It was a more plausable movie than the other big scifi film that came out that summer: Independence Day.
IIRC, the martian's never stated the reason for coming to earth and killing everyone, but it seemed to be something along the lines of, "Because we felt like it" Even their deaths were plausable if you think of it as a psychosomatic effect.
Compare to independence day where the aliens clearly had a different chemistry from earth life, but for some reason wanted resources that could only be found on the earth (after the humans were dead of course), chose to kill humans despite the fact that they could just take what they wanted with their invulnerable ships and no one would be able to stop them, and used apple compatible computers.
As you increase the energy you're willing to spend on a chase maneuver, its radius of curvature increases until at some point, the path you're taking is indistinguishable from a straight line. If you were capable of traveling from earth to mars in 3 days, your trajectory would look very straight indeed. If you could do it in 5 minutes, factor in 15 minutes of joyriding;)
Interestingly, although it was not the top film in terms of weekend gross during it's opening weekend, It was the top per-screen grossing film of that weekend. It had 1000 fewer screens than the top grossing film though.
Except he's not a conservative. or at least he wasn't. If you're just going to reject the messenger as "conservative" every time, why bother even putting up evidence at all?
Goldberg's point is that EVERY news source has bias. Not just in the way they report, but also in choosing WHAT to report.
Drudge for instance doesn't do any actual reporting at all. He forwards news-wires and "inside information" from actual reporters about what they're going to report. Why then did drudge break the "lewinsky" scandal? Drudge may be baised to the right, but that is irrelevant: he was reporting on a story that other reporters were sitting on, so what does that make them?
At CBS, either Dan Rather was a biased reporter or he was a camera monkey with biased handlers. He aired and continued to air fabricated documents regarding Bush's national guard service. Why didn't he or his handlers do due dilligence to determine the veracity of those documents? The only rational explanation is that they wanted them to be true so much that they believed them without question.
Listen to a white house press conference to get an idea on just how biased the political correspondents are. Half the time they don't actually ask a question, but simply state some long winded half-truth. The rest of the time is devided between questions that sound like they should come from an inquisitor, "Isn't it true that... You eat babies for lunch" and softball questions that the speaker wanted asked.
But conservatives (or at least the ones in MY circles) don't think the media IS biased. We generally think it WAS biased, and that parts of it still are, but now there is far too much media for there to be an overall bias any more. When there were 3 networks and 2 major newspapers, monopolies, collusion, and "accepted practices" could allow a general trend in reporting to exist. But now the cost of entry into the news market is very low and news is becoming a commodity. market forces will dictate that any general trend will tend to reflect the population at large.
Ok, I will identify myself as a conservative. some news sources I consider to have less bias than NPR in no particular order:
ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,FOX (except Bill O'Reilly),New York Times, Washington times, [insert city here] local paper, Air America (except Al Franken), Christian Science Monitor.
some news sources with more bias (taken as absolute value)
Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, The Guardian
note: neither mr. Franken nor mr. Limbaugh claim any particular lack of bias. Mr O'Reilly's bias isn't so much conservative as it is O'Reilly-ative. Also I don't often get a chance to listen to Air America unless I'm visiting another state, so my personal sampling is low, but I do listen to Franken's podcast regularly.
I wish they would catch EVERY speeder. Then there'd be enough clamor that we could get the damn speed limits increased to reasonable levels. and maybe we'll stop using the rediculous rhetorical device of "if it saves one life its worth it" to pass bad laws.
The only thing that keeps bad laws on the books is arbitrary enforcement of bad laws.
I know he calls himself a conservative, but at his core, Bill O'Reilly is a self-important media whore. The few times I've managed to force myself to listen to his pap, he was spewing some pretty socialist ideas. I can't stand watching 'the factor,' not because of his viewpoints but because he shouts and demeans everyone. Even if they share his opinion, they're wrong about something and stupid for saying it.
Considering how liberal Rupert Murdoch actually is, I'm impressed that his network has managed to avoid being just another CNN. But O'Reilly almost seems placed specifically to discredit conservatives by being a blowhard.
A good idea. The only problem that I can see is that the standards organisations are not governmentally sanctioned bodies. In most cases they are much better than that, being composed of competant engineers in their various fields. But being private organisations without the authority of a government, it may be difficult to grant them special powers wrt. patents. Obviously, you can't just allow any standards organisation to waltz in and swipe a patented idea, or you'll have "ed's assorted standards" sneaking in and invalidating everything.
And as I understand it, Charley's still stuck on that dang train. Since his useless wife just makes sandwiches instead of giving him that nickel he needs, I want to know what the governor is doing about this.
Seriously, let's stop sending patronizing young 20somethings to teach our 'little brown brothers' how to farm or purify water or other essencial things. Maybe the problem isn't that there aren't enough pissant peace corps kids 'teaching' people to do things they only just learned about last week to begin with. Maybe it's not that they don't know how to farm the land or draw a well.
Maybe the problem is that the water is contaminated or too deep and the land isn't good for farming anymore or other geographical features are impediments to these regions recovering. (Some places were once prosperous, but that does not mean that they can be again or soon)
If such is the case, it doesn't matter how much seed or pesticide or fresh water or laptops we send. The technological solution therefore is massive migration of entire populations. This will require enormous building effort in the host country and robust, but cheap transportation for that population.
Regardless, from the comments and the fact that this $100 laptop will not be sold anywhere but the third world I'm inclined to believe that it's not actually a $100 laptop. It's probably a $500 laptop with various donated pieces or government or corporate grants.
Why does this cut&paste job keep getting modded up? I mean I'd be different if like the "In Soviet Russia..." jokes or "In Korea, only Old people..." or any of the myriad of other cookie cutter karma katchers, something new was added every time, but this thing seems like it's on some kind of {if isinsummary("moon") then post(weatherbaloonrant())} script.
The list is based on the quantity of "independant" reporters in prision rather than the quantity per capita. In the example they give on the main page, cuba with its far smaller population than china has nearly as many imprisioned should rank WORSE than china. Also, I wonder if their statistics differentiate between reporters imprisoned for unwanted speech and those imprisoned for obstruction of justsice in cases like the valerie wilson or plunder dome cases. where the crime is the leaking itself. (and in the case of punder dome, tainting a jury using the reporter as proxy)
And your returns will be lower. Your threshold of risk is lower than others and that's fine, but the risktakers are the ones who will reap the big rewards (and the cripling defeats)
Redhat's not just an unproven start-up. It's an unproven start-up with a developing track record and posting real profits. Which is a huge improvement over the scam^h^h^h^hcompanies of the dot-com bubble.
Re:Makes me wonder..
on
King Kong Lived?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think it's a kind of symbiosis. The scientists themselves aren't witholding th einformation, but like the hobbits of new zealand, or the astronomy news before armageddon, the publishers tend to print things that are relevant to whatever the big advertising push is. If the movie weren't coming out, would this story be interesting to as many people? It's just about which news gets pushed when, not about specific things waiting for movies.
That may be true, but a pre-made hammer is far more useful than a kit that may or may not be configureable into a hammer like device. If the goal is to teach "computers" then having an OS that can be "learned" is certainly helpful. If the computers are a tool to accomplish some other more lofty goal (and if computers are designed correctly that's what they are/ will become) then an OS that "just works" is a perfectly reasonable choice.
Also, If the goal is to teach "computers" then I have a prediction about where the next wave of "oursourcing" will be...
Slashdot Mirror
It was a more plausable movie than the other big scifi film that came out that summer: Independence Day.
IIRC, the martian's never stated the reason for coming to earth and killing everyone, but it seemed to be something along the lines of, "Because we felt like it" Even their deaths were plausable if you think of it as a psychosomatic effect.
Compare to independence day where the aliens clearly had a different chemistry from earth life, but for some reason wanted resources that could only be found on the earth (after the humans were dead of course), chose to kill humans despite the fact that they could just take what they wanted with their invulnerable ships and no one would be able to stop them, and used apple compatible computers.
You're talking about a chase maneuver.
;)
As you increase the energy you're willing to spend on a chase maneuver, its radius of curvature increases until at some point, the path you're taking is indistinguishable from a straight line. If you were capable of traveling from earth to mars in 3 days, your trajectory would look very straight indeed. If you could do it in 5 minutes, factor in 15 minutes of joyriding
Interestingly, although it was not the top film in terms of weekend gross during it's opening weekend, It was the top per-screen grossing film of that weekend. It had 1000 fewer screens than the top grossing film though.
One word: latency.
Except he's not a conservative. or at least he wasn't. If you're just going to reject the messenger as "conservative" every time, why bother even putting up evidence at all?
Goldberg's point is that EVERY news source has bias. Not just in the way they report, but also in choosing WHAT to report.
Drudge for instance doesn't do any actual reporting at all. He forwards news-wires and "inside information" from actual reporters about what they're going to report. Why then did drudge break the "lewinsky" scandal? Drudge may be baised to the right, but that is irrelevant: he was reporting on a story that other reporters were sitting on, so what does that make them?
At CBS, either Dan Rather was a biased reporter or he was a camera monkey with biased handlers. He aired and continued to air fabricated documents regarding Bush's national guard service. Why didn't he or his handlers do due dilligence to determine the veracity of those documents? The only rational explanation is that they wanted them to be true so much that they believed them without question.
Listen to a white house press conference to get an idea on just how biased the political correspondents are. Half the time they don't actually ask a question, but simply state some long winded half-truth. The rest of the time is devided between questions that sound like they should come from an inquisitor, "Isn't it true that... You eat babies for lunch" and softball questions that the speaker wanted asked.
But conservatives (or at least the ones in MY circles) don't think the media IS biased. We generally think it WAS biased, and that parts of it still are, but now there is far too much media for there to be an overall bias any more. When there were 3 networks and 2 major newspapers, monopolies, collusion, and "accepted practices" could allow a general trend in reporting to exist. But now the cost of entry into the news market is very low and news is becoming a commodity. market forces will dictate that any general trend will tend to reflect the population at large.
You're supposed to punch while you jump. Not even Mario broke bricks with his *head*.
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (Paperback)
Admit it. You just wanted to use the word "zeitgiest"
Ok, I will identify myself as a conservative. some news sources I consider to have less bias than NPR in no particular order:
ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,FOX (except Bill O'Reilly),New York Times, Washington times, [insert city here] local paper, Air America (except Al Franken), Christian Science Monitor.
some news sources with more bias (taken as absolute value)
Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, The Guardian
note:
neither mr. Franken nor mr. Limbaugh claim any particular lack of bias. Mr O'Reilly's bias isn't so much conservative as it is O'Reilly-ative. Also I don't often get a chance to listen to Air America unless I'm visiting another state, so my personal sampling is low, but I do listen to Franken's podcast regularly.
I wish they would catch EVERY speeder. Then there'd be enough clamor that we could get the damn speed limits increased to reasonable levels. and maybe we'll stop using the rediculous rhetorical device of "if it saves one life its worth it" to pass bad laws.
The only thing that keeps bad laws on the books is arbitrary enforcement of bad laws.
Yeah turnover was great for Rome.
Al Jazeera.
I know he calls himself a conservative, but at his core, Bill O'Reilly is a self-important media whore. The few times I've managed to force myself to listen to his pap, he was spewing some pretty socialist ideas. I can't stand watching 'the factor,' not because of his viewpoints but because he shouts and demeans everyone. Even if they share his opinion, they're wrong about something and stupid for saying it.
Considering how liberal Rupert Murdoch actually is, I'm impressed that his network has managed to avoid being just another CNN. But O'Reilly almost seems placed specifically to discredit conservatives by being a blowhard.
"...an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity...'"
Your quote says nothing about entities losing eligibility because of undesired objectivity.
A good idea. The only problem that I can see is that the standards organisations are not governmentally sanctioned bodies. In most cases they are much better than that, being composed of competant engineers in their various fields. But being private organisations without the authority of a government, it may be difficult to grant them special powers wrt. patents. Obviously, you can't just allow any standards organisation to waltz in and swipe a patented idea, or you'll have "ed's assorted standards" sneaking in and invalidating everything.
And as I understand it, Charley's still stuck on that dang train. Since his useless wife just makes sandwiches instead of giving him that nickel he needs, I want to know what the governor is doing about this.
Seriously, let's stop sending patronizing young 20somethings to teach our 'little brown brothers' how to farm or purify water or other essencial things. Maybe the problem isn't that there aren't enough pissant peace corps kids 'teaching' people to do things they only just learned about last week to begin with. Maybe it's not that they don't know how to farm the land or draw a well.
Maybe the problem is that the water is contaminated or too deep and the land isn't good for farming anymore or other geographical features are impediments to these regions recovering. (Some places were once prosperous, but that does not mean that they can be again or soon)
If such is the case, it doesn't matter how much seed or pesticide or fresh water or laptops we send. The technological solution therefore is massive migration of entire populations. This will require enormous building effort in the host country and robust, but cheap transportation for that population.
Regardless, from the comments and the fact that this $100 laptop will not be sold anywhere but the third world I'm inclined to believe that it's not actually a $100 laptop. It's probably a $500 laptop with various donated pieces or government or corporate grants.
Well the obvious solution is to buy 6 films.
Why does this cut&paste job keep getting modded up? I mean I'd be different if like the "In Soviet Russia..." jokes or "In Korea, only Old people..." or any of the myriad of other cookie cutter karma katchers, something new was added every time, but this thing seems like it's on some kind of {if isinsummary("moon") then post(weatherbaloonrant())} script.
When microsoft invades yahoo.
Wow what a surprise. People in a country think their country is the freest. On a forum where freedom is a desirable quantity.
The list is based on the quantity of "independant" reporters in prision rather than the quantity per capita. In the example they give on the main page, cuba with its far smaller population than china has nearly as many imprisioned should rank WORSE than china. Also, I wonder if their statistics differentiate between reporters imprisoned for unwanted speech and those imprisoned for obstruction of justsice in cases like the valerie wilson or plunder dome cases. where the crime is the leaking itself. (and in the case of punder dome, tainting a jury using the reporter as proxy)
And your returns will be lower. Your threshold of risk is lower than others and that's fine, but the risktakers are the ones who will reap the big rewards (and the cripling defeats)
Redhat's not just an unproven start-up. It's an unproven start-up with a developing track record and posting real profits. Which is a huge improvement over the scam^h^h^h^hcompanies of the dot-com bubble.
I think it's a kind of symbiosis. The scientists themselves aren't witholding th einformation, but like the hobbits of new zealand, or the astronomy news before armageddon, the publishers tend to print things that are relevant to whatever the big advertising push is. If the movie weren't coming out, would this story be interesting to as many people? It's just about which news gets pushed when, not about specific things waiting for movies.
That may be true, but a pre-made hammer is far more useful than a kit that may or may not be configureable into a hammer like device. If the goal is to teach "computers" then having an OS that can be "learned" is certainly helpful. If the computers are a tool to accomplish some other more lofty goal (and if computers are designed correctly that's what they are/ will become) then an OS that "just works" is a perfectly reasonable choice.
Also, If the goal is to teach "computers" then I have a prediction about where the next wave of "oursourcing" will be...