I am not surprised that women are taking exception to this comment, but it does bring to light the double standard.
What do I mean? If someone came out and said "MEN are naturally not good at nursing, that's why a large percentage of nurses are female." Women would not be up in arms. They'd be saying "damn straight!"
That's what pisses me off when women get ticked off by statements like the one the Harvard President made. Feminists are clamoring for equality, but when something favors women, all of sudden it's "More power to women" instead of fighting for equality.
I know many MEN who would be outraged by the comments of the Harvard Professor, but in my exmaple of someone saying men are naturally not good at nursing? I don't know many women who would denounce such a comment.
That's a double standard my friends and its sickening.
Once again this reminds me of the pre-"Enterprise" days. When the hot rumor was the next ST show was going be based on Starfleet Academy (a combination of ST:TNG and Dawson's Creek).
Too bad the Trek people dumped that good idea for this pile of crap. After all, look at Smallville. That show IS a successful cross between Superman and Dawson's Creek, and look how it turned out. It's fans are both comic book geeks and teens.
This reflects the big problem with the ST franchise as it stands today: it refuses to create shows/films that INCREASE the fanbase. Enterprise only appeals to ST geeks. The last god awful movie was only watched by ST geeks.
It's a damn shame Star Trek has to cut itself off from common TV/movie viewers.
I would guess people who like G4 are not people who read Slashdot, or even the g4techtv.com forums. They are little kids whose FIRST console was the Gamecube or maybe PS2.
Basically the people who actually like G4 are too ignorant to see how bad it is.
"Hey, look, they are doing a show about Pikmin. Coooooooooool!!!!"
Actually, the USDTV receiver, which too is an ATSC receiver, can be found at more and more wal-marts for about $150. This price will surely drop to the $99 price point, especially if the product is needed.
Nobody will have to buy the receiver you have a link to.
"When every TV has to be fitted with HDTV receivers at the expense of the consumer by FEDERAL mandate it IS politically motivated.
NO, HDTV is NOT good for the consumer."
No TV has to be fitted with HDTV receivers, because there is no such thing. There ARE ATSC receivers (which tune all kinds of digitial signals, HD and non-HD), and even, yes, all TV's without it may need an ATSC receiver.
BUT the federal gov will be mandating, at the very least, digitial 480i television, NOTHING THAT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO HDTV.
But hey, thanks for your ignorance.
A lot of people don't understand this, but...
on
Inside TechTV/G4
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think it is pretty clear that Comcast wanted to make use the TechTV trademark (because it's popularity was growing) to promote G4.
Furthermore, I think it's cleat that Comcast has intentionally alienated hardcore TechTV viewers.
I have had people who work in TV tell me that nobody tries to alienate any viewers, but I think it is more than clear that G4 wants TechTV viewers out and replace them with an MTV crowd.
Want evidence of this? Look at the commercials. Gone are the cadillac commercials. Insert the goofy video game commercials, and some really stupid (dumbed down) computer hardware commercials. I saw an nViDiA commercial that actually explained what a GPU was!
I figured such a commercial was more non-tech channel worthy, but when you consider G4 is driving out tech-oriented viewers for MTV gamers, these "dumb" commericals are quite appropo.
Here on/. we periodically see stories about the rise of broadband internet connections in the USA, and we also see stories about how Nintendo is failing.
I am waiting for a story to combine the two. As people spend their hard earned money each month for a cable/DSL connection, they want to make optimum use of it. That means if they are a console gamer, they want to use a console that has awesome online capability, and Gamecube is definitely not it.
Nintendo has the chance to rectify this in their next console, but it remains to be seen if they actually will.
"Nature is a mean mother and every so often she does something bad that punishes people who foolishly live in areas that are susceptible (this goes to any hicks who live in Tornado Alley or anyone who lives on the side of an active volcano, too)."
Name me one place in the world where you can't die from natural happenings?
Cali? Earthquakes.
Florida? Hurriances
North Dakota? Buried in Snow
Hawaii? Volcanoes
Come on buddy. Name ONE place where nature can't kill someone.
There should be no difference between the coverage here and coverage if this event happened in the USA and caused the deaths of 40,000+ Americans.
BUT YOU ALL KNOW THE COVERAGE WOULD BE MASSIVELY DIFFERENT, and all that crap about this being a done and over event you would all take back and say, yeah, we should have round the clock coverage.
Just because it happens on the other side of the world and not in the USA doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered the way it would be if this trajedy happened in the USA.
That's what is said. If this happened in the USA, Americans would demand (if they didn't already have it) 24/7 coverage from every major network.
Just because hardly any Americans died shouldn't mean we Americans shouldn't care. But on average, most don't.
"In fact, many many more people have been killed in bombings in Iraq, so I guess they should at least get equal attention."
Okay, but take a look back at coverage of the war since it started. How often do you hear about Iraqis, especially innocent Iraqis killed? You only hear about how many Americans died.
That's all we care about, and it is just plain sick.
Wow. Thanks for all the responses. The last thing I expected was to check this and see 30 replies to my post.
That said, here a few things to note:
1.) I never said the American Gov't doesn't care. They certainly do, and our nation is sending aid. This does remind me of a 9/11 difference though. When 9/11 happened, there was ample footage of people all over the world crying in the streets (Esp. Paris) and it was a world story. HOW MANY OF US AMERICANS, WITH NO CONNECTION TO ANYONE IN SE ASIA, CRIED OVER THIS DEVASTATION??? The news has said that perhaps a whole GENERATION of children will be lost in some parts of Indonesia and Sri Lanka. This statement doesn't even get a typical "America...f*ck yeah" ethno-centric redneck to blink, let alone cry. However we keep tabs on who cried over 9/11.
This reminds of when thousands of Australians were killed in Bali. Here in the USA you never heard about it, and I've heard Australians furious because they consoled us over 9/11, but when Australians were victims of terrorism, we could care less. For f*ck sakes, the largest terrorist attack since 9/11 happened in Spain earlier this year. How many of us "America...f*ck yeah" ethno-centric Americans could tell you they ever heard about that event?
2.) Now the death toll is more than 40,000. 40,000 people!!!!! Are you kidding me???? ANYTIME 40,000 die in one occasion TV should be pre-empted (At least sunday and parts of Monday). If anything, if you want to be bias, you can say that people here could have family there and need round-the-clock coverage, since many will be unable to contact their families over there to see if they are ok (sounds like 9/11 aftermath, huh?)
3.) I am not liberal by any means. My point is the media only shows what the audience wants to see. Media outlets know Americans could care less about this huge number of people dying somewhere "remote" in their ethno-centric areas. The only reason they would care (Since by in large, we American's don't give a rats a$$. If we did, we'd get a lot more coverage than we have now) is to make sure this kind of thing can't happen on the west coast/Alaska.
4.) I am an American attacking fellow Americans for not caring. Now 40,000+ people dead, and I bet if you surveyed the American public as a whole, this news hasn't affected their lives in any way. That is just sad.
No, it's not a foreign 9/11, it's WORSE. This tragedy, which cost thousands upon thousands more lives than 9/11, was not preventable.
Sure if warning systems were in placed it could have helped lower the death toll, but there is no way to prevent deaths altogether in this situation. At least 9/11 could have been prevented, but right now we have no way to stop earthquakes/tsunamis from happening.
But hey, we Americans don't care. Since only 8 Americans died (thus far) in the trajedy, the news isn't covering it the way you might think they would for a single event that has caused (so far) over 20,000 dead.
Why isn't primetime TV pre-empted for round the clock coverage of this? 8 Americans dead isn't enough to pre-empt programming.
It's events like this that can get one easily pissed off (yet again) over the bias in the American Media.
What's really sad is that the bias reflects most Americans: They don't care about it, since Americans weren't affected that much (except the 8 that died). Typical Americans, at most, only care enough to ask "Could this happen to us in America?"
Everytime I see FOX NEWS show little coverage of this trajedy and move on to the War in Iraq, I am reminded of the hilarious satire song from Team America: World Police:
Is this perhaps a problem with Michigan? Maybe it's not easy for cable company (i.e. state and local laws?) to upgrade their lines to support broadband
I now live in MO, and in the most rural areas, even DSL is available (Which is surprising).
AOL now all of a sudden is promoting free web based e-mail?
That makes me think one thing: AOL is getting desperate. AOL has been fading for the last few years (since 2000).
AOL is having a hard time keeping people, because now even their usual base of idiot customers have realized that AOL does not equal the Internet. (Remember when people though AOL and the Internet were the same thing? [Shudders])
Less and less people want to pay for a glorified BBS with Internet Access, when for less money (on other the dialup or broadband side) you can get what you really want (Internet), without the AOL crap.
Unfortunately, I feel the same way about the Red Dwarf movie, which was supposed to be released in 2002, and isn't even close to done at the end of 2004.
It's sad how British Sci-Fi comedies turned films get held up so much
Weren't the hot N64 titles, at their price, originally priced at $69.99 or higher?
$50 is a good medium for hot titles like Madden.
PuppiesOnAcid is SPREADING LIES
on
NBA Rejects EA Deal
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"Although the NFL buckled under EA's mighty stronghold in the video game football market (Madden)"
This statement is not true. The NFL solicitied bids for video game exclusivity. The NFL now is preferring to do everything they possibly can with exclusive deals.
I don't know how Slashdotters allow people like PuppiesOnAcid to spread such lies.
Sales and rentals SHOULD be counted. Obviously you don't know how Blockbuster works.
Blockbuster gets FREE copies of studio films, and in turn BB kicks back a cut of the profits to the studios.
Thus the studios make money off of sales AND rentals, and they are totally seperate. In fact, with BB (which dominates the movie rental industry), the studios are not selling BB anything when it comes to copies of movies for rent.
Only if you count BB selling previously viewed DVD's would you be including more than you should in this kind of analysis.
You must have missed the recent poll that almost half of all americans believe civil liberties of muslim americans should be restricted.
I know the difference between jackasses and racists, and I contend WE Americans are both. Just tell those Indian dudes how comfortable they will be in if they go to live in Mississippi. Montana. Wyoming, etc, etc (like most states in the Union, especially "Red" states).
It's the same as blaming, say, black people for using affirmative action instead of attacking the people who put the program into place.
People are going to use whatever they can to get ahead. If you feel the method they are using should not be legal, TAKE IT UP WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
It's really sickening (not necessarily here on Slashdot, but in political campaigns, etc, etc) to see this attack on India and Indians. They are just taking advantage of a legal program to get work, just as anyone takes advtantage of something legal just to get something. It happens every day.
Let's say I was a 20 year old male living in Missouri. According to MO law, it would be legal as a 20 year old to have sex with a 14 year old girl. Let's say I bone every hot 14 year old freshman hottie in Missouri. Don't like the idea of 20 year old guys nailing 14 year old chicks? Take it up with the state, not me the playa. DON'T HATE THE PLAYA, HATE THE GAME.
Don't deny it. EVERYONE does stuff that is legal and gives them a leg up on something.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not surprised that women are taking exception to this comment, but it does bring to light the double standard.
What do I mean? If someone came out and said "MEN are naturally not good at nursing, that's why a large percentage of nurses are female." Women would not be up in arms. They'd be saying "damn straight!"
That's what pisses me off when women get ticked off by statements like the one the Harvard President made. Feminists are clamoring for equality, but when something favors women, all of sudden it's "More power to women" instead of fighting for equality.
I know many MEN who would be outraged by the comments of the Harvard Professor, but in my exmaple of someone saying men are naturally not good at nursing? I don't know many women who would denounce such a comment.
That's a double standard my friends and its sickening.
Once again this reminds me of the pre-"Enterprise" days. When the hot rumor was the next ST show was going be based on Starfleet Academy (a combination of ST:TNG and Dawson's Creek).
Too bad the Trek people dumped that good idea for this pile of crap. After all, look at Smallville. That show IS a successful cross between Superman and Dawson's Creek, and look how it turned out. It's fans are both comic book geeks and teens.
This reflects the big problem with the ST franchise as it stands today: it refuses to create shows/films that INCREASE the fanbase. Enterprise only appeals to ST geeks. The last god awful movie was only watched by ST geeks.
It's a damn shame Star Trek has to cut itself off from common TV/movie viewers.
I would guess people who like G4 are not people who read Slashdot, or even the g4techtv.com forums. They are little kids whose FIRST console was the Gamecube or maybe PS2.
Basically the people who actually like G4 are too ignorant to see how bad it is.
"Hey, look, they are doing a show about Pikmin. Coooooooooool!!!!"
That's strange because before the merger, G4 said G4 stands for the 4 types of gaming:
console, computer, handheld, and arcade.
I also remember to tape The Sex Files every Monday night/Tuesday morning on Mark Cuban's HDNET.
It's closest thing I can get to free HD porn, and it's nice.
Actually, the USDTV receiver, which too is an ATSC receiver, can be found at more and more wal-marts for about $150. This price will surely drop to the $99 price point, especially if the product is needed.
Nobody will have to buy the receiver you have a link to.
"When every TV has to be fitted with HDTV receivers at the expense of the consumer by FEDERAL mandate it IS politically motivated.
NO, HDTV is NOT good for the consumer."
No TV has to be fitted with HDTV receivers, because there is no such thing. There ARE ATSC receivers (which tune all kinds of digitial signals, HD and non-HD), and even, yes, all TV's without it may need an ATSC receiver.
BUT the federal gov will be mandating, at the very least, digitial 480i television, NOTHING THAT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO HDTV.
But hey, thanks for your ignorance.
I think it is pretty clear that Comcast wanted to make use the TechTV trademark (because it's popularity was growing) to promote G4.
Furthermore, I think it's cleat that Comcast has intentionally alienated hardcore TechTV viewers.
I have had people who work in TV tell me that nobody tries to alienate any viewers, but I think it is more than clear that G4 wants TechTV viewers out and replace them with an MTV crowd.
Want evidence of this? Look at the commercials. Gone are the cadillac commercials. Insert the goofy video game commercials, and some really stupid (dumbed down) computer hardware commercials. I saw an nViDiA commercial that actually explained what a GPU was!
I figured such a commercial was more non-tech channel worthy, but when you consider G4 is driving out tech-oriented viewers for MTV gamers, these "dumb" commericals are quite appropo.
broadband.
/. we periodically see stories about the rise of broadband internet connections in the USA, and we also see stories about how Nintendo is failing.
Here on
I am waiting for a story to combine the two. As people spend their hard earned money each month for a cable/DSL connection, they want to make optimum use of it. That means if they are a console gamer, they want to use a console that has awesome online capability, and Gamecube is definitely not it.
Nintendo has the chance to rectify this in their next console, but it remains to be seen if they actually will.
"Nature is a mean mother and every so often she does something bad that punishes people who foolishly live in areas that are susceptible (this goes to any hicks who live in Tornado Alley or anyone who lives on the side of an active volcano, too)."
Name me one place in the world where you can't die from natural happenings?
Cali? Earthquakes.
Florida? Hurriances
North Dakota? Buried in Snow
Hawaii? Volcanoes
Come on buddy. Name ONE place where nature can't kill someone.
Yeah, I thought so.
" Still. Nothing like 9/11 coverage even here in Australia."
Exactly, and I am here to tell you that coverage of terrorists killing Australians in Bali was non-existent in the USA.
My other point is this:
There should be no difference between the coverage here and coverage if this event happened in the USA and caused the deaths of 40,000+ Americans.
BUT YOU ALL KNOW THE COVERAGE WOULD BE MASSIVELY DIFFERENT, and all that crap about this being a done and over event you would all take back and say, yeah, we should have round the clock coverage.
Just because it happens on the other side of the world and not in the USA doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered the way it would be if this trajedy happened in the USA.
That's what is said. If this happened in the USA, Americans would demand (if they didn't already have it) 24/7 coverage from every major network.
Just because hardly any Americans died shouldn't mean we Americans shouldn't care. But on average, most don't.
"In fact, many many more people have been killed in bombings in Iraq, so I guess they should at least get equal attention."
Okay, but take a look back at coverage of the war since it started. How often do you hear about Iraqis, especially innocent Iraqis killed? You only hear about how many Americans died.
That's all we care about, and it is just plain sick.
Wow. Thanks for all the responses. The last thing I expected was to check this and see 30 replies to my post.
That said, here a few things to note:
1.) I never said the American Gov't doesn't care. They certainly do, and our nation is sending aid. This does remind me of a 9/11 difference though. When 9/11 happened, there was ample footage of people all over the world crying in the streets (Esp. Paris) and it was a world story. HOW MANY OF US AMERICANS, WITH NO CONNECTION TO ANYONE IN SE ASIA, CRIED OVER THIS DEVASTATION??? The news has said that perhaps a whole GENERATION of children will be lost in some parts of Indonesia and Sri Lanka. This statement doesn't even get a typical "America...f*ck yeah" ethno-centric redneck to blink, let alone cry. However we keep tabs on who cried over 9/11.
This reminds of when thousands of Australians were killed in Bali. Here in the USA you never heard about it, and I've heard Australians furious because they consoled us over 9/11, but when Australians were victims of terrorism, we could care less. For f*ck sakes, the largest terrorist attack since 9/11 happened in Spain earlier this year. How many of us "America...f*ck yeah" ethno-centric Americans could tell you they ever heard about that event?
2.) Now the death toll is more than 40,000. 40,000 people!!!!! Are you kidding me???? ANYTIME 40,000 die in one occasion TV should be pre-empted (At least sunday and parts of Monday). If anything, if you want to be bias, you can say that people here could have family there and need round-the-clock coverage, since many will be unable to contact their families over there to see if they are ok (sounds like 9/11 aftermath, huh?)
3.) I am not liberal by any means. My point is the media only shows what the audience wants to see. Media outlets know Americans could care less about this huge number of people dying somewhere "remote" in their ethno-centric areas. The only reason they would care (Since by in large, we American's don't give a rats a$$. If we did, we'd get a lot more coverage than we have now) is to make sure this kind of thing can't happen on the west coast/Alaska.
4.) I am an American attacking fellow Americans for not caring. Now 40,000+ people dead, and I bet if you surveyed the American public as a whole, this news hasn't affected their lives in any way. That is just sad.
Oh the humanity, or lack thereof.
No, it's not a foreign 9/11, it's WORSE. This tragedy, which cost thousands upon thousands more lives than 9/11, was not preventable.
Sure if warning systems were in placed it could have helped lower the death toll, but there is no way to prevent deaths altogether in this situation. At least 9/11 could have been prevented, but right now we have no way to stop earthquakes/tsunamis from happening.
But hey, we Americans don't care. Since only 8 Americans died (thus far) in the trajedy, the news isn't covering it the way you might think they would for a single event that has caused (so far) over 20,000 dead.
Why isn't primetime TV pre-empted for round the clock coverage of this? 8 Americans dead isn't enough to pre-empt programming.
It's events like this that can get one easily pissed off (yet again) over the bias in the American Media.
What's really sad is that the bias reflects most Americans: They don't care about it, since Americans weren't affected that much (except the 8 that died). Typical Americans, at most, only care enough to ask "Could this happen to us in America?"
Everytime I see FOX NEWS show little coverage of this trajedy and move on to the War in Iraq, I am reminded of the hilarious satire song from Team America: World Police:
"America...f*ck yeah!"
Is this perhaps a problem with Michigan? Maybe it's not easy for cable company (i.e. state and local laws?) to upgrade their lines to support broadband
I now live in MO, and in the most rural areas, even DSL is available (Which is surprising).
AOL now all of a sudden is promoting free web based e-mail?
That makes me think one thing: AOL is getting desperate. AOL has been fading for the last few years (since 2000).
AOL is having a hard time keeping people, because now even their usual base of idiot customers have realized that AOL does not equal the Internet. (Remember when people though AOL and the Internet were the same thing? [Shudders])
Less and less people want to pay for a glorified BBS with Internet Access, when for less money (on other the dialup or broadband side) you can get what you really want (Internet), without the AOL crap.
Unfortunately, I feel the same way about the Red Dwarf movie, which was supposed to be released in 2002, and isn't even close to done at the end of 2004.
It's sad how British Sci-Fi comedies turned films get held up so much
About the price issue, I also agree.
Weren't the hot N64 titles, at their price, originally priced at $69.99 or higher?
$50 is a good medium for hot titles like Madden.
"Although the NFL buckled under EA's mighty stronghold in the video game football market (Madden)"
This statement is not true. The NFL solicitied bids for video game exclusivity. The NFL now is preferring to do everything they possibly can with exclusive deals.
I don't know how Slashdotters allow people like PuppiesOnAcid to spread such lies.
That's exactly what I was going to say. I wonder why PuppiesOnAcid likes spreading lies?
Perhaps he/she wants people to believe EA is the next Microsoft. EA might be evil, but there is no reason to lie about the EA/NFL situation.
Sales and rentals SHOULD be counted. Obviously you don't know how Blockbuster works.
Blockbuster gets FREE copies of studio films, and in turn BB kicks back a cut of the profits to the studios.
Thus the studios make money off of sales AND rentals, and they are totally seperate. In fact, with BB (which dominates the movie rental industry), the studios are not selling BB anything when it comes to copies of movies for rent.
Only if you count BB selling previously viewed DVD's would you be including more than you should in this kind of analysis.
You must have missed the recent poll that almost half of all americans believe civil liberties of muslim americans should be restricted.
I know the difference between jackasses and racists, and I contend WE Americans are both. Just tell those Indian dudes how comfortable they will be in if they go to live in Mississippi. Montana. Wyoming, etc, etc (like most states in the Union, especially "Red" states).
I can see you backtracking now...
India IS a dirt cheap place for whores, but you'll probably get AIDS and die.
Nice looking girls? Ha! One in 1000 is hot, and one in 500,000 is hot enough to be a Bollywood star.
Indian chicks are ugly as hell. Don't be fooled by the likes of one of the hottest women in movies, Aishwariya Rai (oh f*ck she's HOT!)
It's the same as blaming, say, black people for using affirmative action instead of attacking the people who put the program into place.
People are going to use whatever they can to get ahead. If you feel the method they are using should not be legal, TAKE IT UP WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
It's really sickening (not necessarily here on Slashdot, but in political campaigns, etc, etc) to see this attack on India and Indians. They are just taking advantage of a legal program to get work, just as anyone takes advtantage of something legal just to get something. It happens every day.
Let's say I was a 20 year old male living in Missouri. According to MO law, it would be legal as a 20 year old to have sex with a 14 year old girl. Let's say I bone every hot 14 year old freshman hottie in Missouri. Don't like the idea of 20 year old guys nailing 14 year old chicks? Take it up with the state, not me the playa. DON'T HATE THE PLAYA, HATE THE GAME.
Don't deny it. EVERYONE does stuff that is legal and gives them a leg up on something.