I've always thought, particularly in the context of objectivism, but it applies to this movie too, that if your best point is fiction, your concept isn't doing so hot.
If this is not some half-hearted attempt at a joke, fox news came about in a time when the only sources of news were newspapers and evening news on TV. Really technically advanced people could dig into news on the usenet and the beginning of the web, and people who were really interested in world affairs would subscribe to physical periodicals about an in depth subject.
24 hour news as a service started for real in the late 90s. CNN existed since 1980, but the content they delivered was not substantially different from the evening news until that time. The 2000 election marked the first time constant infotainment managed substantial ratings, and things took off. They launched the idea of the pundit train during prime time, and made a ton of money that way.
If anything, Fox News is an artifact of people consuming more information faster than ever. People who previously were quite disconnected from news and world events.
Thanks for the support, and the joke, but can I say that I'm personally also really tired of that particular joke? It turns being wrong into something that's hard to do with an imagined force of common sense fixing everything. I've found that self-criticality, which in many ways is the opposite of common sense, is far more crucial to healthy discussion.
Here's a rule: if there's an interpretation of something someone else said that is 100% accurate, don't correct them because you chose to misinterpret it.
That's not really substantiated. People used to think you could get sick from drinking from the same water fountain as a person with different skin color. Segregation wasn't just something they did without imagined moronic reason. If anything, this kinda stuff is tame compared to the levels of human stupidity we've achieved in the past.
IRC plants? Taps on the IRC network? Ridiculous levels of deep packet inspection and logging at ISPs? None of these seem beyond what the country does right now.
So, in the face of that, do you specifically deny that you(or your employers) are payed for what you specifically post on slashdot?
I mean, the post you were addressing had one premise, and it's odd that you attacked me for my tone rather than addressing the point. I'm well past the point that an attempt at publish shaming is going to shut me up. I'd much rather have answers.
I can't deal with this. I find a substantive difference between not affirming something and denying something, and objecting to those affirming something blindly, is a serious problem.
Your post lacks exactly the kind of thorough contemporary documentation that would be inviolable, which as much as you try to twist what I said, all I was contending. I'm not going to be cornered into defending a position I don't take, and I don't appreciate you dictating to me what I think.
A toy for spinning a phone? A toy for spinning a phone???
This is the level of slashvertisement we get? I mean, maybe if there were a novel technology involved. A new algorithm, perhaps. But no we have a fucking toy for spinning a goddamn phone.
How do these slashvertisements keep getting worse?
Right, and there's always someone whose job depends on the blame not being on their decision making up the reports for sales problems. Invariably, these are the exact same people who screw up a project in the first place. Whereas the non-customer who didn't buy the product is never involved in this process.
3/4ths of those people were born after Jesus supposedly died. How can they possibly be eyewitness accounts? Do you know that historians in that era would write what they heard from others to help build their histories, and that modern historians know that? As to Luke, that was an oral history for decades before it was written down, and contains elements that suggest it was derived from the gospel of mark, which was definitely written by someone who never met Jesus.
I mean, this is exactly the sort of thing that I was talking about. Your traditional beliefs are sacrosanct, inviolable history despite being supported by dubious evidence at best, but Catholics, they're the crazy ones. I don't mind being wrong, I am quite frequently, but you need to seriously examine just what material your house is made of before you go throwing stones about.
I wasn't actually contending Jesus didn't exist, I was just highlighting that your beliefs are based on absurdity too. And you should really take a look at the citation given for your pull-quote. The line clearly a synthesis drawn from misrepresenting the lack of affirmative denial as the same as supporting the Historical Jesus hypothesis. The two are not the same. It even incorporates a statement of a scholar who says exactly that. That [9][10] there doesn't mean a statement is factually true every time it's present. I've followed that debate on wikipedia for a while, and the long term consensus is that any change is too contentious to make, even if that the statement isn't perfectly accurate.
Well, I certainly don't listen to ad-supported radio(NPR) or watch ad-supported television(netflix and purchased streams). As to the others... What are newspapers and magazines(like from a gun?)?
Is hypocrisy a valid defense against fraud charges in the UK? If so, can I live there? If so, can you help me with the 6 million pounds in my bank account, as prince of the my current country?
Yep, I stopped buying EA, no Dragon Age, no Mass Effect, no Sims, no Sim-City. They have some skilled dev teams, but way way way way way too much hatred for me for me to buy their products.
Actually, I'll go one step further, and say websites that are ad-supported are generally bad, and that the incentive advertising has on web content is negative. I could do with a lot less top-ten lists on the internet.
I know there are good sites that have ads, I even used to leave slashdot whitelisted in adblock(though a certain recent event regarding slashvertisement and editor abuse changed that), but the overall incentive is perverse.
And as an atheist, I have no problem saying your entire religion is bogus, and any historians confirming the existence of Jesus are religious people engaged in confirmation bias, because the actual presentable evidence is pretty substandard.
See how easy that was. It's easy to dismiss the religious beliefs of others.
In catholic tradition, it's entirely accepted to be the case. I mean, if you want to talk about things that lack historical precedent in the context of religion of all things, I'm sure we could find better examples.
Where "maintain the peace" is apparently a code word for killing millions and possibly provoking a devastating war. Nuclear weapons aren't a diplomatic tool, they're devastatingly powerful weapons that are completely and utterly indiscriminate in their killing.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always thought, particularly in the context of objectivism, but it applies to this movie too, that if your best point is fiction, your concept isn't doing so hot.
If this is not some half-hearted attempt at a joke, fox news came about in a time when the only sources of news were newspapers and evening news on TV. Really technically advanced people could dig into news on the usenet and the beginning of the web, and people who were really interested in world affairs would subscribe to physical periodicals about an in depth subject.
24 hour news as a service started for real in the late 90s. CNN existed since 1980, but the content they delivered was not substantially different from the evening news until that time. The 2000 election marked the first time constant infotainment managed substantial ratings, and things took off. They launched the idea of the pundit train during prime time, and made a ton of money that way.
If anything, Fox News is an artifact of people consuming more information faster than ever. People who previously were quite disconnected from news and world events.
Thanks for the support, and the joke, but can I say that I'm personally also really tired of that particular joke? It turns being wrong into something that's hard to do with an imagined force of common sense fixing everything. I've found that self-criticality, which in many ways is the opposite of common sense, is far more crucial to healthy discussion.
Only in mass, they clearly meant molarity.
Here's a rule: if there's an interpretation of something someone else said that is 100% accurate, don't correct them because you chose to misinterpret it.
That's not really substantiated. People used to think you could get sick from drinking from the same water fountain as a person with different skin color. Segregation wasn't just something they did without imagined moronic reason. If anything, this kinda stuff is tame compared to the levels of human stupidity we've achieved in the past.
By any real metric, people are getting smarter.
You quoted my exact words then refused to acknowledge what they meant.
IRC plants? Taps on the IRC network? Ridiculous levels of deep packet inspection and logging at ISPs? None of these seem beyond what the country does right now.
That... doesn't appear to be true? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_persons_arrested,_charged_and_convicted_in_conjunction_with_the_news_media_phone_hacking_scandal
So, in the face of that, do you specifically deny that you(or your employers) are payed for what you specifically post on slashdot?
I mean, the post you were addressing had one premise, and it's odd that you attacked me for my tone rather than addressing the point. I'm well past the point that an attempt at publish shaming is going to shut me up. I'd much rather have answers.
I can't deal with this. I find a substantive difference between not affirming something and denying something, and objecting to those affirming something blindly, is a serious problem.
Your post lacks exactly the kind of thorough contemporary documentation that would be inviolable, which as much as you try to twist what I said, all I was contending. I'm not going to be cornered into defending a position I don't take, and I don't appreciate you dictating to me what I think.
He's used to microsoft or apple products?
If you give Roblimo money, sure!
A toy for spinning a phone? A toy for spinning a phone???
This is the level of slashvertisement we get? I mean, maybe if there were a novel technology involved. A new algorithm, perhaps. But no we have a fucking toy for spinning a goddamn phone.
How do these slashvertisements keep getting worse?
Right, and there's always someone whose job depends on the blame not being on their decision making up the reports for sales problems. Invariably, these are the exact same people who screw up a project in the first place. Whereas the non-customer who didn't buy the product is never involved in this process.
You compress, encrypt, send, decrypt, decompress obviously.
Ah, but what about when you're sending highly repetitive data, like a data table?
3/4ths of those people were born after Jesus supposedly died. How can they possibly be eyewitness accounts? Do you know that historians in that era would write what they heard from others to help build their histories, and that modern historians know that?
As to Luke, that was an oral history for decades before it was written down, and contains elements that suggest it was derived from the gospel of mark, which was definitely written by someone who never met Jesus.
I mean, this is exactly the sort of thing that I was talking about. Your traditional beliefs are sacrosanct, inviolable history despite being supported by dubious evidence at best, but Catholics, they're the crazy ones. I don't mind being wrong, I am quite frequently, but you need to seriously examine just what material your house is made of before you go throwing stones about.
I wasn't actually contending Jesus didn't exist, I was just highlighting that your beliefs are based on absurdity too. And you should really take a look at the citation given for your pull-quote. The line clearly a synthesis drawn from misrepresenting the lack of affirmative denial as the same as supporting the Historical Jesus hypothesis. The two are not the same. It even incorporates a statement of a scholar who says exactly that. That [9][10] there doesn't mean a statement is factually true every time it's present. I've followed that debate on wikipedia for a while, and the long term consensus is that any change is too contentious to make, even if that the statement isn't perfectly accurate.
Well, I certainly don't listen to ad-supported radio(NPR) or watch ad-supported television(netflix and purchased streams). As to the others... What are newspapers and magazines(like from a gun?)?
Is hypocrisy a valid defense against fraud charges in the UK? If so, can I live there? If so, can you help me with the 6 million pounds in my bank account, as prince of the my current country?
Yep, I stopped buying EA, no Dragon Age, no Mass Effect, no Sims, no Sim-City. They have some skilled dev teams, but way way way way way too much hatred for me for me to buy their products.
Actually, I'll go one step further, and say websites that are ad-supported are generally bad, and that the incentive advertising has on web content is negative. I could do with a lot less top-ten lists on the internet.
I know there are good sites that have ads, I even used to leave slashdot whitelisted in adblock(though a certain recent event regarding slashvertisement and editor abuse changed that), but the overall incentive is perverse.
And as an atheist, I have no problem saying your entire religion is bogus, and any historians confirming the existence of Jesus are religious people engaged in confirmation bias, because the actual presentable evidence is pretty substandard.
See how easy that was. It's easy to dismiss the religious beliefs of others.
In catholic tradition, it's entirely accepted to be the case. I mean, if you want to talk about things that lack historical precedent in the context of religion of all things, I'm sure we could find better examples.
Where "maintain the peace" is apparently a code word for killing millions and possibly provoking a devastating war. Nuclear weapons aren't a diplomatic tool, they're devastatingly powerful weapons that are completely and utterly indiscriminate in their killing.
He was talking about pre-emptively nuking a major city. That's not "defending yourself". That's mass murder.