whiners, losers, traitors, communists, etc." without resorting to outright censorship.
To sum it up: associate undesirable words/concepts/people to opposition and associate desirable words/concepts/people to your own views and don't let the pesky facts or Truth get in the way because perception is usually more important in manipulating the public.
This of course goes hand-in-hand with manipulating opinion polls and surveys by carefully crafting questions in ways that lead people to pick desired answers and then hiding the exact original wording of these questions when presenting the results to the public.
Who needs censorship when these tactics work so well?
If you read the list of underreported stories during Clinton's administration, you'll see that Project Censored is not biased.
And for those of you who haven't taken the time to study government or history, "liberal" is not a bunch of welfare-requesting hippies any more than "conservative" is not equal to corporate corruption (Enron, et. al.)
Look past the biased bullshit dished out by both the left and the right and learn to think for yourselves.
"How do you know?" and "Where did you get your info?" are among your best friends.
ps
I happen to think the media was extremely biased against Newt Gingrich in years past but now the exact opposite is happening: the media is overrun with neo-conservatives who try to spin any criticism of our government (one of the most cherished American freedoms) into "liberal bias" or "treason". Since when is opposition to corporate corruption or support for campaign finance reform or simply stating FACTS considered "liberal" or "treason"?
Depends entirely on what you mean by "WRONG things".
Freedom to commit rape, murder, theft, etc. isn't something I'd want anyone to have.
The victoms who endure rape or theft of their belongings probably won't feel that they've gained more "freedom" if the government condones such "WRONG things".
The best way to protect our privacy is to stop doing things that gives our government or entities like RIAA arguably "justifiable" reasons to strip away our privacy rights.
Doing illegal things lead to all of us paying the penalty by losing our rights. The more responsible we behave, the more rights we'll have. Pretty simple stuff.
Secondly, apparently you don't know much about marketing, since you can't sell products overseas without having Americans overseas to sell them.
Apparently, you believe marketing is "high-tech work" or "development of critical products like anti-virus"--my post had nothing to do with marketing so your statement seems a bit random to me.:)
Correct me if I'm wrong but we currently don't have any restrictions on critical/pervasive products such as anti-virus or anti-trojan software being developed offshore, right?
Furthermore, I heard recently on CNN that the only restriction on defense weapons is that 50% be developed by US companies. Only 50%!!!
IMHO, one of the primary reasons USA is so strong in defense is because all the brains from overseas came to our country to profit from their work and flee from religious persecution. Now we're shipping opportunities overseas and the judge in Alabama is giving people the impression that Christianity is favored over all other religions here. Smooth move (imagine the next Einstein staying overseas and deveoping the next great weapon for some other country instead of us).
What will happen to our national security when we offshore 90%+ of all of our high-tech jobs and what will happen to the national security in countries (like India & China) where most of the high-tech jobs will be based?
And workers of US companies overseas don't have to pay taxes on the first $75,000 so think of all the lost taxes (billions in income taxes alone) that our government loses--not to mention that those workers if based in the US would have spent their earnings here.
Does anyone in Washington give a damn about our future or is it all about returning favors to those who contribute to campaigns while sacrificing our government budgets and national security?
Isn't it retarded to offshore development of critical products like anti-virus software to other countries? If this story about China attacking Taiwan (which I thought was part of China) is true, then we should stop all security-related software from being offshored--or simply requiring the use of only those developed 100% by companies AND individuals with security clearances.
I don't condone copyright violations but I think people should be able to protect their PC's data from unauthorized intrusions from RIAA and associated companies (or anyone else for that matter).
If you're concerned about others violating your privacy or intruding via your favorite P2P program, check this out:
If you run Windows only, check out PeerGuardian. Be warned that the application hogs a lot of CPU.
And please keep in mind that music and software piracy will only give companies like RIAA an excuse to limit our freedoms. Stop stealing.
---
Did you know that Halliburton (who reportedly still pays VP Cheney around $160,000 in deferred compensation) will gain more than $1.7 billion from Iraq's reconstruction with a sizable portion of that in NO-BID contracts where other companies didn't even get a chance to bid?
Did you know Halliburton has sizable litigation against it for asbestos-related injuries and could benefit from worker's compensation reform which is coincidentally being promoted by the Bush/Cheney administration in the name of economic recovery?
Get informed and understand the smart--not public & seemingly irrational--reasons behind political decisions so that you too can profit from the real genius of politicians. Then donate your profits gained by this in your investment decisions to organizations that push for campaign finance reform instead of bitching about politicians in general or the right-wing or the left-wing. How can you lose if campaign finance reform causes politicians to represent the vast majority of Americans rather than the few special interests who contribute to campaigns?:)
If Burst.com actually has software patents on the technology Microsoft allegedly stole from them, isn't this case an example of how software patents can help the little guy faced with huge companies stealing their inventions?
Sorry, I didn't read the article so forgive me if this scenario doesn't exactly fit. But I thought it would be worthwhile bringing up given the recent surge in protests against software patents.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops. Forgot to preview.
g e
...
A quick google search for "ruby ide" found:
FREE http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?HomePa
http://homepage2.nifty.com/sakazuki/rde_e.html
NOT-FREE
http://www.ruby-ide.com/
There are probably many others that support multiple languages including ruby. For example:
http://www.zeusedit.com/ruby.html
IMHO, nothing beats Source Insight (too bad it only runs in Windows tho). My head will explode if Source Insight ever comes out for Linux and supports vi/Vim keybindings. Language bindings files makes it able to support any language. And yes, I've used Multi-Edit and Visual SlickEdit on a few project. Also tried "Understand for C++" which is nice.
A quick google search for "ruby ide" found: FREE http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?HomePag e
http://homepage2.nifty.com/sakazuki/rde_e.html
NOT-FREE
http://www.ruby-ide.com/
There are probably many others that support multiple languages including ruby. For example:
http://www.zeusedit.com/ruby.html ...
IMHO, nothing beats Source Insight (too bad it only runs in Windows tho). My head will explode if Source Insight ever comes out for Linux and supports vi/Vim keybindings. Language bindings files makes it able to support any language. And yes, I've used Multi-Edit and Visual SlickEdit on a few project. Also tried "Understand for C++" which is nice.
Imagine....thousands of authors being busted for plagiarism because of Amazon's search feature.
What a nightmare it must be for those that built up lucrative careers and solid reputations on the backs of others--they're hoping they can hide behind the lawyers.
I think what the guy was suggesting was that if GPG used a more corporate-friendly license like BSD, MIT, etc. that it would have much more wide-spread adoption. Sure, there'd be a few leeches feeding off of that but it would be worth it if it means 25% of computer users have GPG rather than 0.1% of users.
Apache uses a BSD-style license and doesn't seem to have suffered much as a result.
Which do you prefer when it comes to GPG? Smaller marketshare and fewer leeches? Or much larger marketshare and more leeches?
Also keep in mind that Linux didn't need BSD-style license to get popular so his point shouldn't be assumed true for all software.
Is Linux a decent OS for server-side gaming? IMHO, yes and we see a lot more Linux servers hosting games like Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and others.
Is Linux a decent OS for client-side gaming? It depends on the type of game and what your alternatives are.
On the same hardware, why should I lose 1/2 of my framerate (FPS) just to use a different OS than Windows? As long as the game doesn't crash while I play it, then I could care less--although the security issues are of a concern on multiplayer games.
Games like Half-life 2 will probably be much better when played on Windows until Linux finds something better than XFree86 for gaming.
1. H-1B employment but no outsourcing.
2. Outsourcing but no H-1B employment.
The second choice is best and will result in the long-term gain of jobs for Americans.
Hmmm...seems very obvious to me that if those were the only choices, we'd be better off with #1 rather than #2.
With the 2nd choice, we lose all the income taxes we'd collect if the jobs were located in the USA. And we'd also lose out on all the purchasing/consumption that would take place here by the programmers located in the USA. How much does this add up to? BILLIONS PER YEAR! Has it occurred to anyone that California is in deep shit partly as a result of all the high-paying tech jobs formerly in CA being shipped overseas?!?
As you know, budgets eventually need to get balanced so we'll need to cut government spending to offset the declining revenues (taxes). This means firing govt. workers and cutting back on programs like education, scholarships, medicare and social security. (in other words: make it too expensive to get educated, keep only the rich healthy, and screw over Americans who worked hard and diligently paid into social security every paycheck for dozens of years)
So the laid-off techies and govt workers will have to fight over who gets to flip burgers. But it isn't about techies and govt workers...it will be about ANY job that can be offshored (like doctors who read x-rays overseas and send back diagnosis via internet).
When the purchasing power of the population declines in the USA while growing rapidly in places like India, why would executives and marketing folks be needed here at current levels? Many will need to get their asses out to where the customers are located. Keep in mind that we're not talking about low-paying jobs--we're offshoring six-figure jobs and will continue to do so.
In the end, some of you will get your revenge because you'll be managers at the burger joints when the execs and marketing folks start to get laid off. The smart execs will retire to avoid the bullshit & humiliation but the others who've spent their income on flashy cars and clothes will be sending in their resumes to flip burgers under your supervision.
Toyota and Honda are excellent examples; they have built huge manufacturing and design facilities in the USA.
You were right when you said, "Common sense can be deceptive"--among other things, automobiles weigh more and take up more space than software so consequently, autos cost a lot more to ship across the ocean than transmitting software over the internet.
Why would an IDE maker like Borland choose Java Swing instead of using Eclipse?
Seems like a silly move IMHO.
Couple questions:
1. Why be limited to using the Borland compiler within Borland C++ BuilderX? Why not use the now tightly integrated GCC or Intel C++ compiler within Borland C++ BuilderX IDE? By the looks of the demo, it looks like even the various debuggers work the same way within this IDE.
2. Do people really "have to" use Borland libraries for cross-platform projects? Why can't they simply use something like wxWindows or any other cross-platform library supported by the compiler of choice?
IMHO, a tool giving developers more choices will attract rather than push away developers. The freedom to CHOOSE the development OS, CHOOSE the target OS, CHOOSE the specific compiler & debuggers,CHOOSE the cross-platform libraries, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this due to including every user of MS Office because it includes the embedded VBA scripting language?
1. C++BuilderX development environment runs on Windows, Linux, and Solaris
2. Tight integration between C++BuilderX and multiple industry leading C and C++ compilers -- Borland C++ for Windows, Intel 32-bit compilers for Windows and Linux, Microsoft Visual C++ 7.1, Sun Forte C++, Metrowerks C++ and the GNU C++ Compiler Collection -- keeps you in control of your technology decisions.
3. C++BuilderX is designed to simplify the concurrent management of source code through tight integration with Borland(R) StarTeam,(R) an automated configuration and change management system, as well as Concurrent Versions System (CVS), Rational(R) ClearCase,(R) and Microsoft(R) Visual SourceSafe.(R)
That is correct Captain Obvious, hence the subject of the post and other statements in my post that make this clear to anyone who understands English. In other news, water was discovered to be wet.
You're pretty good at it[propaganda], since you engage in a fair amount of it in your so-called explanation.
I challenge you to cite specific examples from my original post to support your accusation.
Personally, the examples I would have given would be No Blood for Oil, Haliburton is behind the war, Bush=Hitler and other purely propagandistic statements that use trigger-words to evoke visceral emotional reactions.
I'm not familiar with ANY major media organization presenting any of your examples as fact. And if they did, they should be sued for slander & libel unless they can proove it. Just because Haliburton reportedly continues to pay VP Cheney around $160K/year and just because Halliburton received $1.7 billion in Iraq reconstruction contracts doesn't mean they are behind the war even if part of those contracts were NO-BID (no other companies allowed to bid). I propose that a full and open bipartison investigation regarding this matter take place immediately so that you wackos and other opposing nations can clearly see we've done nothing wrong.
And as far as I know, Hitler died years ago so it is IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to be Hitler!!! You conspiracy theorists need to take a break and get a clue.
But if you want to fixate on Sean Hannity calling Cynthia McKinney a socialist idiot,
I've never even heard of Cyntia McKinney, what the hell are you talking about? If you continue to imagine others saying/posting things that obviously never actually happened, perhaps professional counseling is in order.
Simply put, people understand pictures so presenting a link to a page showing a picture of both Hannity and Colmes was the EASIEST way to show a very effective tactic used for winning the public to your point of view. For the purposes of illustrating my point, it doesn't matter what Hannity's views are as long as he's the one in alignment with Fox's views and the ugly/creepy one is in opposition to Fox's views.
---
Message to politicians: Democrats, Independents and Republicans Unite Now! Fight media bias even when they support your own views and fight corporate corruption! Support campaign finance reform and tax reform so that offshore havens can't be used by unpatriotic companies to shift the tax burden to other hard-working Americans. Fight terrorism & unemployment by spending more money to secure our shipping ports NOW! Bring terrorists like Bin Laden to justice before attacking any other countries based on unconfirmed assumptions--our job is to protect America, not to help Bin Laden in his recruiting efforts! Disable well-known threats like N. Korea now with international support because they've ADMITTED to building nuclear capability and is attempting to blackmail America into paying them! Balance our budget!!! Most importantly, please stop sacrificing America's long-term security for personal short-term gain. Do these instead of dividing us with religion, abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action and other issues frequently used as diversions.
"How do you know the media are biased?
All the major media surveys for the past 20 years have shown that 80 to 90 percent of the mainstream media consistently vote for Democrats."
COMMON SENSE DISAGREES WITH AIM.ORG:
You can tell the media is biased based by actually measuring airtime they give to views/opinions/people categorized as conservative, centrist and liberal. There is no better method than this if you do your own measuring instead of relying on others unlike surveys which can easily be distorted (i.e. survey only well-known liberals while avoiding conservatives so we can say that the media are mostly Democrats or survey the idealistic journalists fresh out of college instead of the editors in charge).
As stated in an earlier post, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) have interesting reports like
Media Citations of Think Tanks in 2002:
- conservatives received 47%
- centrists received 41%
- progressives received 11%
Don't take their word for it, do your own measuring of airtime and see for yourself.
Gee, the media keeps telling us they are biased left while giving 400% more airtime to conservative views & guests. Do they think we're retarded?
Whether you are left or right, bias and distorted reporting hurts America. Fight fictional news even if it promotes your own views--if your views are sound, they won't need biased reporting as a crutch.
But if your views are not sound, they'll need to use biased reporting, ugly weirdos representing opposing views on TV, decent-looking people representing your views on TV and carefully worded survey/polling questions to make the masses think more people agree with you than them (and the few that disagree with you are ugly/weird/wimpy).
Check out the bio pictures on this page and ask yourself who you'd hire to represent your views and who you'd hire to represent your oppositions views. The confident jock or the wimpy/creepy Frankenstein mutant?
Since we repeatedly keep hearing from the media that the media has liberal bias, my bullshit detector won't stop sounding the alarm for me to wear rubber boots.
If you want to know if the media is really biased, find out which opinions/views/guests get the most airtime and you can quantifiably determine actual bias.
For example, make a list of current news anchors & TV personalities that have their own UNSHARED TV news/editorial shows and see if there are actually more liberals vs conservatives. Seriously, count them and see what you get.
Some sites like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) have interesting reports like
Media Citations of Think Tanks in 2002:
- conservatives received 47%
- centrists received 41%
- progressives received 11%
If the media were indeed biased left, why would they keep telling us they are biased left while giving conservative think tanks over 400% more airtime than progressives? You'd have to be a moron to fall for that one and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you.
Actions speak louder than words--this is precisely why smart citizens look at the actions of politicians rather than their highly agreeable platitudes to see where they actually stand on issues. The same goes with media bias--see which views/people they give more coverage to in order to determine their bias.
But again, don't take my word for it (or the media's) about bias--do your own thinking and examine factual evidence from a variety of sources rather than mere opinions to form your own conclusions. Good luck.
Whenever I hear of "poll", I ask these questions:
1. who sponsored or conducted the poll?
2. what were the exact wording of the questions?
3. how were the people polled selected and what are the demographics?
4. how many people were polled?
5. how many answers were rejected or discarded?
There's more but this covers the basics we should to know about each poll before you accept the results as relevant.
The best strategies are to debunk, ridicule and associate valid stories/opinions with undesirable words/people like "communists", "lefties", "conspiracy theorists", etc.
For example, when interviewing "people off the street" make sure you have only the wackos presenting opposing views while you pick out "decent-looking, well-dressed" people to present your own views. And if there aren't enough people who share your views, hire some people off the street or go with local actors/models if your budget allows. Even if both views get equal airtime, the opposing views will be associated with ugly weirdos and who the hell wants to share the same views as them even if they're right?
A similar strategy is to hire strong-looking & charismatic tv/news personalities that support your own views while hiring ugly-assed & uncharasmatic "wimps" to offer very pitiful opposition. I'm sure you can find a decent example of this tactic by watching TV.
As you can see, your previously unpopular views can be easily associated with "winners" and opposing views are associated with "whiners, losers, traitors, communists, etc." without resorting to outright censorship.
The best part of this strategy is that it works because the average joe-sixpacks don't understand how to detect bullshit.
To sum it up: associate undesirable words/concepts/people to opposition and associate desirable words/concepts/people to your own views and don't let the pesky facts or Truth get in the way because perception is usually more important in manipulating the public.
This of course goes hand-in-hand with manipulating opinion polls and surveys by carefully crafting questions in ways that lead people to pick desired answers and then hiding the exact original wording of these questions when presenting the results to the public.
Who needs censorship when these tactics work so well?
If you read the list of underreported stories during Clinton's administration, you'll see that Project Censored is not biased.
And for those of you who haven't taken the time to study government or history, "liberal" is not a bunch of welfare-requesting hippies any more than "conservative" is not equal to corporate corruption (Enron, et. al.)
Look past the biased bullshit dished out by both the left and the right and learn to think for yourselves.
"How do you know?" and "Where did you get your info?" are among your best friends.
ps
I happen to think the media was extremely biased against Newt Gingrich in years past but now the exact opposite is happening: the media is overrun with neo-conservatives who try to spin any criticism of our government (one of the most cherished American freedoms) into "liberal bias" or "treason". Since when is opposition to corporate corruption or support for campaign finance reform or simply stating FACTS considered "liberal" or "treason"?
Depends entirely on what you mean by "WRONG things".
Freedom to commit rape, murder, theft, etc. isn't something I'd want anyone to have.
The victoms who endure rape or theft of their belongings probably won't feel that they've gained more "freedom" if the government condones such "WRONG things".
The best way to protect our privacy is to stop doing things that gives our government or entities like RIAA arguably "justifiable" reasons to strip away our privacy rights.
Doing illegal things lead to all of us paying the penalty by losing our rights. The more responsible we behave, the more rights we'll have. Pretty simple stuff.
Apparently, you believe marketing is "high-tech work" or "development of critical products like anti-virus"--my post had nothing to do with marketing so your statement seems a bit random to me. :)
"If this story about China attacking Taiwan (which I thought was part of China) is true"
My bad, I confused Hong Kong and Taiwan in my haste.
It is actually worse than I thought--if a country does this to another, isn't it essentially an act of war???
Furthermore, I heard recently on CNN that the only restriction on defense weapons is that 50% be developed by US companies. Only 50%!!!
IMHO, one of the primary reasons USA is so strong in defense is because all the brains from overseas came to our country to profit from their work and flee from religious persecution. Now we're shipping opportunities overseas and the judge in Alabama is giving people the impression that Christianity is favored over all other religions here. Smooth move (imagine the next Einstein staying overseas and deveoping the next great weapon for some other country instead of us).
What will happen to our national security when we offshore 90%+ of all of our high-tech jobs and what will happen to the national security in countries (like India & China) where most of the high-tech jobs will be based?
And workers of US companies overseas don't have to pay taxes on the first $75,000 so think of all the lost taxes (billions in income taxes alone) that our government loses--not to mention that those workers if based in the US would have spent their earnings here.
Does anyone in Washington give a damn about our future or is it all about returning favors to those who contribute to campaigns while sacrificing our government budgets and national security?
Isn't it retarded to offshore development of critical products like anti-virus software to other countries? If this story about China attacking Taiwan (which I thought was part of China) is true, then we should stop all security-related software from being offshored--or simply requiring the use of only those developed 100% by companies AND individuals with security clearances.
If you're concerned about others violating your privacy or intruding via your favorite P2P program, check this out:
If you run Windows only, check out PeerGuardian. Be warned that the application hogs a lot of CPU.
If you have a Linux firewall like iptables, then you're in luck. Simply download PeerGuardian's list of known IPs to block and convert it using ipblacklist_convert perl script.
And please keep in mind that music and software piracy will only give companies like RIAA an excuse to limit our freedoms. Stop stealing.
---
Did you know that Halliburton (who reportedly still pays VP Cheney around $160,000 in deferred compensation) will gain more than $1.7 billion from Iraq's reconstruction with a sizable portion of that in NO-BID contracts where other companies didn't even get a chance to bid?
Did you know Halliburton has sizable litigation against it for asbestos-related injuries and could benefit from worker's compensation reform which is coincidentally being promoted by the Bush/Cheney administration in the name of economic recovery?
Get informed and understand the smart--not public & seemingly irrational--reasons behind political decisions so that you too can profit from the real genius of politicians. Then donate your profits gained by this in your investment decisions to organizations that push for campaign finance reform instead of bitching about politicians in general or the right-wing or the left-wing. How can you lose if campaign finance reform causes politicians to represent the vast majority of Americans rather than the few special interests who contribute to campaigns? :)
Anyone notice the difference in memory usage between running Thunderbird 0.2 + Firebird 0.6.1 vs Mozilla 1.4 on Windows?
What do you think will happen as a result of this?
Some of my guesses include:
1. increase notebook/laptop sales -- people who think their notebooks are "fast enough" will finally have a compelling reason to switch.
2. revolutionize the UPS (uninterruptable power supply) market.
3. dramatically increase the number of wirelessly connected users.
4. ad hoc LAN parties!
And so on...what is your prediction?
If Burst.com actually has software patents on the technology Microsoft allegedly stole from them, isn't this case an example of how software patents can help the little guy faced with huge companies stealing their inventions?
Sorry, I didn't read the article so forgive me if this scenario doesn't exactly fit. But I thought it would be worthwhile bringing up given the recent surge in protests against software patents.