Is it possible the meteorite could have had the carbon compounds introduced into it after coming through the atmosphere? Maybe the age they established has outrulled that.
Most of the meteorite's material is about the same age as our solar system--about 4.5 billion years--and was likely formed at the same time (tour a virtual solar system).
But the microscopic organic globules that make up about one-tenth of one percent of the object appear to be far older.
In a study appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, Messenger and colleagues report that isotopic anomalies in the globules suggest that they formed in very cold conditions--near absolute zero.
Yes, the article does say that. And my own observation: A flaming object re-entering the atmosphere is [sarcasm]usually[/sarcasm] a lot hotter, if I recall correctly, than near absolute zero.:-/
In the U.S. and Canada it is mostly a combination of both. There is a bar you can sit at and order drinks, or you can sit at a table. In most places if you sit at a table a waitress (better for the business as in most cases a female can get male drinkers to drink more) or waiter will come and take your order. The bartender at the bar serves drinks to the customers sitting there, and fills orders brought by the waitresses and waiters. I am pretty sure I have also seen this set up in Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands, the Philippines, and I think in some nightclubs in England... but that was a while ago so I am not sure.
How sad you actually believe that. A corporation is only an individual in the USofA because of a ridiculously bad Supreme Court decision in 1886.
I am pretty cynical about human nature when people are allowed to be faceless. After all we really still are animals that are trying get a more than fair share of the pie (or leg bone off the woolly mammoth)... so we can have something to eat when times are tough. People are generally good, unless you try to take their bone while they are hungry... asking for money is the modern equivalent. And although though a bad decision or not, corporations are still people... sort of. Take away a person's anonymity and they will bow to moral peer pressure. Maybe that is what we need to do, make the boards of the corporations directly and fully responsible for every shitty decision made by the company. A poor service policy, 10 lashes for every member of the board. A death from a faulty product, they draw straws to see which member of the board gets shot. OK, a little far fetched, but I do like the 'lashes' part.
We're duty bound by certain moral, social,...[obligations]
I disagree. In our society, we have no outside duty to these things unless mandated by law... and while I agree with you that we *should* be bound by some moral and social obligations we don't *have* to be. While it might be good to make the effort, I don't believe we can ever successfully mandate morals, there will always be someone who will try to find a loophole in the law (or some anal judge will make a 'legal' interpretation that will kill the 'justice' the law intended). The end result is that we can be just as sociopathic as we want, up to the point where we break some law. If no law says I have to help you, then I don't have to. Like as not, I personally would help you in most circumstances... e.g. you have fallen and can't get up (unless for example there is no 'good Samaritan law' like in some Canadian provinces, and you are acting like a dick). I certainly wouldn't willingly hold a money bag for you while robbed a bank... unless maybe you were to cut me in on it.;-)
I do agree with you in that I think corporations should be held more accountable for their actions. Maybe even in a moral way, but that is a nebulous goal to reach as in some cases necessity requires one to do some things in order to live that others would find morally evil... the problem is, who decides what is moral and what is not? Personally I think since North America was started by Christians, it would be nice to use the Christian moral compass (I am definitely not a 'born again Christian, nor a baptist, nor fundamentalist, heck, I'm not even baptized). If you want to use a different moral compass go some place that started with that one. Unfortunately too many so called Christians aren't even Christian in their actions... hence the discussion about medical costs. With the amount of so called Christians in America, if they practised what they preached, no-one would ever have to worry about medical care. Unfortunately they are 99.9% hypocrites... show me a church that covered the medical costs of a poor family they never met before... and not isolated incidents either... (suffer the children to come unto me... unless I have to give you some of my money). So there, morals are fine, but who defines them, and who actually practises what they preach anyway. I will stop now before I move into full fledged rant mode.
I do think President Dick Cheney and George W. B. (not a typo... I know what I am saying) should have to work as front line riflemen in an active and dangerous region of Iraq for at least a month (along with the members of the board of Halliburton and other corporate beneficiary companies of the Iraq war). etc. etc. etc. If you can find a way to make it happen, let us know. I'll back you.
A corporation is a legal entity... a legal individual... who's sole purpose is to do what is best for that corporation (and in modern America, this is to make a dollar value profit). Its purpose is not to do what is best for any other individual (shareholders are by extension a part of the corporation). It is by nature a sociopathic entity. It cares about others only if they help the corporation to get what it needs. Now while corporations keep us employed, which is a good thing, they are not benign friendly entities who care about us. Call Ronald a clown and he'll likely rip your heart out.
You want something that is socialistic, something that likes to work with society and help others, specifically your kid in this case, but you want it delivered by something that is a sociopath. While I am not a doctor, I think you might be developing some sort of self induced bi-polar disorder by the forced realization that corporations while an important part of a capitalistic society, are not about benefiting a society in a 'humanistic sense'; only themselves. It is a kind of symbiotic thing.
For you, a possible solution would be to make the argument to the (sociopath) corporate sector of society (since you prefer them to run the medical system) that your kid will ultimately be able to output more dollar value in productivity for the corporations than the money they will put into him/her. While you quite rightly love your child, a sociopath does not, and will not ever. They need to see some benefit. That is their efficiency. And if you cannot make this proof, don't be surprised if they don't care to help you out. It is not in their interest.
I know this sounds harsh, but it seems to me that as how you seem to prefer sociopathic medicine over social medicine, you probably wouldn't give a rat's ass about a decent society if you didn't have a crippled child and extra medical bills because of him/her. So my suggestion is to stop your hand wringing, revel in the system you prefer, and quietly eat the cost. Too easy. It is one or the other. You either want society's input and the slight inefficiency that it brings (and I am not convinced government handling contributes any more ineffiency than corporate profit making/taking does), or not. And if you do want it, would you want it still if you didn't have the added cost of a disabled child (take a cold hard look). Are you really just like the corporations? All efficiency and no heart. I am making no judgement here, this is how they work. And that is why they have to be forced to provide you insurance even with the added cost. You know they wouldn't even do that if they could get away with it.
Don't get me wrong, I believe for the most part, the way our capitalistic western society operates seems to work quite well (though there is always room for improvement)... sociopathic corporations and all. The biggest problem I have with social programs is that they are often screwed up by the amnesty international crowd (e.g. in Canada when they tried to make chronic welfare victims put something back into society by sweeping the streets a couple of times a week, this was shot down as some sort of human rights violation... bullshit if you ask me). However, I believe in some cases social values are required. Medicare is one area. I think we should look to parts of Europe and other places that have integrated public/private health care (this brings in more government control than in the United States) as they seem to be working better than either Canada's system (which has too much government control) or the United State's (which has too little). I have been in both of the latter two's systems, and they desperately need some sort of help... especially Canada's (mainly because most Canadians are in a state of denial about it... more money won't help).
I find it hard to understand people who want it all but don't want to pay the cost. Or want it all because they realize that the system they asked for just turned around and bit them.
I have to admit, this is a really interesting point. Though I still don't like Putin (slightly more than I don't like Bush/Cheney... or just Cheney).:-) And as I am a supporter of the principle of Ocam's Razor, I still believe that either Putin's Russian government, or a direct supporter of it, was responsible. But the points about spooks liking to screw with Ocam is taken.
The person who started this was the CIO for the state of MASS not open office. It wasn't the MS competitors fighting. In fact I haven't really seen any fighting (except for MS trying to keep their market dominance). The state of MASS have made it a business requirement to use ODF to avoid 'lock in'. Any vendor can choose to meet the requirement or not. You really are starting to sound like a shill for MS. Do you complain so much when you hear about software projects abstracting their data persistence layers to avoid locking their applications to one RDBMS forever (note that I think most of the time this is usually a pointless exercise as most places don't change RDBMSs once installed, but I understand why they do it and it is up to them)? Why do you complain when someone wants something similar for their business applications? And you can argue till you're blue in the face (and I suspect you will) that open XML is better than ODF... but the point is moot. MASS asked for ODF. They are the customer.
Which gets back to the original point of the article, it is highly suspicious when a paid MS employee is appointed to a board that is supposed to work in the best interests of the people of a state... since he is being paid to look out for the interests of a private company. It doesn't matter which company (even though this time it is MS... it could be Corel next time), he works for... there is a conflict of interest and he shouldn't be there. In this case he is trying to keep the state locked in to a proprietary product which others have previously said they do not want. Granted that elections can change the way a government manages the state, I tend to agree that paid lobbyists should not sit on government panels.
Your argument is somewhat spurious and misses the point that the interest on the other side from Microsoft is not the other companies, but the general public.
Keeping a proprietary Microsoft format means at a minimum, requiring a Microsoft operating system to view the files. This assumes the O/S comes with a free (otherwise cha-ching, more money) 'doc' viewer and does not also require the person to have to pay for an internet connection to download the viewer. And unless their viewer is NOT like most, if not all of Microsoft's software, it won't run on say Apple, or Linux, or #insert your non-MS O/S here#, etc. Ergo you are locked into to purchasing from MS.
An open format allows implementation by anyone who makes a document viewer/editor, reducing or eliminating the cost to the general public due to market forces. You are not locked into MS and people have the option of using cheaper or free software (as in beer) to view public documents that should be free to view by the public.
Someone should give this to Vladimir Putin and his FSS pals for Christmas. Just expressing my sentiment and not a true desire to see a wannabe dictator done in.
Isn't the real issue whether there is AIX/UNIX code in Linux? So who cares if there ever was AIX code on a developer's machine, just as long as it is not in the Linux code base. So given that we know SCO has access to their own UNIX source code in question, and access to the Linux source code... and has so far still failed to prove their case (at least so it seems), we can say this sounds like a red herring.
The judge should order a statement of WTF has this got to do with anything to SCO. Obviously IANAL;-)
I don't agree with your "team" analogy. In this case it is more like the body has a deviant cell and the body now has to send its macrophages to kill and eat that cell to make sure it doesn't reproduce and cause a malignant growth.
And to your "team" analogy... if you did want to pursue it... it is flawed since we are not really all on the same team. Otherwise there would only be one distribution. If you are going to use the team analogy, it is more like we are in a league (the software sports league), and we have different divisions in the league (OSX, Windows, Linux, BSD, proprietary Unix, etc.) and different teams in the divisions (Linux: Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Debian, Mandriva, etc.; Windows: 2000, XP, Vista, etc.; prop. Unix: Solaris, HP-UX, AIX; etc.).
Humans always excel when in competition. Each division prefers their O/S type and generally would like to be able to work on that type of system all the time, which means convincing others that it is best. This goes down even to the sub-types. And in this case we have the intra-divisional rivalries (Suse versus Ubuntu versus Redhat etc). If people didn't think this way, you wouldn't have people trying to convince you that their distro is better. In fact, you wouldn't have other distros... if we were one team why would we? One distro tries to gain the upper hand, and if they do, others learn from it (the loser of a war or battle usually does better/wins the next time as they know they did something wrong).
If you simply can't resist the urge to police another human being, try hanging out near the Slushy machine at your favorite 7-11.... Put it on your resume, perhaps. Who knows, with the way things are going, the need for easily identifiable assholes such as yourself...
The OP was making the point that with a computer, the poor people of Africa could get the information they needed to better themselves from the internet. My point was that this is so only if they can read the language of the web pages with the information on it... with the inference that this might not be available to them, and ergo not a real option. Try to read AND comprehend what we are talking about.
No pop ups with FF2 with adblocker. Too many (> 0) pop ups with IE7. I also use Spybot Search and Destroy's 'inoculate' feature which redirects questionable URLs to local host (in my XP box's hosts file).
I read somewhere that to begin seeing performance benefits to RAID 5 you need at least 5 or 6 disks, and it still can't compete with 4 disks using RAID 10. To even approach the performance of RAID 10 you need way more, but still won't see the same performance. And the more disks you add to RAID 10, the better it performs of course... though I would like to see something that shows a real graph of diminishing returns on disks to performance (rather than a table). I am not about to go buy a tonne of disks to try it out.:-) Anyway, I'll grant that you have less usable disk space with 10 than 5, but 10 provides you the absolute best performance.
They're still around. I read somewhere they still have about 15% to 20% of the market and significantly more in government offices. However take that with a grain of salt since I am having trouble finding more than one reference to it.
How is this insightful? It is a terrible analysis.
The point of the article is that the mass media/news in the United States is being censored. What might be more to the point is 'who cares who is doing the censorship?'. This is akin to lying to the public by withholding information.
Some of this might be due to the networks being afraid of lawsuits, but again, who cares what the reason is. This is just another example of the poor journalism exhibited in America. When I lived there, it was very difficult to find any good investigative journalism (for fear of lawsuits... e.g. CBS and the tobacco industry), nor any reference to other country's contributions to foreign projects (something is done by America or basically 'some other guys'), or even bend the story so that America is the hero even if it is Americans being rescued (e.g. a Canadian team flying in to rescue sick Americans at the south pole in the dead of winter when no one else could because of the extreme conditions... CNN reported the sick Americans as heroes and did not mention the Canadians who seriously risked their lives flying in there).
People in other countries wonder why Americans seem so ignorant of other countries. Considering the amount of time they are glued to the TV you would think they would learn more of the outside world. But the poor journalism (even somewhat xenophobic journalism) in the U.S. sure doesn't help. Censorship is just the icing on this botulism infested cake.
I liked living in the U.S., but their news services absolutely sucked. Thank goodness from living in other countries I knew what good news looked like and could find it on the internet. Interestingly, even though it is as full of bullshit propaganda as many U.S. news services like Fox (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Hannity), you could not even get the Aljazeera news service in the U.S., at least while I was there... that is direct censorship.
Yeah I know... this year. But the parent is saying that 1 man 1 vote is an absolute. So *this year* in most if not all places it is true. But it is not true every year, which means it is not an absolute.:-)
1 vote 1 man (or woman... to keep people from having a snit) is true. 50% + 1 vote does not necessarily win the election. Thanks to the electoral college... ask Al Gore about that one.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the article does say that. And my own observation: A flaming object re-entering the atmosphere is [sarcasm]usually[/sarcasm] a lot hotter, if I recall correctly, than near absolute zero. :-/
In the U.S. and Canada it is mostly a combination of both. There is a bar you can sit at and order drinks, or you can sit at a table. In most places if you sit at a table a waitress (better for the business as in most cases a female can get male drinkers to drink more) or waiter will come and take your order. The bartender at the bar serves drinks to the customers sitting there, and fills orders brought by the waitresses and waiters. I am pretty sure I have also seen this set up in Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands, the Philippines, and I think in some nightclubs in England... but that was a while ago so I am not sure.
I disagree. In our society, we have no outside duty to these things unless mandated by law... and while I agree with you that we *should* be bound by some moral and social obligations we don't *have* to be. While it might be good to make the effort, I don't believe we can ever successfully mandate morals, there will always be someone who will try to find a loophole in the law (or some anal judge will make a 'legal' interpretation that will kill the 'justice' the law intended). The end result is that we can be just as sociopathic as we want, up to the point where we break some law. If no law says I have to help you, then I don't have to. Like as not, I personally would help you in most circumstances... e.g. you have fallen and can't get up (unless for example there is no 'good Samaritan law' like in some Canadian provinces, and you are acting like a dick). I certainly wouldn't willingly hold a money bag for you while robbed a bank... unless maybe you were to cut me in on it. ;-)
I do agree with you in that I think corporations should be held more accountable for their actions. Maybe even in a moral way, but that is a nebulous goal to reach as in some cases necessity requires one to do some things in order to live that others would find morally evil... the problem is, who decides what is moral and what is not? Personally I think since North America was started by Christians, it would be nice to use the Christian moral compass (I am definitely not a 'born again Christian, nor a baptist, nor fundamentalist, heck, I'm not even baptized). If you want to use a different moral compass go some place that started with that one. Unfortunately too many so called Christians aren't even Christian in their actions... hence the discussion about medical costs. With the amount of so called Christians in America, if they practised what they preached, no-one would ever have to worry about medical care. Unfortunately they are 99.9% hypocrites... show me a church that covered the medical costs of a poor family they never met before... and not isolated incidents either... (suffer the children to come unto me... unless I have to give you some of my money). So there, morals are fine, but who defines them, and who actually practises what they preach anyway. I will stop now before I move into full fledged rant mode.
I do think President Dick Cheney and George W. B. (not a typo... I know what I am saying) should have to work as front line riflemen in an active and dangerous region of Iraq for at least a month (along with the members of the board of Halliburton and other corporate beneficiary companies of the Iraq war). etc. etc. etc. If you can find a way to make it happen, let us know. I'll back you.
A corporation is a legal entity... a legal individual... who's sole purpose is to do what is best for that corporation (and in modern America, this is to make a dollar value profit). Its purpose is not to do what is best for any other individual (shareholders are by extension a part of the corporation). It is by nature a sociopathic entity. It cares about others only if they help the corporation to get what it needs. Now while corporations keep us employed, which is a good thing, they are not benign friendly entities who care about us. Call Ronald a clown and he'll likely rip your heart out.
You want something that is socialistic, something that likes to work with society and help others, specifically your kid in this case, but you want it delivered by something that is a sociopath. While I am not a doctor, I think you might be developing some sort of self induced bi-polar disorder by the forced realization that corporations while an important part of a capitalistic society, are not about benefiting a society in a 'humanistic sense'; only themselves. It is a kind of symbiotic thing.
For you, a possible solution would be to make the argument to the (sociopath) corporate sector of society (since you prefer them to run the medical system) that your kid will ultimately be able to output more dollar value in productivity for the corporations than the money they will put into him/her. While you quite rightly love your child, a sociopath does not, and will not ever. They need to see some benefit. That is their efficiency. And if you cannot make this proof, don't be surprised if they don't care to help you out. It is not in their interest.
I know this sounds harsh, but it seems to me that as how you seem to prefer sociopathic medicine over social medicine, you probably wouldn't give a rat's ass about a decent society if you didn't have a crippled child and extra medical bills because of him/her. So my suggestion is to stop your hand wringing, revel in the system you prefer, and quietly eat the cost. Too easy. It is one or the other. You either want society's input and the slight inefficiency that it brings (and I am not convinced government handling contributes any more ineffiency than corporate profit making/taking does), or not. And if you do want it, would you want it still if you didn't have the added cost of a disabled child (take a cold hard look). Are you really just like the corporations? All efficiency and no heart. I am making no judgement here, this is how they work. And that is why they have to be forced to provide you insurance even with the added cost. You know they wouldn't even do that if they could get away with it.
Don't get me wrong, I believe for the most part, the way our capitalistic western society operates seems to work quite well (though there is always room for improvement)... sociopathic corporations and all. The biggest problem I have with social programs is that they are often screwed up by the amnesty international crowd (e.g. in Canada when they tried to make chronic welfare victims put something back into society by sweeping the streets a couple of times a week, this was shot down as some sort of human rights violation... bullshit if you ask me). However, I believe in some cases social values are required. Medicare is one area. I think we should look to parts of Europe and other places that have integrated public/private health care (this brings in more government control than in the United States) as they seem to be working better than either Canada's system (which has too much government control) or the United State's (which has too little). I have been in both of the latter two's systems, and they desperately need some sort of help... especially Canada's (mainly because most Canadians are in a state of denial about it... more money won't help).
I find it hard to understand people who want it all but don't want to pay the cost. Or want it all because they realize that the system they asked for just turned around and bit them.
I have to admit, this is a really interesting point. Though I still don't like Putin (slightly more than I don't like Bush/Cheney... or just Cheney). :-) And as I am a supporter of the principle of Ocam's Razor, I still believe that either Putin's Russian government, or a direct supporter of it, was responsible. But the points about spooks liking to screw with Ocam is taken.
The person who started this was the CIO for the state of MASS not open office. It wasn't the MS competitors fighting. In fact I haven't really seen any fighting (except for MS trying to keep their market dominance). The state of MASS have made it a business requirement to use ODF to avoid 'lock in'. Any vendor can choose to meet the requirement or not. You really are starting to sound like a shill for MS. Do you complain so much when you hear about software projects abstracting their data persistence layers to avoid locking their applications to one RDBMS forever (note that I think most of the time this is usually a pointless exercise as most places don't change RDBMSs once installed, but I understand why they do it and it is up to them)? Why do you complain when someone wants something similar for their business applications? And you can argue till you're blue in the face (and I suspect you will) that open XML is better than ODF... but the point is moot. MASS asked for ODF. They are the customer.
Which gets back to the original point of the article, it is highly suspicious when a paid MS employee is appointed to a board that is supposed to work in the best interests of the people of a state... since he is being paid to look out for the interests of a private company. It doesn't matter which company (even though this time it is MS... it could be Corel next time), he works for... there is a conflict of interest and he shouldn't be there. In this case he is trying to keep the state locked in to a proprietary product which others have previously said they do not want. Granted that elections can change the way a government manages the state, I tend to agree that paid lobbyists should not sit on government panels.
Your argument is somewhat spurious and misses the point that the interest on the other side from Microsoft is not the other companies, but the general public.
Keeping a proprietary Microsoft format means at a minimum, requiring a Microsoft operating system to view the files. This assumes the O/S comes with a free (otherwise cha-ching, more money) 'doc' viewer and does not also require the person to have to pay for an internet connection to download the viewer. And unless their viewer is NOT like most, if not all of Microsoft's software, it won't run on say Apple, or Linux, or #insert your non-MS O/S here#, etc. Ergo you are locked into to purchasing from MS.
An open format allows implementation by anyone who makes a document viewer/editor, reducing or eliminating the cost to the general public due to market forces. You are not locked into MS and people have the option of using cheaper or free software (as in beer) to view public documents that should be free to view by the public.
Someone should give this to Vladimir Putin and his FSS pals for Christmas. Just expressing my sentiment and not a true desire to see a wannabe dictator done in.
Isn't the real issue whether there is AIX/UNIX code in Linux? So who cares if there ever was AIX code on a developer's machine, just as long as it is not in the Linux code base. So given that we know SCO has access to their own UNIX source code in question, and access to the Linux source code... and has so far still failed to prove their case (at least so it seems), we can say this sounds like a red herring.
The judge should order a statement of WTF has this got to do with anything to SCO. Obviously IANAL ;-)
I don't agree with your "team" analogy. In this case it is more like the body has a deviant cell and the body now has to send its macrophages to kill and eat that cell to make sure it doesn't reproduce and cause a malignant growth.
And to your "team" analogy... if you did want to pursue it... it is flawed since we are not really all on the same team. Otherwise there would only be one distribution. If you are going to use the team analogy, it is more like we are in a league (the software sports league), and we have different divisions in the league (OSX, Windows, Linux, BSD, proprietary Unix, etc.) and different teams in the divisions (Linux: Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Debian, Mandriva, etc.; Windows: 2000, XP, Vista, etc.; prop. Unix: Solaris, HP-UX, AIX; etc.).
Humans always excel when in competition. Each division prefers their O/S type and generally would like to be able to work on that type of system all the time, which means convincing others that it is best. This goes down even to the sub-types. And in this case we have the intra-divisional rivalries (Suse versus Ubuntu versus Redhat etc). If people didn't think this way, you wouldn't have people trying to convince you that their distro is better. In fact, you wouldn't have other distros... if we were one team why would we? One distro tries to gain the upper hand, and if they do, others learn from it (the loser of a war or battle usually does better/wins the next time as they know they did something wrong).
I for one welcome our new ook ook ook ahem chimpanzee overlords.
The OP was making the point that with a computer, the poor people of Africa could get the information they needed to better themselves from the internet. My point was that this is so only if they can read the language of the web pages with the information on it... with the inference that this might not be available to them, and ergo not a real option. Try to read AND comprehend what we are talking about.
And then a robotic tentacle arm to reach around a pull a turd from your arse.
No pop ups with FF2 with adblocker. Too many (> 0) pop ups with IE7. I also use Spybot Search and Destroy's 'inoculate' feature which redirects questionable URLs to local host (in my XP box's hosts file).
If they can read the language that the web site is published in.
I read somewhere that to begin seeing performance benefits to RAID 5 you need at least 5 or 6 disks, and it still can't compete with 4 disks using RAID 10. To even approach the performance of RAID 10 you need way more, but still won't see the same performance. And the more disks you add to RAID 10, the better it performs of course... though I would like to see something that shows a real graph of diminishing returns on disks to performance (rather than a table). I am not about to go buy a tonne of disks to try it out. :-) Anyway, I'll grant that you have less usable disk space with 10 than 5, but 10 provides you the absolute best performance.
Try RAID 1+0
They're still around. I read somewhere they still have about 15% to 20% of the market and significantly more in government offices. However take that with a grain of salt since I am having trouble finding more than one reference to it.
Did you hear they cancelled the national Miss Ebonics beauty pageant? No-one wanted to be Miss Idaho.
Sorry, sorry, nothing to see here, move along...
How is this insightful? It is a terrible analysis.
The point of the article is that the mass media/news in the United States is being censored. What might be more to the point is 'who cares who is doing the censorship?'. This is akin to lying to the public by withholding information.
Some of this might be due to the networks being afraid of lawsuits, but again, who cares what the reason is. This is just another example of the poor journalism exhibited in America. When I lived there, it was very difficult to find any good investigative journalism (for fear of lawsuits... e.g. CBS and the tobacco industry), nor any reference to other country's contributions to foreign projects (something is done by America or basically 'some other guys'), or even bend the story so that America is the hero even if it is Americans being rescued (e.g. a Canadian team flying in to rescue sick Americans at the south pole in the dead of winter when no one else could because of the extreme conditions... CNN reported the sick Americans as heroes and did not mention the Canadians who seriously risked their lives flying in there).
People in other countries wonder why Americans seem so ignorant of other countries. Considering the amount of time they are glued to the TV you would think they would learn more of the outside world. But the poor journalism (even somewhat xenophobic journalism) in the U.S. sure doesn't help. Censorship is just the icing on this botulism infested cake.
I liked living in the U.S., but their news services absolutely sucked. Thank goodness from living in other countries I knew what good news looked like and could find it on the internet. Interestingly, even though it is as full of bullshit propaganda as many U.S. news services like Fox (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Hannity), you could not even get the Aljazeera news service in the U.S., at least while I was there... that is direct censorship.
Yeah I know... this year. But the parent is saying that 1 man 1 vote is an absolute. So *this year* in most if not all places it is true. But it is not true every year, which means it is not an absolute. :-)
1 vote 1 man (or woman... to keep people from having a snit) is true. 50% + 1 vote does not necessarily win the election. Thanks to the electoral college... ask Al Gore about that one.
Jimmy? Jimmy, is that you? I thought you were in the end zone of Giant stadium.