What a great show MASH was. Sadly, judging by what's followed from the major networks in the years since, it seems to have been one of the last gasps of truly quality TV series.
The right wing conservatives manipulate the public view using Fox news and their method of twisting and distorting facts, and informing the viewers with their personal 'paid for' opinions.
[sarcasm]What!?!? You mean conservatives have a whole *one* network that doesn't act like they're incapable of being non-evil in anything they say or do!?!? How can the liberal left ever expect to convince anyone of their views with such uneven, unfair odds?
After all, all the poor under-represented-by-media Democrats/liberals/leftists have are ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, MSNBC, NYT, along with most other print, broadcast, and electronic media on their side.
With such uneven odds, I can understand why there's been talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine.[/sarcasm]
As to the Google-bombing, I see posts here talking about how the Republicans/conservatives have played some political media "dirty tricks" in the past and how that is justification for "preemptive/retaliatory strikes" like this one. So, I guess dirty tricks are OK as long as they're done by the side with the "correct" views?
The ends justifying the means, and stooping as low as your opponents has never been the way to achieving anything good, as shown repeatedly through history. If your tactics are no better than the other sides' are, what exactly is the difference in the end?
Vacuum tube guitar amps, anyone? There's a thriving community that includes not only kits but community driven, open source design of new amps as well as groups that clone the classics.
Ahh, now that's my cuppa! Nothing matches the sound of an electric guitar played through thermionic valves!
There's also Weber http://www.tedweber.com/ who sell original-design and clone kits of classic models as well as Watts Tube Audio http://www.turretboards.com/ that sell original-design kits and parts for other kits and retrofitting/upgrades to other kits and commercially-produced amps.
For those that want a classic Marshall clone kit, there's Metropoulos Amplification http://www.metroamp.com/ which even offers a Marshall faceplate with control-knob labeling that "goes to '11'" ala Nigel Tufnels' famous interview in his guitar room in the comedic rock band documetary spoof, "This Is Spinal Tap".
There's quite a community of builders available for help and advice. One thing about many of these kits is that although most provide schematic diagram and layout drawings, step-by-step instructions are pretty-much non-existent due to litigation risks involved with Darwin Award contenders mixed with lethal-level high voltages found in vacuum tube amplifiers.
To anyone considering building a vacuum tube-based amplifier, DO NOT attempt this unless you have familiarized yourself with proper safety precautions and procedures regarding working with high voltage electrical circuitry as injury and death can result.
Other than the whole death and injury thing though, it's great fun!
You'll have to take me at my word, but I really was replying to "I just would like to see where this happened." a lot more than I was replying to "Care to cite some examples?", hence the posting of a pointer without any discussion.
I did happen to point out an (the?) example, but once is certainly explained away as a mistake.
Not a problem, and agreed.
That was mostly my point, that once is definitely not indicative of a trend nor proof of any intent to deceive or mislead. I was snarky in my first reply as a response to the rather strident tone of the OP, not particularly to your post.
A good portion of my intent was simply to point out what the first post was even about (i.e., something actually happened, it isn't completely invented).
What the first poster was about was accusing Fox News of "repeatedly" mislabeling Rep's as Dem's when the Rep's did something bad. To prove that actually happened one would need to cite *repeated* examples (more than two or three) to even come close to backing up that claim.
I don't think Fox is particularly worse than the other cable news channels, but I don't think that is saying much either. I think they lean a little more right than 'fair and balanced' would indicate, but that's about the extent of the difference. For the most part, they all execute pretty well on what they are trying to do, it is more that none of them are trying to do anything other than garner viewership (where ostensibly 'news' means that sometimes you work to inform with little or no regard for ratings).
I partially agree with you here. I also hate the ratings pandering that Fox, as well as every other news service, does these days.
I won't argue that Fox leans to the Right, but IMO they do a much fairer job of presenting both sides than most any other network does. I mean c'mon! When *Hillary* goes on Fox to get a fair shake, that has to say something! Most are so blatantly to the Left they don't even pretend anymore, and Fox is so outnumbered by all the networks and news services (cable, broadcast, internet, print) that are either strongly Left-leaning or solidly Left that I'm willing to give them some slack.
Being so outnumbered and as hated by the Left as they are for not swilling the "Republican/Conservative/Bush Hater-Aid" with the rest of them, everything they say/do is put under a microscope to find fodder for attacks, as exampled by the original poster who made claims that clearly aren't backed by reality.
Yeah well, I didn't ever say it was a devious plan by fox, I was just pointing out that there was at least one example to be found, and that it wasn't all that hard to find.
Yes, but your post was in support of the parents' post which stated:
Yeah, that's almost as annoying as Fox News repeatedly (and "accidentally", of course) labeling Repubs involved in scandals as Dems.
Which then you were asked for "examples", plural, as in enough to support the claim. You were able to reply with *one*.
OK...there's one example in the results. That's quite a trend there.
Obviously, it's a devious plan by Fox News. Newscorp must have secretly bought Google and had the search results edited so only one example was listed to allay suspicion. How brilliantly evil!
Stop talking about how exploiting more oil will solve the issues. Oil IS an essential resources, and is needed, and we would have plenty of it for the foreseeable future if we stopped burning the damn stuff for single-person transportation.
As has already been pointed out, the US is large and the population is spread out. Mass transit infrastructure is nearly non-existent, and would take decades (and much energy use) to bring up to truly practical standards such that a significant drop in automobile use could be realized.
Besides, as was also pointed out in previous posts, it's not all about individual, private transportation but also the movement of food and material.
The other factor is roll-out time. Even if we had a ready alternative transportation fuel and infrastructure system all worked out it would take many years, even decades to actually build it and get it deployed. So how do we feed people and deliver clothes, medicine, building materials, and get them to their jobs and back in the meantime?
Also stating that it's not practical to start domestic drilling now because it would take too long is not entirely true nor tells the whole story. This excuse has been used for the last 30 years, and if we had started then, we would be in a much better position now. Plus, just the simple fact of the US beginning to (finally!) utilize domestic oil resources in a serious way would have an immediate price-lowering impact on the price of oil on the market.
Nuclear, fusion, alternative fuels...great! Research, invest, build, and engineer away! But in the meantime there's a nation of some 300 million people spread over a very large portion of a continent that needs to be fed, clothed, kept warm, have lights and electricity, and provided shelter while maintaining a first-world technical/industrial economy and there's nothing right *now*, nor likely to be ready anytime soon, to take the place of what we have or even a truly significant fraction of it.
> If you don't resolve the problems within the Judiciary soon, your wonderful country, its' businesses, and its' great people will all continue to suffer horribly.
FTFY.
We've been at the mercy of a sinister and brutally efficient socialist machine for the last nine years - that's three terms - and like the US with the ol' Bush Baby, we have nobody but ourselves to blame for returning them to power when we should have chosen more wisely.
Don't make the mistake there we are making here, and fall for the idea that a simple change of one person or one of two or three of the long-standing major parties that have all contributed to the state of affairs we suffer with now will change anything.
That's one of the tactics they use to maintain control and keep the status quo. In the USA, far too many fall for the propaganda that our current troubles are all due to the current President and the Republicans, and that simply changing the letter 'R' to a 'D' following the names of the politicians will bring about meaningful change. Neither side wants meaningful change, as that would mean a loss of their power and wealth.
The same tactics are used when the current officeholders happen to have a 'D' following their names, and this tactic has kept the greater public bamboozled for decades and the two major powers entrenched and able to prevent any meaningful political challenge to their power or any meaningful change in the slow erosion of liberty.
They fan the flames of partisan hatred, class envy, and racial hatred and fear to keep the people divided and conquered, and slowly remove the freedoms that so many sacrificed their lives to obtain while steadily increasing their grip on the lives and livelihoods of the citizens, even now to actually making some thoughts a crime and every person a criminal upon which they may selectively enforce punishment for the "troublemakers" that might disturb the status quo.
I've watched this decline over 5 decades and it's shocking to me how a once-great country and people have been so easily-tricked into willingly giving away their freedoms and future by the hate-and-fear mongers of both major parties. I hope you young people wake up and stop buying the Kronos/Kodos school of political theory, or this once-shining beacon of freedom will have its' last dying sparks extinguished.
By the way, does my previous post now mean I risk imprisonment if I visit NZ? I'd better tell my bands' booking agent not to book us any gigs there for a while!:P
And what, pray tell, do you actually think is wrong with the judiciary?
Well, I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
If you happen to be in a position of wealth and political power and you're ok with a judiciary that has little oversight and adheres to the "old boys' club" methods of protecting one another from any repercussions from malfeasance of duty, obstruction of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, accepting hearsay as proven fact, and/or corruption/bribery because otherwise you might find yourself answering for illegal unscrupulous actions and behaviors, then I guess in your eyes it's fine.
If you happen to *not* be in a position of political or financial power such that you benefit from such a system, and suffer the consequences of the powerful and wealthy controlling the legal system for their own gain, well, there's quite a bit.
So, I ask all of you, what else do you expect us to do?
How about impeaching the judges involved, removing them from the bench, and vacating their orders and rulings? While you're at it, fix the judicial system as a whole, as it seems that the NZ judicial system is even more corrupt and has less oversight than the one in the USA, especially since the inception of the NZ Supreme Court, and that's saying a lot.
I sympathize with the people of NZ, as the choices and changes that need to be made are painful to say the least, no matter what. But it's coming down to crunch-time. If you don't resolve the problems within the Judiciary soon, your wonderful country, its' businesses, and its' great people will all suffer horribly.
My submitted (brief form) comment is below. If the comment reflects your feelings and it would make it more convenient for you, please feel free to copy/paste.
----
I oppose this proposed rule as I believe that it violates my fair-use rights, and is an end-run around the protections the FCC is obligated by law to protect. This proposal is not an effective tool to prevent unauthorized recordings as those will be available via the internet.
This is simply an attempt to remove fair-use rights from consumers in an attempt to maximize profits at the expense of the publics' rights.
2) You don't live in a deserted island. Injuring yourself will have a cost for society. There will be minor inconveniences to a few people who are counting on you (boss, coworkers, clients...); there will be a lot of people who'll get late to work because you're body is blocking the road; depending on where you live, society will have to pay for cleaning up the mess, repair on public damage, hospital...
I understand what you're saying here, and there is a point to it.
That being said however, giving government power to control behavior and write laws based on this principal can be a very dangerous thing to do. I believe that any costs to be assessed against an individual on these grounds should only be a result of a civil action between citizens.
Once you've opened the door to government control of, and given it the ability to pass legislation concerning, ones' own personal behaviors and activities as it affects ones' own health and safety and/or costs to society, such laws, regulations, and legislation are subject to subsequent interpretation and re-interpretations later that tend to unnecessarily restrict peoples' normal activities and behaviors far beyond the intentions of the original framers of said laws/regulations/legislation.
Every human activity engenders some form of risk and cost to society. Parachuting, gun ownership, exploration (terrestrial and space), swimming, and riding a motorcycle to name but a few examples, all engender personal risk that will add costs to society if one is hurt or killed.
Giving government the ability to restrict behavior financially and/or imprison people for taking risks gives the government the power to restrict or forbid practically any activity it chooses, and veto power over any proposed action or endeavor. All government needs, once the door to control these activities and behaviors is legally opened, is to find a friendly court to interpret the legislation how they wish.
As the saying goes, any power given to the government will at some point be abused by those in power for their own ends. Our only defense as citizens is to grant the government as few powers as possible, and to keep the government weak enough to not be a danger.
One need look no further for proof of this concept than the US government (and most other 1st-world governments) in its'/their current state(s), and changing the figureheads or the legislative puppets for a 'D' or 'R' (or whatever the mainstream political parties' initial or insignia happens to be) by their names will not change this once a certain threshold of government size and power has been passed.
This characteristic of human governments, I believe, is where Thomas Jeffersons' concept of the Tree of Liberty needing to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants comes from.
LOL, I wasn't personally OFFENDED by your post, I was amused at your smug attitude.
Your post was nothing more than a partisan attack on a dead man. An unwarranted and unsupported attack at that. You make a derogatory comment about someone based on political bias without any sort of evidence whatsoever, and are really trying to convince me that your post was something other than flamebait? And then the fail attempt at a subtle dig at me in the last paragraph? Yeah, you definitely exhibit tendencies of both flamebait AND troll. Partisan douche too, but there's not a mod option for that.
How, pray tell, is stating that the man worked very long and hard to get where he was and deserved respect an attack? Or are you referring to the FACT that he was NOT "fair and balanced"? Is stating a fact that someone doesn't want to hear now an attack?
I didn't attack Russert personally or professionally, I praised him. I just pointed out what people here wouldn't acknowledge, and that was that he wasn't the icon of fairness and balance that many commenter's here seemed to be claiming. Are there others far worse? Yes, on both sides of the political spectrum.
My evidence is his Obama interview, which is widely acknowledged to have been far far less probing or pressing after facts than his Hillary Clinton interview. Also the links cited in the parent post. If you can watch the two interviews and NOT come to the conclusion that he basically tossed Obama softballs, then you're too blinded by your own views to be reasoned with.
My last paragraph wasn't an attack on you if you don't fit the stereotypical intolerant liberal who can't tolerate differing opinions, and when confronted with facts that contradict your assertions, must attack those who dare expose the intellectual dishonesty. I'm sorry if you feel I'm attacking you if the shoe is fitting uncomfortably-well. Maybe you should try another cobbler rather than attacking those who point out that it isn't the paving-stones causing your pain.
If you weren't offended, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to attack me for my post, and any other explanation is hand-waving and obfuscation. Period, stop, end-of-line. I consider this thread closed.
I didn't mod you, and yet I "know" that your piece was INDEED flamebait.
Russert was at the top of his game and worked very hard for a long time to get where he was, and that deserves respect. However, to lament his passing as a loss of a fair and balanced journalist is simply delusional and self-vindicating feel-good mental stroking by people with leftist views at the expense of a dead man.
That right there is almost the definition of flamebait, you know, baiting to be flamed. If you don't see this, and assume that such an egotistical assertion is just 'informing the masses', well then 'troll' might be accurate too.
If the definition of "Troll" and/or "Flamebait" is now anyone who doesn't buy into the liberal democrat group-think and is not afraid to point out when people are using a dead man to make themselves feel good about their political views, then I wear the badges proudly.
As far as "baiting to be flamed" goes, the only people who should be offended are the very ones I described who viciously attack anyone who doesn't adhere to their political ideals. If you're not a member of that subset of people who are too narrow-minded to tolerate differing opinions, then I wasn't referring to you, and you have no reason to feel my comment was in any way a troll or flamebait. That you seem to think so says all there is to say.
You can mod me Troll all you want, but you *know* my post was in no way a Troll or Offtopic, nor even Flamebait. Again, modding a political viewpoint you disagree with "Troll" only demonstrates your inability to tolerate any opinion that challenges your views, thus validating one of the major points of my post.
Oh, that's right. Every other mainstream reporter not employed by Fox.
Not to mention Slashdot itself.
Now let the ritual downmodding begin.
RIP.
Yup, typical. "-1 Troll".
Even though you cited every claim.
Even Hillary Rodham Clinton said she got the fairest coverage on Fox News!! People on the left politically tend to believe what they want and are comfortable/reassured/vindicated by, and facts be damned. Any contentions to their views threatens their little bubble of self-created, self-vindicating reality and is viciously attacked with tactics justified by a "the ends justify the means" mindset.
This is not to say there aren't intellectually honest people with liberal/left views. Most of those people I like and respect, and can have very enjoyable and interesting debates with. The same goes for people with right-leaning, conservative views. There are people on the right that suffer some of the same pitfalls and temptations to twist reality to their mindset as people with left-leaning, liberal views. I have little patience with either.
Russert was at the top of his game and worked very hard for a long time to get where he was, and that deserves respect. However, to lament his passing as a loss of a fair and balanced journalist is simply delusional and self-vindicating feel-good mental stroking by people with leftist views at the expense of a dead man.
Oops, in the time I took to type this, someone actually modded the parent up to "-0 Insightful". There's at least one mod that doesn't equate "I disagree politically" with "Troll".
Why not pass a worldwide law that upon birth (or on the date the law goes into effect), every single person in the world must have an implant that detects whenever that person sees, hears, or otherwise experiences any form of copyrighted material, and on each occurrence, transfers money from their bank account directly into the accounts of the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. This would solve the problem of people downloading illegally, as it would become legal to download copyrighted material for free. You would pay each time you hear/see/use the material. This would be a form of Pay-Per-Use, and to the RIAA's, MPAA's, and Microsoft's huge advantage, they'll get to charge you even when you pull up to a stoplight and you hear a song being blasted on the radio of the car next to you. Violation of the law by not having the implant will be punishable by weeks of inhumane torture, followed by the death penalty, without wasting anyone's time with nonsense like trials, legal proceedings, due process, or any of that other pesky stuff.
Meh...just give 'em another generation or two of dumbing-down the populace with reality-TV, Brittney Spears/Backstreet Boys clones, our institutes of un-education, sharing files helps the terrists hysteria, and fluoridated water, then they'll be ready to roll it out without much fuss being made.
What they've failed to demonstrate (IMHO) is that the IP problems they're fighting (P2P networks) make a demonstratable difference to profits.
See, that's where they're lying. It isn't really about them being afraid of file sharers causing all that much damage to profits. It's about *control of the distribution mechanisms of entertainment, software, and information*.
First, it scares the crap out of the media distribution and proprietary software cartels that individual artists and software creators are increasingly able to bypass them pretty much altogether and create and distribute their creations themselves without the cartels getting the lions' share.
Second, it scares the crap out of the government that information and data can be so easily distributed quickly, widely, and at nominal cost, with no practical way for government to censor or control it, with the added kicker of it becoming harder and harder to pierce the anonymity the internet provides, especially with the rise of open-source free hard-encryption and anonymizing tools. Things like Wikileaks are giving them fits.
The "IP" issue is really nothing more than a means to an end, and a distraction from the real goal of taking the ability away from individuals to distribute information, software, and entertainment themselves to keep the movie/music/proprietary software cartels' gravy-train rolling, and creating a means for the government to control the spread of information and leaks about the more sordid actions of the powerful and rich to increase their power and wealth at our expense while remaining above the law.
That meat packing place follows ALL The laws to the T. it's the sub-contractor that was at fault. Don't believe me, read any of the news reportsa bout any of the raids.
I don't know what news reports you're referring to, as to my knowledge this plant and their problems never made the news. I *worked* there, as a second-shift electrical maintenance technician. They didn't use any employment contractors (other than a cleaning crew that came in during third shift). I believe that they have since moved operations to Mexico.
The reason I left was that they wanted me to disable the emergency stop buttons on much of the equipment, because they didn't want production halted just because someone got a finger, hand, etc lopped off. They also wanted me to remove interlocking safety doors to ground meat packing machines (the ones that pack hamburger into those 3 and 5 pound "tubes") because that also slowed down production. I watched an average of 3-5 workers a week get taken away by ambulance because of injuries on the job. It was a running joke that the company liked the accidents because it added extra cost-free meat to production.
To top it off, they wanted me to sign off on the work orders, but no supervisors or managers would sign those work orders as was the normal practice for other work orders. They basically threatened me that they would fire then blacklist me so I'd "never work in this state again" if I didn't go along. Threatening me wasn't a good idea.
I removed and hid a number of critical PLC controllers and other unique and hard-to-replace and maximum-time-consuming to re-install/reprogram machine and electrical components and walked out. From what I heard from former workmates, that cost them several hundred thousand dollars and much lost production time. I did do my duty in reporting the violations, but as I described in my earlier posts, the penalties that were available were ineffective and the agencies responsible were unenthusiastic at best about following up on violations.
Just calculate the total amount of these fines and judgments, divide by the number of residential customers, and you'll know how much your internet bill will be going up in a couple months.
This reminds me of the way a certain meat-packing plant a couple towns over operates. They employ (and underpay) illegal alien workers, they violate workplace safety codes blatantly, and they just pay the fines and judgments and go on as usual because the cost of compliance is more than the fines and judgments.
Until the financial penalties are a very significant percentage of their gross income, and/or CEOs and board-members are held personally financially and criminally liable, this kind of behavior will continue, and any costs imposed will be passed along to consumers.
The "corporate veil" of protections against personal civil and criminal liabilities of corporate heads and boards needs to be more easily pierced when it involves intentional abusive or illegal behavior on the part of corporations like the kinds of behaviors exhibited by Comcast and other cable ISPs, and corporations in the US as a whole.
If the people actually in charge of corporations knew that abusive and anti-competitive behavior by the corporations they head could land *them personally* square in the hotseat, much of the corporate bad-faith, "nothing counts but the bottom-line" behaviors so typical of the current corporate environment in the US would quickly undergo radical change.
Actually, that won't even do the trick. The trick is to keep the money from the interests that seek this crap in the first place. Treat modern copyright for what it is - a defect - and avoid buying stuff (where practical) that suffers from this defect. Remind the producers where their paycheck comes from.
What if people really did start paying attention and started organizing to teach others about refusing to buy content from the major content/media corporations, to the point it started having a major financial impact?
Would the government attempt to label the heads of these grass-roots organizations econo- or IP-terrorists? Would they try to use the existing anti-terror laws and infrastructure as well as anything they could dream up and pass against them?
If it got to the point that Disney/Microsoft/major record labels were being badly damaged, would the government route around our refusal to give them money by just taking the tax money they are already confiscating from the citizens under threat of guns and prison and just give it to them in the form of "bailouts"?
I'm very afraid that before the people are able to make any significant changes in the way things are going, it's going to get very very nasty, and many many people will lose their freedoms (in all senses), lives, and livelihoods before things settle out and revert to where the people actually have any control.
Slashdot Mirror
As said by Charles Emerson Winchester III:
"I do one thing, I do it well, and I move on."
What a great show MASH was. Sadly, judging by what's followed from the major networks in the years since, it seems to have been one of the last gasps of truly quality TV series.
Cheers!
Strat
Seriously what the hell are you talking about?
Something that, quite obviously judging by rest of your post, you will refuse to see no matter what I or anyone else says or does.
"There are none so blind as those that will not see."
Cheers!
Strat
The right wing conservatives manipulate the public view using Fox news and their method of twisting and distorting facts, and informing the viewers with their personal 'paid for' opinions.
[sarcasm]What!?!? You mean conservatives have a whole *one* network that doesn't act like they're incapable of being non-evil in anything they say or do!?!? How can the liberal left ever expect to convince anyone of their views with such uneven, unfair odds?
After all, all the poor under-represented-by-media Democrats/liberals/leftists have are ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, MSNBC, NYT, along with most other print, broadcast, and electronic media on their side.
With such uneven odds, I can understand why there's been talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine.[/sarcasm]
As to the Google-bombing, I see posts here talking about how the Republicans/conservatives have played some political media "dirty tricks" in the past and how that is justification for "preemptive/retaliatory strikes" like this one. So, I guess dirty tricks are OK as long as they're done by the side with the "correct" views?
The ends justifying the means, and stooping as low as your opponents has never been the way to achieving anything good, as shown repeatedly through history. If your tactics are no better than the other sides' are, what exactly is the difference in the end?
Cheers!
Strat
Vacuum tube guitar amps, anyone? There's a thriving community that includes not only kits but community driven, open source design of new amps as well as groups that clone the classics.
Ahh, now that's my cuppa! Nothing matches the sound of an electric guitar played through thermionic valves!
There's also Weber http://www.tedweber.com/ who sell original-design and clone kits of classic models as well as Watts Tube Audio http://www.turretboards.com/ that sell original-design kits and parts for other kits and retrofitting/upgrades to other kits and commercially-produced amps.
For those that want a classic Marshall clone kit, there's Metropoulos Amplification http://www.metroamp.com/ which even offers a Marshall faceplate with control-knob labeling that "goes to '11'" ala Nigel Tufnels' famous interview in his guitar room in the comedic rock band documetary spoof, "This Is Spinal Tap".
There's quite a community of builders available for help and advice. One thing about many of these kits is that although most provide schematic diagram and layout drawings, step-by-step instructions are pretty-much non-existent due to litigation risks involved with Darwin Award contenders mixed with lethal-level high voltages found in vacuum tube amplifiers.
To anyone considering building a vacuum tube-based amplifier, DO NOT attempt this unless you have familiarized yourself with proper safety precautions and procedures regarding working with high voltage electrical circuitry as injury and death can result.
Other than the whole death and injury thing though, it's great fun!
Cheers!
Strat
You'll have to take me at my word, but I really was replying to "I just would like to see where this happened." a lot more than I was replying to "Care to cite some examples?", hence the posting of a pointer without any discussion.
I did happen to point out an (the?) example, but once is certainly explained away as a mistake.
Not a problem, and agreed.
That was mostly my point, that once is definitely not indicative of a trend nor proof of any intent to deceive or mislead. I was snarky in my first reply as a response to the rather strident tone of the OP, not particularly to your post.
Cheers!
Strat
A good portion of my intent was simply to point out what the first post was even about (i.e., something actually happened, it isn't completely invented).
What the first poster was about was accusing Fox News of "repeatedly" mislabeling Rep's as Dem's when the Rep's did something bad. To prove that actually happened one would need to cite *repeated* examples (more than two or three) to even come close to backing up that claim.
I don't think Fox is particularly worse than the other cable news channels, but I don't think that is saying much either. I think they lean a little more right than 'fair and balanced' would indicate, but that's about the extent of the difference. For the most part, they all execute pretty well on what they are trying to do, it is more that none of them are trying to do anything other than garner viewership (where ostensibly 'news' means that sometimes you work to inform with little or no regard for ratings).
I partially agree with you here. I also hate the ratings pandering that Fox, as well as every other news service, does these days.
I won't argue that Fox leans to the Right, but IMO they do a much fairer job of presenting both sides than most any other network does. I mean c'mon! When *Hillary* goes on Fox to get a fair shake, that has to say something! Most are so blatantly to the Left they don't even pretend anymore, and Fox is so outnumbered by all the networks and news services (cable, broadcast, internet, print) that are either strongly Left-leaning or solidly Left that I'm willing to give them some slack.
Being so outnumbered and as hated by the Left as they are for not swilling the "Republican/Conservative/Bush Hater-Aid" with the rest of them, everything they say/do is put under a microscope to find fodder for attacks, as exampled by the original poster who made claims that clearly aren't backed by reality.
Cheers!
Strat
Which then you were asked for "examples"...
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I was mistaken. *You* weren't asked for examples, the OP was, but you jumped in to supply it.
My bad.
Cheers!
Strat
Yeah well, I didn't ever say it was a devious plan by fox, I was just pointing out that there was at least one example to be found, and that it wasn't all that hard to find.
Yes, but your post was in support of the parents' post which stated:
Yeah, that's almost as annoying as Fox News repeatedly (and "accidentally", of course) labeling Repubs involved in scandals as Dems.
Which then you were asked for "examples", plural, as in enough to support the claim. You were able to reply with *one*.
"One"/=="repeatedly"
Beers!
Not Strat.
Nice snark on my friendly post signature, though.
Cheers!
Strat
Care to cite some examples? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just would like to see where this happened.
Reply:
http://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+fox+mislabel
OK...there's one example in the results. That's quite a trend there.
Obviously, it's a devious plan by Fox News. Newscorp must have secretly bought Google and had the search results edited so only one example was listed to allay suspicion. How brilliantly evil!
Cheers!
Strat
Stop talking about how exploiting more oil will solve the issues. Oil IS an essential resources, and is needed, and we would have plenty of it for the foreseeable future if we stopped burning the damn stuff for single-person transportation.
As has already been pointed out, the US is large and the population is spread out. Mass transit infrastructure is nearly non-existent, and would take decades (and much energy use) to bring up to truly practical standards such that a significant drop in automobile use could be realized.
Besides, as was also pointed out in previous posts, it's not all about individual, private transportation but also the movement of food and material.
The other factor is roll-out time. Even if we had a ready alternative transportation fuel and infrastructure system all worked out it would take many years, even decades to actually build it and get it deployed. So how do we feed people and deliver clothes, medicine, building materials, and get them to their jobs and back in the meantime?
Also stating that it's not practical to start domestic drilling now because it would take too long is not entirely true nor tells the whole story. This excuse has been used for the last 30 years, and if we had started then, we would be in a much better position now. Plus, just the simple fact of the US beginning to (finally!) utilize domestic oil resources in a serious way would have an immediate price-lowering impact on the price of oil on the market.
Nuclear, fusion, alternative fuels...great! Research, invest, build, and engineer away! But in the meantime there's a nation of some 300 million people spread over a very large portion of a continent that needs to be fed, clothed, kept warm, have lights and electricity, and provided shelter while maintaining a first-world technical/industrial economy and there's nothing right *now*, nor likely to be ready anytime soon, to take the place of what we have or even a truly significant fraction of it.
Cheers!
Strat
> If you don't resolve the problems within the Judiciary soon, your wonderful country, its' businesses, and its' great people will all continue to suffer horribly.
FTFY.
We've been at the mercy of a sinister and brutally efficient socialist machine for the last nine years - that's three terms - and like the US with the ol' Bush Baby, we have nobody but ourselves to blame for returning them to power when we should have chosen more wisely.
Don't make the mistake there we are making here, and fall for the idea that a simple change of one person or one of two or three of the long-standing major parties that have all contributed to the state of affairs we suffer with now will change anything.
That's one of the tactics they use to maintain control and keep the status quo. In the USA, far too many fall for the propaganda that our current troubles are all due to the current President and the Republicans, and that simply changing the letter 'R' to a 'D' following the names of the politicians will bring about meaningful change. Neither side wants meaningful change, as that would mean a loss of their power and wealth.
The same tactics are used when the current officeholders happen to have a 'D' following their names, and this tactic has kept the greater public bamboozled for decades and the two major powers entrenched and able to prevent any meaningful political challenge to their power or any meaningful change in the slow erosion of liberty.
They fan the flames of partisan hatred, class envy, and racial hatred and fear to keep the people divided and conquered, and slowly remove the freedoms that so many sacrificed their lives to obtain while steadily increasing their grip on the lives and livelihoods of the citizens, even now to actually making some thoughts a crime and every person a criminal upon which they may selectively enforce punishment for the "troublemakers" that might disturb the status quo.
I've watched this decline over 5 decades and it's shocking to me how a once-great country and people have been so easily-tricked into willingly giving away their freedoms and future by the hate-and-fear mongers of both major parties. I hope you young people wake up and stop buying the Kronos/Kodos school of political theory, or this once-shining beacon of freedom will have its' last dying sparks extinguished.
Cheers!
Strat
By the way, does my previous post now mean I risk imprisonment if I visit NZ? I'd better tell my bands' booking agent not to book us any gigs there for a while! :P
Cheers!
Strat
And what, pray tell, do you actually think is wrong with the judiciary?
Well, I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
If you happen to be in a position of wealth and political power and you're ok with a judiciary that has little oversight and adheres to the "old boys' club" methods of protecting one another from any repercussions from malfeasance of duty, obstruction of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, accepting hearsay as proven fact, and/or corruption/bribery because otherwise you might find yourself answering for illegal unscrupulous actions and behaviors, then I guess in your eyes it's fine.
If you happen to *not* be in a position of political or financial power such that you benefit from such a system, and suffer the consequences of the powerful and wealthy controlling the legal system for their own gain, well, there's quite a bit.
Cheers!
Strat
So, I ask all of you, what else do you expect us to do?
How about impeaching the judges involved, removing them from the bench, and vacating their orders and rulings? While you're at it, fix the judicial system as a whole, as it seems that the NZ judicial system is even more corrupt and has less oversight than the one in the USA, especially since the inception of the NZ Supreme Court, and that's saying a lot.
I sympathize with the people of NZ, as the choices and changes that need to be made are painful to say the least, no matter what. But it's coming down to crunch-time. If you don't resolve the problems within the Judiciary soon, your wonderful country, its' businesses, and its' great people will all suffer horribly.
Cheers!
Strat
My submitted (brief form) comment is below. If the comment reflects your feelings and it would make it more convenient for you, please feel free to copy/paste.
----
I oppose this proposed rule as I believe that it violates my fair-use
rights, and is an end-run around the protections the FCC is obligated
by law to protect. This proposal is not an effective tool to prevent
unauthorized recordings as those will be available via the internet.
This is simply an attempt to remove fair-use rights from consumers in
an attempt to maximize profits at the expense of the publics' rights.
----
Cheers!
Strat
2) You don't live in a deserted island. Injuring yourself will have a cost for society. There will be minor inconveniences to a few people who are counting on you (boss, coworkers, clients...); there will be a lot of people who'll get late to work because you're body is blocking the road; depending on where you live, society will have to pay for cleaning up the mess, repair on public damage, hospital...
I understand what you're saying here, and there is a point to it.
That being said however, giving government power to control behavior and write laws based on this principal can be a very dangerous thing to do. I believe that any costs to be assessed against an individual on these grounds should only be a result of a civil action between citizens.
Once you've opened the door to government control of, and given it the ability to pass legislation concerning, ones' own personal behaviors and activities as it affects ones' own health and safety and/or costs to society, such laws, regulations, and legislation are subject to subsequent interpretation and re-interpretations later that tend to unnecessarily restrict peoples' normal activities and behaviors far beyond the intentions of the original framers of said laws/regulations/legislation.
Every human activity engenders some form of risk and cost to society. Parachuting, gun ownership, exploration (terrestrial and space), swimming, and riding a motorcycle to name but a few examples, all engender personal risk that will add costs to society if one is hurt or killed.
Giving government the ability to restrict behavior financially and/or imprison people for taking risks gives the government the power to restrict or forbid practically any activity it chooses, and veto power over any proposed action or endeavor. All government needs, once the door to control these activities and behaviors is legally opened, is to find a friendly court to interpret the legislation how they wish.
As the saying goes, any power given to the government will at some point be abused by those in power for their own ends. Our only defense as citizens is to grant the government as few powers as possible, and to keep the government weak enough to not be a danger.
One need look no further for proof of this concept than the US government (and most other 1st-world governments) in its'/their current state(s), and changing the figureheads or the legislative puppets for a 'D' or 'R' (or whatever the mainstream political parties' initial or insignia happens to be) by their names will not change this once a certain threshold of government size and power has been passed.
This characteristic of human governments, I believe, is where Thomas Jeffersons' concept of the Tree of Liberty needing to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants comes from.
Cheers!
Strat
LOL, I wasn't personally OFFENDED by your post, I was amused at your smug attitude.
Your post was nothing more than a partisan attack on a dead man. An unwarranted and unsupported attack at that. You make a derogatory comment about someone based on political bias without any sort of evidence whatsoever, and are really trying to convince me that your post was something other than flamebait? And then the fail attempt at a subtle dig at me in the last paragraph? Yeah, you definitely exhibit tendencies of both flamebait AND troll. Partisan douche too, but there's not a mod option for that.
How, pray tell, is stating that the man worked very long and hard to get where he was and deserved respect an attack? Or are you referring to the FACT that he was NOT "fair and balanced"? Is stating a fact that someone doesn't want to hear now an attack?
I didn't attack Russert personally or professionally, I praised him. I just pointed out what people here wouldn't acknowledge, and that was that he wasn't the icon of fairness and balance that many commenter's here seemed to be claiming. Are there others far worse? Yes, on both sides of the political spectrum.
My evidence is his Obama interview, which is widely acknowledged to have been far far less probing or pressing after facts than his Hillary Clinton interview. Also the links cited in the parent post. If you can watch the two interviews and NOT come to the conclusion that he basically tossed Obama softballs, then you're too blinded by your own views to be reasoned with.
My last paragraph wasn't an attack on you if you don't fit the stereotypical intolerant liberal who can't tolerate differing opinions, and when confronted with facts that contradict your assertions, must attack those who dare expose the intellectual dishonesty. I'm sorry if you feel I'm attacking you if the shoe is fitting uncomfortably-well. Maybe you should try another cobbler rather than attacking those who point out that it isn't the paving-stones causing your pain.
If you weren't offended, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to attack me for my post, and any other explanation is hand-waving and obfuscation. Period, stop, end-of-line. I consider this thread closed.
Cheers!
Strat
I didn't mod you, and yet I "know" that your piece was INDEED flamebait.
Russert was at the top of his game and worked very hard for a long time to get where he was, and that deserves respect. However, to lament his passing as a loss of a fair and balanced
journalist is simply delusional and self-vindicating feel-good mental stroking by people with leftist views at the expense of a dead man.
That right there is almost the definition of flamebait, you know, baiting to be flamed. If you don't see this, and assume that such an egotistical assertion is just 'informing the masses', well then 'troll' might be accurate too.
If the definition of "Troll" and/or "Flamebait" is now anyone who doesn't buy into the liberal democrat group-think and is not afraid to point out when people are using a dead man to make themselves feel good about their political views, then I wear the badges proudly.
As far as "baiting to be flamed" goes, the only people who should be offended are the very ones I described who viciously attack anyone who doesn't adhere to their political ideals. If you're not a member of that subset of people who are too narrow-minded to tolerate differing opinions, then I wasn't referring to you, and you have no reason to feel my comment was in any way a troll or flamebait. That you seem to think so says all there is to say.
Cheers!
Strat
"-1 Troll"
/. feelings!
/. feelings.
:D
Oh noes! You've hurt my
Oh...wait. I don't have
You can mod me Troll all you want, but you *know* my post was in no way a Troll or Offtopic, nor even Flamebait. Again, modding a political viewpoint you disagree with "Troll" only demonstrates your inability to tolerate any opinion that challenges your views, thus validating one of the major points of my post.
In other words...
I win.
that Tim Russert is gone?
Oh, that's right. Every other mainstream reporter not employed by Fox.
Not to mention Slashdot itself.
Now let the ritual downmodding begin.
RIP.
Yup, typical. "-1 Troll".
Even though you cited every claim.
Even Hillary Rodham Clinton said she got the fairest coverage on Fox News!! People on the left politically tend to believe what they want and are comfortable/reassured/vindicated by, and facts be damned. Any contentions to their views threatens their little bubble of self-created, self-vindicating reality and is viciously attacked with tactics justified by a "the ends justify the means" mindset.
This is not to say there aren't intellectually honest people with liberal/left views. Most of those people I like and respect, and can have very enjoyable and interesting debates with. The same goes for people with right-leaning, conservative views. There are people on the right that suffer some of the same pitfalls and temptations to twist reality to their mindset as people with left-leaning, liberal views. I have little patience with either.
Russert was at the top of his game and worked very hard for a long time to get where he was, and that deserves respect. However, to lament his passing as a loss of a fair and balanced journalist is simply delusional and self-vindicating feel-good mental stroking by people with leftist views at the expense of a dead man.
Oops, in the time I took to type this, someone actually modded the parent up to "-0 Insightful". There's at least one mod that doesn't equate "I disagree politically" with "Troll".
Cheers!
Strat
Why not pass a worldwide law that upon birth (or on the date the law goes into effect), every single person in the world must have an implant that detects whenever that person sees, hears, or otherwise experiences any form of copyrighted material, and on each occurrence, transfers money from their bank account directly into the accounts of the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. This would solve the problem of people downloading illegally, as it would become legal to download copyrighted material for free. You would pay each time you hear/see/use the material. This would be a form of Pay-Per-Use, and to the RIAA's, MPAA's, and Microsoft's huge advantage, they'll get to charge you even when you pull up to a stoplight and you hear a song being blasted on the radio of the car next to you. Violation of the law by not having the implant will be punishable by weeks of inhumane torture, followed by the death penalty, without wasting anyone's time with nonsense like trials, legal proceedings, due process, or any of that other pesky stuff.
Meh...just give 'em another generation or two of dumbing-down the populace with reality-TV, Brittney Spears/Backstreet Boys clones, our institutes of un-education, sharing files helps the terrists hysteria, and fluoridated water, then they'll be ready to roll it out without much fuss being made.
Cheers!
Strat
What they've failed to demonstrate (IMHO) is that the IP problems they're fighting (P2P networks) make a demonstratable difference to profits.
See, that's where they're lying. It isn't really about them being afraid of file sharers causing all that much damage to profits. It's about *control of the distribution mechanisms of entertainment, software, and information*.
First, it scares the crap out of the media distribution and proprietary software cartels that individual artists and software creators are increasingly able to bypass them pretty much altogether and create and distribute their creations themselves without the cartels getting the lions' share.
Second, it scares the crap out of the government that information and data can be so easily distributed quickly, widely, and at nominal cost, with no practical way for government to censor or control it, with the added kicker of it becoming harder and harder to pierce the anonymity the internet provides, especially with the rise of open-source free hard-encryption and anonymizing tools. Things like Wikileaks are giving them fits.
The "IP" issue is really nothing more than a means to an end, and a distraction from the real goal of taking the ability away from individuals to distribute information, software, and entertainment themselves to keep the movie/music/proprietary software cartels' gravy-train rolling, and creating a means for the government to control the spread of information and leaks about the more sordid actions of the powerful and rich to increase their power and wealth at our expense while remaining above the law.
Cheers!
Strat
That meat packing place follows ALL The laws to the T. it's the sub-contractor that was at fault. Don't believe me, read any of the news reportsa bout any of the raids.
I don't know what news reports you're referring to, as to my knowledge this plant and their problems never made the news. I *worked* there, as a second-shift electrical maintenance technician. They didn't use any employment contractors (other than a cleaning crew that came in during third shift). I believe that they have since moved operations to Mexico.
The reason I left was that they wanted me to disable the emergency stop buttons on much of the equipment, because they didn't want production halted just because someone got a finger, hand, etc lopped off. They also wanted me to remove interlocking safety doors to ground meat packing machines (the ones that pack hamburger into those 3 and 5 pound "tubes") because that also slowed down production. I watched an average of 3-5 workers a week get taken away by ambulance because of injuries on the job. It was a running joke that the company liked the accidents because it added extra cost-free meat to production.
To top it off, they wanted me to sign off on the work orders, but no supervisors or managers would sign those work orders as was the normal practice for other work orders. They basically threatened me that they would fire then blacklist me so I'd "never work in this state again" if I didn't go along. Threatening me wasn't a good idea.
I removed and hid a number of critical PLC controllers and other unique and hard-to-replace and maximum-time-consuming to re-install/reprogram machine and electrical components and walked out. From what I heard from former workmates, that cost them several hundred thousand dollars and much lost production time. I did do my duty in reporting the violations, but as I described in my earlier posts, the penalties that were available were ineffective and the agencies responsible were unenthusiastic at best about following up on violations.
Cheers!
Strat
Just calculate the total amount of these fines and judgments, divide by the number of residential customers, and you'll know how much your internet bill will be going up in a couple months.
This reminds me of the way a certain meat-packing plant a couple towns over operates. They employ (and underpay) illegal alien workers, they violate workplace safety codes blatantly, and they just pay the fines and judgments and go on as usual because the cost of compliance is more than the fines and judgments.
Until the financial penalties are a very significant percentage of their gross income, and/or CEOs and board-members are held personally financially and criminally liable, this kind of behavior will continue, and any costs imposed will be passed along to consumers.
The "corporate veil" of protections against personal civil and criminal liabilities of corporate heads and boards needs to be more easily pierced when it involves intentional abusive or illegal behavior on the part of corporations like the kinds of behaviors exhibited by Comcast and other cable ISPs, and corporations in the US as a whole.
If the people actually in charge of corporations knew that abusive and anti-competitive behavior by the corporations they head could land *them personally* square in the hotseat, much of the corporate bad-faith, "nothing counts but the bottom-line" behaviors so typical of the current corporate environment in the US would quickly undergo radical change.
Ah, to dream...
Strat
Actually, that won't even do the trick. The trick is to keep the money from the interests that seek this crap in the first place. Treat modern copyright for what it is - a defect - and avoid buying stuff (where practical) that suffers from this defect. Remind the producers where their paycheck comes from.
What if people really did start paying attention and started organizing to teach others about refusing to buy content from the major content/media corporations, to the point it started having a major financial impact?
Would the government attempt to label the heads of these grass-roots organizations econo- or IP-terrorists? Would they try to use the existing anti-terror laws and infrastructure as well as anything they could dream up and pass against them?
If it got to the point that Disney/Microsoft/major record labels were being badly damaged, would the government route around our refusal to give them money by just taking the tax money they are already confiscating from the citizens under threat of guns and prison and just give it to them in the form of "bailouts"?
I'm very afraid that before the people are able to make any significant changes in the way things are going, it's going to get very very nasty, and many many people will lose their freedoms (in all senses), lives, and livelihoods before things settle out and revert to where the people actually have any control.
Cheers!
Strat