Well, technically, all shows on NBC, CBS, etc, are free promotional materials to get people to watch the real paying content, the commercials. So should no-one get paid anything, except those who produce commercials?
Because it's easier to dismiss it, rather than engage your brain and enjoy it?
It's the same way people dismiss any idea that is different from their own. Slap a handy label on it, place it in the same box as everything else with that label, and ignore it.
One of the major problems of the original BG was the strict adherence to the "running in space" plot. They had to get more and more outrageous to keep the plot fresh. Not that they succeeded, but they were hampered by poor dialog, bad acting, and the inability to move away from the core plot.
I don't think they intend the occupation of New Caprica to be like Iraq, with the Cylons as the US. If you see that parallel, perhaps it is more in you than in the show.
And all because of the incompetence of one slighly insane British king during the 18th century.
No, America won't be in a position to go into space, and all because of the incompetence of one slightly-insane American president during the first part of the 21st century.
Cooperation is the only way. Increasing aggression will make matters worse, not better. Self-serving, arrogant statements like the one just made will *not* make anything better.
It would be easy for any space-faring nation to knock out pretty much all satellites. Launch a "scientific mission" into lunar orbit. When the time comes, de-orbit, and insert it into a counter-orbit around the earth. Let loose your payload-- billions of BBs. Repeat for other regular orbital paths.
This would essentially knock out all satellite capabilities for all nations, and whatever saber-rattling Bush might do now doesn't mean a damned thing. All it does is make America look like a country of arrogant bastards.
And there's nothing in the rules about a land war in North America.
Shouldn't we be more concerned about our children getting adequate health care? How about decent employment opportunities when they grow up?
Like Dennis Miller used to say back when he was still cool, "Life is tough. Wear a cup." Our kids will be ill-prepared for the real world if they can't survive a 15-minute game of tag. It's not like it's mandatory, either. If you get picked on, don't play. That's another important lesson: how to opt-out of shit you don't like.
I am a very liberal person. Well, not really, in that I support the right to own weaponry, and I believe the constitution should be upheld on all levels. I believe the federal government should be small, and stay the fuck out of the states' internal affairs.
I believe there should be universal, free health care. I believe there should be programs to help those with very little to get a little bit more. I believe corporations are intentionally fucking over our nation and our society, with the help of the government, to line their pockets with booty and power. I believe President Bush and his cabinet have fucked over America worse than any President ever, and have done so with clear eyes and an easy conscience, and that those who still support him are pussies.
And I believe kids should grow up not being pussies. I was a geek when I was a kid, but I was never a pussy. Okay, I shouldn't say never. But I was generally not a pussy. Kids can be cruel, and mean, and downright nasty little fucks.
But if you don't learn to survive a game of tag, how the hell do you expect to survive the real world?
Why the fuck does Social Darwinism still get air-time? This is usually trotted out by some economist about once every couple of years, and the idea is that because some people are rich, they are "better-adapted" and more intelligent than the poor.
This is utter and complete bullshit. Rich people are rich often because the money is hereditary, or because they are ruthless enough to exploit others. This has little-to-nothing to do with actual evolution, as wealth rarely lasts beyond a few generations, but the genetics do.
This also assumes that the poor are unintelligent, rather than just uneducated. The education system in the United States is set up such that poor people receive a lesser education than those in rich neighborhoods. The poor stay poor (in general) because the system is stacked against them, and they have a lot more to overcome, not because they are genetically-deficient in some way.
Basically, there are very few reasons to buy a Zune. One of the things Microsoft has touted is the ability to share a song in a limited fashion via wireless.
Jobs is saying that process is cumbersome. Rather than transfer the song from device-to-device, users are much more likely to physically pass their device over to their friend, let them listen, feel happy, and go about their day.
Yes, the Zune can also do this. But, that isn't a *reason* to buy a Zune over an iPod.
He's simply stating that the marketing hype behind the Zune is misplaced on features that kinda suck from the get-go. And that's why he's not worried about the Zune. Nor should he be.
Hmm... job offers from a force for good, and a force for evil.
The force for good allows you to work on your own side-project 20% of your time. The force for evil enslaves you to a marketing department. The force for good has the motto "Do No Evil." The force for evil is, well, the source of most computer evil.
However.
I'd rather live in the Seattle area than Silicon Valley. And evil *is* more fun.
. . . are the computers going to be placed where they are really needed?
He's mistaking computation power for data management. Sure, you will have computers all over the freakin' place, where they are needed most: in churches and small pebbles and dentures and flatulent old men and chocolate chip cookies and goldfish. But what are those computers going to do? They're going to monitor things and feed that data back to a, well, central repository of data, where the data can be managed.
I might have a computer that is a part of me, that displays information through my contacts, and listens to the environment around me, bringing up the data I need real-time. Where's that data going to come from? I imagine some sort of central repository, in most cases. The searches will certainly execute on a central computer somewhere, most likely at a Google datacenter. Searches don't perform themselves.
The more distributed computers there are, the more information they generate. The more information that is generated, the greater the need for a datacenter to manage that data. I don't see that changing any time soon.
That may have been true before, but in today's US society, accusation is often taken as proof. For instance, in Ohio, there is now a law that expands the database of sexual criminals-- now, you are listed in the database as soon as you are accused. Even if you are proven innocent, your name remains in the database.
We are quickly moving to a society in which accusation is all that is required.
Dude, you are so lucky to be from whatever alternate universe you are from.
In *this* universe, Hans Blix headed up the UN inspections, and came to the conclusion that although Saddam Hussein was stonewalling, he had no WMD program whatsoever. Also, most of the other nations that *weren't* bullied by the US into joining a farcical "coalition of the willing" state they did not believe Iraq had WMDs, or the ability to pursue a WMD program. Then it turned out that *all* the evidence presented by our universe's President Bush turned out to be fabricated, or mis-represented.
In the fabricated area, the most notable was the "Yellow Cake Documents," a set of documents purporting to prove Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium ore from Nigeria. These were proven to be forged documents by the investigations of Joseph Wilson. Even after these documents were proven to be false, President Bush continued to use them as hard evidence.
In the "misrepresented" department, we had the "high strength aluminum tubes," which were claimed to be for suitable only for uranium enrichment. Nuclear scientists pretty much universally agreed these tubes were suitable for no such thing. The conclusion was that these tubes were most likely for medium-range conventional missiles, which Iraq was legally allowed to have.
You are from a better place than ours, my friend-- a place where the government can be trusted, and what is said is the truth, rather than lies and misinformation.
I don't even know where to begin. First, Bush is not putting nuclear weapons up in space. As the previous poster stated, and you conveniently ignored, putting nukes in space serves no purpose. We have a few thousand ICBMs that can do the job just fine, not to mention a few dozen subs if you need it done even quicker. You can't even produce a reason for "Bush" (like Bush is the only person making decisions... I bet you think Bush wrote this policy paper personally, don't you?) wanting nuclear weapons up in space. I suppose you do try and justify it with the sentences, "All dangerous." and "Insane."
I won't argue your other points (many of which are good, solid reasoning), but this is untrue. Putting nukes in space does server a strategic purpose.
A nuke launched from the ground takes a while to reach its target, giving a country like China, which has its own nuclear missiles, time to retaliate. We have submarines in place to launch missiles, but they have to get into position first, which can often take several days; and their payload is limited, though quite imposing.
An orbiting launch platform could target any spot on earth very rapidly. Most of the early thrust would occur in near-vacuum, making for great early acceleration. A submarine would be able to strike quickly once it is in position; orbiting nukes could strike even faster, without the need to get in position.
Further, a sub could be taken out by conventional warfare. Taking out a space-based nuke would be very difficult without exposing yourself to nuclear strike.
Basically, it all comes down to the magic three words: First Strike Initiative.
It's not easy to maneuver a rock. First, you have to put a propulsion system on it, which would require a team to assemble and install. Then you have to push it without causing it to crumble. All this takes time, money, and energy, and it would be hard to hide.
A nuke could be small, quickly-deployed, maneuverable, and generally stealthy. The time for retaliation would be short, reducing the chance of a counter-attack. You could put a *lot* of them in orbit for the same price as one dropped rock, and they would be ready at a moment's notice. Within half-an-hour, China could be a glass parking lot.
Sorry about that. I jumped off the handle at the implication we'd support another President who wants to militarize space. Most of us who are bashing Bush for this also would've bashed Clinton, or any other President-- perhaps not as fervently, but Bush has given us ample reason to distrust him.
Anyway, I'll try to take my little red pill before responding like that again.
You are so right. The reason we pick on Bush is because we don't like the way he talks. Some of us don't even like the way he looks. It's not his policies at all, which have been perfect, and reasonable, and have provided for the safety, prosperity, and continued freedom of the citizens of the United States, and the stability of the world in general.
Our bitching about Bush is, in fact, based on the dislike of him doing a better job than Clinton or Nixon. As President, Bush has shown exceptional judgment and wisdom. His policies have done more for peace through strength, stability through war, safety through fear, prosperity through enrichment of the rich, and truth through lies than any other President before.
You are *so* absolutely correct. Thanks for opening my eyes. I've been blinded by facts, logic, and reason for so long, I forgot how to truly *see*.
Well, you're an anonymous coward, so I can't call you a gullible idiot to your face, but you are.
He did refute the facts. He blew up at the interviewer after the interviewer pestered him for a few minutes. It was almost as if the interviewer *wanted* him to fly off the handle. Hell, the interviewer would hardly let him get a word in edgewise.
And for your information: according to Richard Clarke (Clinton's "Terrorist Czar") and other members of the Clinton cabinet, Clinton had set up a substantial, feasible anti-terrorist plan specifically targeted to al Queda. That was one of the first things that the new President Bush dismantled, not long before he sent $42,000,000 to the Taliban. Clinton did *not* allow the nation to be attacked. If anyone did, it would be Bush, having ignored a fairly specific document titled something along the lines of, "Al Queda determined to attack on US soil," which circulated a few weeks before the attacks.
As far as Foley sending messages that were in poor taste, those messages could be used to prosecute him for sexual misconduct if he weren't in a position of power; the fact they were directed to 15 year-old boys kind of indicates he likes 'em young.
And a side note to one of the posters above re the disgraced Rep.: a) The IM's are now shown to be a prank by the Pages to the Senator, b) The person in question was 18 at the time; therefore it is NOT pedofelia, c) I thought the Lib's were all for gay rights.. why are you jumping all over this man?
I know this is a troll, but I thought I'd clear up some facts, rather than the baseless fictitious statements you present.
No, they messages weren't shown to be a prank. They, and other emails sent to other pages who were as young as 15 at the time they were sent, are authentic.
As far as gay rights go: yes, we're for gay rights. What we're against is hypocrisy and creepy old men in positions of power.
We're also against government-level partisan coverups. Other republicans know about Foley's trespasses, and refused to bring him to task. Instead, they simply did their best to keep other people from finding out. This is rather like the Catholic Church in that respect: don't admit the problem, just try to keep other people from finding out.
This supports other studies that have been done, too. The Daily Show audiences tend to be better informed than folks who subsist solely on conventional news sources. This might have to do with the audience, or it might have to do with The Daily Show; in any case, Jon Stewart is doing a fuck-all great job.
By the time he's done, I feel I've received a less-biased, more-balanced view of the real news than an hour's worth of stupid-ass fake news given us by the mainstream channels.
I think that's the point. Jon Stewart has come on record *many* times bringing regular news services to task, rather than admitting he's particularly good. Part of the mission of The Daily Show is, I think, to bring to light what good reporting *should* do on a regular basis, in a very funny, palatable manner.
Too bad the main news sources haven't taken the hint.
I still believe, however, that all people who laugh by snorting inward and like "The Princess Bride" should be taken out in the woods somewhere and shot.
Phew! I'm safe. I love _The Princess Bride_, but I laugh long and loud and clear. Especially loud.
This whole thing is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Of *course* folks from Ubi are going to praise the 360. Duh. Ubisoft is essentially a Microsoft-only shop these days, it seems. They've pretty much bet the farm on the Xbox, and have so far been the only game shop to make anything really decent for it.
I thought the 360 was going to suck chicken balls. I was surprised. It isn't too bad (though I'll never own one, boycotting Microsoft and whatnot). Now all these PS3 naysayers are screaming to beat the band about how it's going to fail, it's going to suck, and all that.
Until we see the PS3, and see the games that are there, and see how Sony handles the business end, everything we say is just a bunch of wind. The PS3 may suck, or it might be the best thing since the 6502. Sony may price themselves out of business, or they might hit the sweet spot. The launch titles may suck, or they may totally rock like an old lady on a rocking chair. The PS3 may be exploding batteries. It might be the best thing you've ever seen. We don't know. We can only speculate.
Based on the PS2, I'm thinking the PS3 is going to be a decent console, and they have nothing to worry about from Microsoft. The 360 may be Microsoft's best product ever, but that's damning with faint praise.
Why should we hoard all the good stuff for ourselves? I think it will be worth having the rest of the world slowly move to a higher standard of living, even if our standard falls somewhat.
The problem is, the people with real power (leaders of multinational corporations, for instance) will exploit much of the resources for their own gain, while leaving the poor to suffer. That's the real issue, not offshoring.
The problem with WTO and various free-trade agreements is that it's not free trade. The various "free-trade" agreements are often little more than licenses for large companies with massive resources to go into resource-rich areas, drive out the local businesses, exploit those resources, decimate the local economy, and leave. There is no "free trade," unless you mean that large international companies are free to do what they want.
The essence of Free software is this: everyone is equal. Large corporations have the advantage of greater resources, truly, but that is all. They are not able to exploit the resource (source code & programmers) any more than a small company. It puts everyone on equal footing, as individuals.
Free trade is designed to do exactly the opposite. It is a misnomer intended to make the raping of a local economy by huge multinationals acceptable, even appealing.
There's no irony at all, except the name "Free Trade."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, technically, all shows on NBC, CBS, etc, are free promotional materials to get people to watch the real paying content, the commercials. So should no-one get paid anything, except those who produce commercials?
The whole situation is brain-bending.
Because it's easier to dismiss it, rather than engage your brain and enjoy it?
It's the same way people dismiss any idea that is different from their own. Slap a handy label on it, place it in the same box as everything else with that label, and ignore it.
One of the major problems of the original BG was the strict adherence to the "running in space" plot. They had to get more and more outrageous to keep the plot fresh. Not that they succeeded, but they were hampered by poor dialog, bad acting, and the inability to move away from the core plot.
I don't think they intend the occupation of New Caprica to be like Iraq, with the Cylons as the US. If you see that parallel, perhaps it is more in you than in the show.
Not everything on TV is commentary on US policy.
And all because of the incompetence of one slighly insane British king during the 18th century.
No, America won't be in a position to go into space, and all because of the incompetence of one slightly-insane American president during the first part of the 21st century.
Cooperation is the only way. Increasing aggression will make matters worse, not better. Self-serving, arrogant statements like the one just made will *not* make anything better.
It would be easy for any space-faring nation to knock out pretty much all satellites. Launch a "scientific mission" into lunar orbit. When the time comes, de-orbit, and insert it into a counter-orbit around the earth. Let loose your payload-- billions of BBs. Repeat for other regular orbital paths.
This would essentially knock out all satellite capabilities for all nations, and whatever saber-rattling Bush might do now doesn't mean a damned thing. All it does is make America look like a country of arrogant bastards.
And there's nothing in the rules about a land war in North America.
C'mon, America! It's time to stop being pussies.
Really.
Shouldn't we be more concerned about our children getting adequate health care? How about decent employment opportunities when they grow up?
Like Dennis Miller used to say back when he was still cool, "Life is tough. Wear a cup." Our kids will be ill-prepared for the real world if they can't survive a 15-minute game of tag. It's not like it's mandatory, either. If you get picked on, don't play. That's another important lesson: how to opt-out of shit you don't like.
I am a very liberal person. Well, not really, in that I support the right to own weaponry, and I believe the constitution should be upheld on all levels. I believe the federal government should be small, and stay the fuck out of the states' internal affairs.
I believe there should be universal, free health care. I believe there should be programs to help those with very little to get a little bit more. I believe corporations are intentionally fucking over our nation and our society, with the help of the government, to line their pockets with booty and power. I believe President Bush and his cabinet have fucked over America worse than any President ever, and have done so with clear eyes and an easy conscience, and that those who still support him are pussies.
And I believe kids should grow up not being pussies. I was a geek when I was a kid, but I was never a pussy. Okay, I shouldn't say never. But I was generally not a pussy. Kids can be cruel, and mean, and downright nasty little fucks.
But if you don't learn to survive a game of tag, how the hell do you expect to survive the real world?
Why the fuck does Social Darwinism still get air-time? This is usually trotted out by some economist about once every couple of years, and the idea is that because some people are rich, they are "better-adapted" and more intelligent than the poor.
This is utter and complete bullshit. Rich people are rich often because the money is hereditary, or because they are ruthless enough to exploit others. This has little-to-nothing to do with actual evolution, as wealth rarely lasts beyond a few generations, but the genetics do.
This also assumes that the poor are unintelligent, rather than just uneducated. The education system in the United States is set up such that poor people receive a lesser education than those in rich neighborhoods. The poor stay poor (in general) because the system is stacked against them, and they have a lot more to overcome, not because they are genetically-deficient in some way.
Basically, there are very few reasons to buy a Zune. One of the things Microsoft has touted is the ability to share a song in a limited fashion via wireless.
Jobs is saying that process is cumbersome. Rather than transfer the song from device-to-device, users are much more likely to physically pass their device over to their friend, let them listen, feel happy, and go about their day.
Yes, the Zune can also do this. But, that isn't a *reason* to buy a Zune over an iPod.
He's simply stating that the marketing hype behind the Zune is misplaced on features that kinda suck from the get-go. And that's why he's not worried about the Zune. Nor should he be.
Hmm... job offers from a force for good, and a force for evil.
The force for good allows you to work on your own side-project 20% of your time. The force for evil enslaves you to a marketing department. The force for good has the motto "Do No Evil." The force for evil is, well, the source of most computer evil.
However.
I'd rather live in the Seattle area than Silicon Valley. And evil *is* more fun.
Dude, I'd say you're screwed. Fuck 'em both.
Accept the job at SCO.
. . . are the computers going to be placed where they are really needed?
He's mistaking computation power for data management. Sure, you will have computers all over the freakin' place, where they are needed most: in churches and small pebbles and dentures and flatulent old men and chocolate chip cookies and goldfish. But what are those computers going to do? They're going to monitor things and feed that data back to a, well, central repository of data, where the data can be managed.
I might have a computer that is a part of me, that displays information through my contacts, and listens to the environment around me, bringing up the data I need real-time. Where's that data going to come from? I imagine some sort of central repository, in most cases. The searches will certainly execute on a central computer somewhere, most likely at a Google datacenter. Searches don't perform themselves.
The more distributed computers there are, the more information they generate. The more information that is generated, the greater the need for a datacenter to manage that data. I don't see that changing any time soon.
That may have been true before, but in today's US society, accusation is often taken as proof. For instance, in Ohio, there is now a law that expands the database of sexual criminals-- now, you are listed in the database as soon as you are accused. Even if you are proven innocent, your name remains in the database.
We are quickly moving to a society in which accusation is all that is required.
Dude, you are so lucky to be from whatever alternate universe you are from.
In *this* universe, Hans Blix headed up the UN inspections, and came to the conclusion that although Saddam Hussein was stonewalling, he had no WMD program whatsoever. Also, most of the other nations that *weren't* bullied by the US into joining a farcical "coalition of the willing" state they did not believe Iraq had WMDs, or the ability to pursue a WMD program. Then it turned out that *all* the evidence presented by our universe's President Bush turned out to be fabricated, or mis-represented.
In the fabricated area, the most notable was the "Yellow Cake Documents," a set of documents purporting to prove Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium ore from Nigeria. These were proven to be forged documents by the investigations of Joseph Wilson. Even after these documents were proven to be false, President Bush continued to use them as hard evidence.
In the "misrepresented" department, we had the "high strength aluminum tubes," which were claimed to be for suitable only for uranium enrichment. Nuclear scientists pretty much universally agreed these tubes were suitable for no such thing. The conclusion was that these tubes were most likely for medium-range conventional missiles, which Iraq was legally allowed to have.
You are from a better place than ours, my friend-- a place where the government can be trusted, and what is said is the truth, rather than lies and misinformation.
I don't even know where to begin. First, Bush is not putting nuclear weapons up in space. As the previous poster stated, and you conveniently ignored, putting nukes in space serves no purpose. We have a few thousand ICBMs that can do the job just fine, not to mention a few dozen subs if you need it done even quicker. You can't even produce a reason for "Bush" (like Bush is the only person making decisions... I bet you think Bush wrote this policy paper personally, don't you?) wanting nuclear weapons up in space. I suppose you do try and justify it with the sentences, "All dangerous." and "Insane."
I won't argue your other points (many of which are good, solid reasoning), but this is untrue. Putting nukes in space does server a strategic purpose.
A nuke launched from the ground takes a while to reach its target, giving a country like China, which has its own nuclear missiles, time to retaliate. We have submarines in place to launch missiles, but they have to get into position first, which can often take several days; and their payload is limited, though quite imposing.
An orbiting launch platform could target any spot on earth very rapidly. Most of the early thrust would occur in near-vacuum, making for great early acceleration. A submarine would be able to strike quickly once it is in position; orbiting nukes could strike even faster, without the need to get in position.
Further, a sub could be taken out by conventional warfare. Taking out a space-based nuke would be very difficult without exposing yourself to nuclear strike.
Basically, it all comes down to the magic three words: First Strike Initiative.
It's not easy to maneuver a rock. First, you have to put a propulsion system on it, which would require a team to assemble and install. Then you have to push it without causing it to crumble. All this takes time, money, and energy, and it would be hard to hide.
A nuke could be small, quickly-deployed, maneuverable, and generally stealthy. The time for retaliation would be short, reducing the chance of a counter-attack. You could put a *lot* of them in orbit for the same price as one dropped rock, and they would be ready at a moment's notice. Within half-an-hour, China could be a glass parking lot.
Sorry about that. I jumped off the handle at the implication we'd support another President who wants to militarize space. Most of us who are bashing Bush for this also would've bashed Clinton, or any other President-- perhaps not as fervently, but Bush has given us ample reason to distrust him.
Anyway, I'll try to take my little red pill before responding like that again.
Shit, people, get a hobby.
I have one, thanks.
It's called "Baiting Bush Supporters." Problem is, it's no fun any more-- it's *way* to easy.
You are so right. The reason we pick on Bush is because we don't like the way he talks. Some of us don't even like the way he looks. It's not his policies at all, which have been perfect, and reasonable, and have provided for the safety, prosperity, and continued freedom of the citizens of the United States, and the stability of the world in general.
Our bitching about Bush is, in fact, based on the dislike of him doing a better job than Clinton or Nixon. As President, Bush has shown exceptional judgment and wisdom. His policies have done more for peace through strength, stability through war, safety through fear, prosperity through enrichment of the rich, and truth through lies than any other President before.
You are *so* absolutely correct. Thanks for opening my eyes. I've been blinded by facts, logic, and reason for so long, I forgot how to truly *see*.
Well, you're an anonymous coward, so I can't call you a gullible idiot to your face, but you are.
He did refute the facts. He blew up at the interviewer after the interviewer pestered him for a few minutes. It was almost as if the interviewer *wanted* him to fly off the handle. Hell, the interviewer would hardly let him get a word in edgewise.
And for your information: according to Richard Clarke (Clinton's "Terrorist Czar") and other members of the Clinton cabinet, Clinton had set up a substantial, feasible anti-terrorist plan specifically targeted to al Queda. That was one of the first things that the new President Bush dismantled, not long before he sent $42,000,000 to the Taliban. Clinton did *not* allow the nation to be attacked. If anyone did, it would be Bush, having ignored a fairly specific document titled something along the lines of, "Al Queda determined to attack on US soil," which circulated a few weeks before the attacks.
As far as Foley sending messages that were in poor taste, those messages could be used to prosecute him for sexual misconduct if he weren't in a position of power; the fact they were directed to 15 year-old boys kind of indicates he likes 'em young.
Draw your own conclusions.
And a side note to one of the posters above re the disgraced Rep.: a) The IM's are now shown to be a prank by the Pages to the Senator, b) The person in question was 18 at the time; therefore it is NOT pedofelia, c) I thought the Lib's were all for gay rights.. why are you jumping all over this man?
I know this is a troll, but I thought I'd clear up some facts, rather than the baseless fictitious statements you present.
No, they messages weren't shown to be a prank. They, and other emails sent to other pages who were as young as 15 at the time they were sent, are authentic.
As far as gay rights go: yes, we're for gay rights. What we're against is hypocrisy and creepy old men in positions of power.
We're also against government-level partisan coverups. Other republicans know about Foley's trespasses, and refused to bring him to task. Instead, they simply did their best to keep other people from finding out. This is rather like the Catholic Church in that respect: don't admit the problem, just try to keep other people from finding out.
This supports other studies that have been done, too. The Daily Show audiences tend to be better informed than folks who subsist solely on conventional news sources. This might have to do with the audience, or it might have to do with The Daily Show; in any case, Jon Stewart is doing a fuck-all great job.
By the time he's done, I feel I've received a less-biased, more-balanced view of the real news than an hour's worth of stupid-ass fake news given us by the mainstream channels.
But maybe that's just me.
I think that's the point. Jon Stewart has come on record *many* times bringing regular news services to task, rather than admitting he's particularly good. Part of the mission of The Daily Show is, I think, to bring to light what good reporting *should* do on a regular basis, in a very funny, palatable manner.
Too bad the main news sources haven't taken the hint.
I still believe, however, that all people who laugh by snorting inward and like "The Princess Bride" should be taken out in the woods somewhere and shot.
Phew! I'm safe. I love _The Princess Bride_, but I laugh long and loud and clear. Especially loud.
This whole thing is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Of *course* folks from Ubi are going to praise the 360. Duh. Ubisoft is essentially a Microsoft-only shop these days, it seems. They've pretty much bet the farm on the Xbox, and have so far been the only game shop to make anything really decent for it.
I thought the 360 was going to suck chicken balls. I was surprised. It isn't too bad (though I'll never own one, boycotting Microsoft and whatnot). Now all these PS3 naysayers are screaming to beat the band about how it's going to fail, it's going to suck, and all that.
Until we see the PS3, and see the games that are there, and see how Sony handles the business end, everything we say is just a bunch of wind. The PS3 may suck, or it might be the best thing since the 6502. Sony may price themselves out of business, or they might hit the sweet spot. The launch titles may suck, or they may totally rock like an old lady on a rocking chair. The PS3 may be exploding batteries. It might be the best thing you've ever seen. We don't know. We can only speculate.
Based on the PS2, I'm thinking the PS3 is going to be a decent console, and they have nothing to worry about from Microsoft. The 360 may be Microsoft's best product ever, but that's damning with faint praise.
I think this is all a good thing.
Why should we hoard all the good stuff for ourselves? I think it will be worth having the rest of the world slowly move to a higher standard of living, even if our standard falls somewhat.
The problem is, the people with real power (leaders of multinational corporations, for instance) will exploit much of the resources for their own gain, while leaving the poor to suffer. That's the real issue, not offshoring.
The problem with WTO and various free-trade agreements is that it's not free trade. The various "free-trade" agreements are often little more than licenses for large companies with massive resources to go into resource-rich areas, drive out the local businesses, exploit those resources, decimate the local economy, and leave. There is no "free trade," unless you mean that large international companies are free to do what they want.
The essence of Free software is this: everyone is equal. Large corporations have the advantage of greater resources, truly, but that is all. They are not able to exploit the resource (source code & programmers) any more than a small company. It puts everyone on equal footing, as individuals.
Free trade is designed to do exactly the opposite. It is a misnomer intended to make the raping of a local economy by huge multinationals acceptable, even appealing.
There's no irony at all, except the name "Free Trade."