All the models, including the $499 one, include WiFi. The only differences among the models are the flash memory size, the 3G support, and the GPS (included only in the ones that have 3G support).
It is fascinating that while in the summary krebsonsecurity (the same people that wrote the article) says that the article talks about compromises "not just with Internet Explorer, but also with Google Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera," kdawson chose to exclude Firefox from the title and even changed the order of the other browsers: IE, Safari, Chrome, Opera.
I'm not saying that the order in which the browsers are mentioned has any significance at all, but it is simply wrong to alter the title in such a way that the article seems to say something different from what it actually says.
There are many torrent that offer many DRM free or cracked ipa files. You just drop them into itunes and they copy over like a regular app. NO jailbreaking necessary
OK, but what you are saying implies that all the criticism about Apple having a monopoly over the App Store, and all the complaints from developers when their apps get rejected by Apple, are unfounded. The developers could just produce a "modified" ipa file for their app (just as the crackers do), sell it on their own website (just as Windows and Mac developers do for their applications) and simply instruct the users to drop the file into iTunes.
And yet the developers don't do that. Some of them offer their rejected apps (usually for free) through Cydia, but that requieres jailbraking the phone so it's not a popular alternative.
Of course Atlanta now doesn't look 17 times as bad as London, only 3.5 times as bad. (Or almost 5 times if we take into account the differences in population using the estimates that you provided).
So even though the "17 times" figure was overblown, the main point of the GP still holds: the GGP is full of shit, because murder rates in Atlanta are several times higher than in London.
Have we just been baited into reading crap for no good reason? Does that qualify as scam? Scam baiting? Or Baiting scam?
None of the above. Read TFS again. Nurse Nasty said that scambaiting is a fun sport. He never claimed that the comic book itself was actually funny. If you feel disappointed it's your own fault.
Some people might find the comic book funny and others won't. The point is not if the comic book itself is funny. What is amusing is the fact that this guy got all these creeps to take humiliating pictures of themselves, and that he published them for the world to see. Given that these are some of the very few people in the world that deserve such treatment, that is well worth the read.
I agree that that is what "beg the question" meant originally, and that is what it should mean. Unfortunately the incorrect use has become so widespread that it is even mentioned in the dictionaries. From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
beg the question: 1 (of a fact or action) raise a question or point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question. 2 avoid the question; evade the issue. 3 assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it.
It is sad, but to the "incorrect" use appears first and the original use appears last.
But do take into account that Bugorski was using an accelerator from 1978, and for all we know it may not have been one of the top of the line even at that time. The LHC is the most powerful accelerator built till now, and 30 years have passed. Chances are that the beams Dr. Jackson refers to are orders of magnitude more energetic than the one that hit Bugorski.
Dude, like a true Slashdotter you didn't RTFA, congratulations. Dr. Jackson didn't use the exact words mentioned in the summary (except, of course, the direct quote RE: 87kg of TNT).
In reference to the black holes, he gives a short but complete explanation of why they would not destroy the planet.
And about the Higgs boson, he said "I'd put the chance we will find the Higgs boson or something similar to it at pretty close to 100 per cent."
The summary is not misleading, but the scientist didn't really use the emphasis you frown upon.
In addition to what I said in a sister post, take a look at this brief Reuters article: It seems that some "respected" developers are scaling back their Android operations (even more!) in favor of even more support for the iPhone.
My point is: the industry is moving around. Some developers are upset with Apple's App Store policies, but contrary to what you think there is far from a mass migration to Android at least for now .
Now the good devs are leaving for Android? I may buy a droid or droid++ next year.
Sure, go ahead. But let me point out that none of the articles said that the developers were going to concentrate their efforts on Android.
In fact, the only mention of Android or the Droid was in the xkcd strip featured in the Ars Technica article. The Rogue Amoeba guy explicitly said that they were going back to focusing on the Mac, and Williams, the Second Gear guy, said "with the latest app rejection being Google Voice, I am one step closer to selling off my iPhone products and focusing entirely on the Mac once more" (quoted from the Ars Technica article).
While it is obvious that some of the fleeing developers will turn to other mobile platforms, there is not enough information to conclude that "the good devs are leaving for Android"
I know that this wouldn't have worked for you that time because you were precisely trying to configure the Internet access. But once that's up and running, get her to turn on "Screen Sharing" in the "Sharing" system preference panel, and to configure the VNC server in that panel. Then you will be able to access the computer using a VNC client.
Of course you need to tell her to activate Screen Sharing when you are going to help her and to turn it off after you finish so that she won't risk getting hacked (as with any VNC server). Also, you need to configure port forwarding in her wireless router, but that is not Mac specific at all.
Now, you may want to make yourself a favor and get a Mac mini. With a Mac on your side you won't need to activate the VNC server nor configure the router, because you can simply use the Screen Sharing feature of iChat.
Oh, I did not watch Tuesday's The Daily Show until now, so I missed this clip, which is extremely relevant to our discussion. Hannity's clip can be found on FOX's website. The switch starts at 1:30 (watch the foliage and the amount of people).
Let me paraphrase you:
So the question becomes: Why did FOX's editing room use footage of a DIFFERENT event? The answer becomes obvious when you listen to the overvoicing (sic) from the host and a guest that appears regularly in FOX's programs - the previous event had a higher turnout, closer to the numbers claimed in the voiceover.
That's reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe. - They didn't blatantly lie. [or did they?] Instead they distorted the truth, with creative video edits and voiceovers.
Now, you may claim that Stewart is "accusing FOX of a distortion that is not a distortion. HE'S the one who is deliberately not telling the truth." In other words, that TDS did a creative video edit to make it seem like FOX did something that they didn't do.
Unfortunately for you that's not the case. The situation was so clear and embarrassing that Sean Hannity had to acknowledge it on air. He says that it was "an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless". I hope that you are not so gullible as to think that it was indeed a mistake. This was as much a mistake as MSNBC cutting the footage to conceal a man's skin color.
But of course distorting the truth in this way is not new for FOX. Here you have a brief compilation of several other instances in which FOX clearly used deceptive techniques such as "creative video edits and voiceovers" to push their agenda, every one of them as egregious as MSNBC's sleazy trick you linked to. Except that the main message in that case was true (white men with guns, one with an AR-15, were at the event), while in most (all?) of these cases the main message is the deceptive one (e.g., the event had a far less turnout than what the commentators claimed and the images showed).
Of all the media in the present-day USA, FOX is the one that most frequently resorts to tactics reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.
I would love to see how you rationalize everything you said in your posts now. Really. I expect an answer from you.
[...] to commemorate the 400 years since 1609, when Galileo looked up.
Galileo was born in 1564. I'm pretty sure that in 45 years he had at least one chance to look up...
Anyway, pretty picture. Now, in a few years when pollution and terrestrial lights has hidden the details of the night sky even in the remote, uninhabited regions, our grandchildren will say:
Grandad, did the sky really look so beautiful back then?
Which is the whole point of my post, which was a reply to eldavojohn, who felt that "They should explicitly state their product's system requirements and let the consumer decide (like everyone else)".
... good for you, that shows some willingness to at least listen to those with which you dissent, a priceless quality...
and a lot of the things she accuses FOX of distorting, are not distortions. SHE'S the one who is deliberately not telling the truth.
True. But that is not much different from what FOX did in the clip you linked to: they deliberatedly did not tell all the truth, and instead withheld essential information.
And what you said is true not only of Madow, but of all the left-wing media (and comedians) I referred to. But then again, most o those accusations against the right-wing media are in fact true.
Maybe the least guilty of them is MediaMatters.org. Even though they do editorialize (a lot!), they always include the complete footage they are referring to, as to avoid being accused of quoting out of context. That's why Bill O'reilly hates them so much and rants about them every few months, but NEVER mentions them by name. He says it's because he doesn't want to send traffic to them, but if the information was as blatantly false as he claims the visitors would never return. No, he knows that the information posted there is frequently undisputable and that some of the visitors would actually realize that it is he who is lying.
Anyway we need at least ONE organization that is pushing for Constitutional limitations and small government.
That is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to and which I absolutely respect.
As I acknowledged in my post not once but twice, MSNBC was sleazy and dishonest.
So the question becomes: Why did MSNBC's editing room CUT the pan, and instead put the video on a loop, thus concealing the man's skin color?
Because they didn't have footage of the white men with weapons. They knew those white men were there, and that one also had an AR-15, but they didn't have the footage. And as I showed you, footage of those white men does exist, just not in MSNBC's hands. Nevertheless using that loop without clarification was misleading, sleazy and dishonest.
(BTW, contrary to your claims, the clips showed by CNN and MSNBC are not from the same footage. But that's a moot point because I'm sure MSNBC's complete footage also showed the face of the guy; no reasonable cameraman would have omitted filming him. The FOX clip you linked to shows no video of the event at all, only a still.)
That's reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe. - They didn't blatantly lie. Instead they distorted the truth, with creative video edits and voiceovers.
In that case, what the FOX commentator did was reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe. - He didn't blatantly lie. Instead they distorted the truth, by omitting vital information like the fact that in the exact same event there were several white men with guns, one of them an AR-15.
The message that someone who watches the MSNBC clip will take home is that there was a white man with an assault rifle at the event. Which is entirely true, although the man they saw on the screen was not that white man.
The message that someone who watches the FOX clip will take home is that there were no white men with guns at the event, because the man on the screen was black. Which is essentially false, since those white men were there also (one of them with and AR-15), and FOX knew it.
That by itself makes FOX's distortion of reality much worse than MSNBC's. Added to that is the fact that the whole point of FOX's clip is to set the record straight, to lay all the cards on the table because they were denouncing MSNBC's sin of omission (of footage). They can't do that if they in turn commit a sin of omission (of obviously vital information that they clearly had).
But what shocks me most here is that even though I acknowledged MSNBC's dishonesty repeatedly and made my main point (FOX's dishonesty) perfectly clear and highlighted it in boldface, you deliberately decided to ignore my point completely, and tried to sweep it under the rug by making absolutely no reference to it whatsoever.
They should explicitly state their product's system requirements and let the consumer decide (like everyone else).
From the Snow Leopard Tech Specs:
General requirements Mac computer with an Intel processor
Only Apple makes Macs and Apple does not make any product with the Atom processor. Therefore, no computer with the Atom is supported. Neither is any computer with an AMD procesor. Or any computer not made by Apple, since all Mac clones are over ten years old and used PowerPCs.
None of those computers are supported. The fact that it works on some of them is a happy coincidence. There it is, written clearly in the very first requirement.
You showed an instance in which FOX calls out MSNBC for manipulating the information in a sleazy way (although, as I demonstrated above, it wasn't really so sleazy as the FOX commentator made it sound).
Well, this kind of calling out manipulation by the media is far more frequent from the other side (the left denouncing the right). Olbermann and Madow show dishonesty by FOX and other right wing commentators pretty much daily. MediaMatters.org is a site pretty much dedicated to uncovering the dishonesty of FOX and the right. Even Jon Stewart and Colbert do it in a regular basis in their comedy shows (although to be fair occasionally they call out MSNBC and other left media too).
If you realized how sleazy and dishonest FOX is, you would be ashamed to get your "news" from them.
Fascinating clip, even if unrelated to the parent post.
Anyway, let's analyze it. MSNBC showed footage of a man carrying an assault rifle and a pistol in a presidential event in Arizona. An MSNBC commentator said that it was worrisome to have white people show up with guns at an event presided by the first black president. Some days later, a FOX commentator points out that MSNBC was dishonest because the footage of the man they showed actually corresponds to a black man, not a white one, but MSNBC never showed his face. And I agree, it is a sleazy move.
Well, take a look at this CNN clip. It turns out that there were two men carrying assault weapons at that event. One of the was black, the other was not.
In fact, there were several other people carrying guns in that event, by some accounts close to a dozen. You can see one of them, a white man, actually interviewing the black guy in this clip, 3:20 into the clip.
So, although the MSNBC commentators were dishonest because they used the clip of the black guy, everything that they said still holds: white people were showing up with guns in various events where Obama was present (not only that event, but including it).
Furthermore, note that both CNN and The Daily Show's clips are from August 18, while FOX's is from August 20, so by that time FOX had to know about the white men that were carrying guns, including an AR-15, at that exact same event. Unlike MSNBC's clip, the aim of FOX's clip is to show you the complete picture with all the facts, yet they omitted this fundamental information (and no, what the guy says at 0:50 does not qualify at all).
Thus: yes, MSNBC was sleazy and dishonest, but in the end what we see is that FOX was far more sleazy and dishonest when they called MSNBC to account.
I would love to hear what you have to say in light of this "new" information.
I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020.
Can you please send me a link to the video? I've been searching all through the web for over half an hour and couldn't find it. In fact, I couldn't find any other references to the such a video, the closest I got was other people saying that "[Frank] supports a government takeover of health care", but no references to a video of him saying those words. I would have expected conservatives to flood YouTube with copies of such a video, but I couldn't find any.
Please enlighten me. If you point me to the video , I promise to swallow my pride and publicly apologize to you for calling you a liar and a troll.
Dude, get a clue !!! The bill has no provision that the recipient of health care be a legal resident. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, unwelcome aliens will take full advantage of the U.S. taxpayers.
Dude, that's a lie. The provisions you want are clearly stipulated in Title III, Subsection C, Section 347. See my reply to Andrealp's reply to you for instructions on how to get the actual text of the bill.
You have to stop believing what Glenn Beck et al. say. They are lying in your face and you are believing them. Then you come to public forums with those lies and make a fool of yourself when proven wrong.
They obviously lied to you about illegal aliens. What more are they lying about? Food for thought.
Slashdot Mirror
All the models, including the $499 one, include WiFi. The only differences among the models are the flash memory size, the 3G support, and the GPS (included only in the ones that have 3G support).
It is fascinating that while in the summary krebsonsecurity (the same people that wrote the article) says that the article talks about compromises "not just with Internet Explorer, but also with Google Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera," kdawson chose to exclude Firefox from the title and even changed the order of the other browsers: IE, Safari, Chrome, Opera.
I'm not saying that the order in which the browsers are mentioned has any significance at all, but it is simply wrong to alter the title in such a way that the article seems to say something different from what it actually says.
kdawson strikes again...
First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me) is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.
What's H.232? As far as I could tell, apparently it refers to a standard for VoIP (although that may be H.323).
Maybe you are talking about H.264 or some other H.26x video standard?
If you choose the MKV container format you can still choose Theora (VP3) for video and Vorbis for audio (as of HandBreak 0.9.4).
There are many torrent that offer many DRM free or cracked ipa files. You just drop them into itunes and they copy over like a regular app.
NO jailbreaking necessary
OK, but what you are saying implies that all the criticism about Apple having a monopoly over the App Store, and all the complaints from developers when their apps get rejected by Apple, are unfounded. The developers could just produce a "modified" ipa file for their app (just as the crackers do), sell it on their own website (just as Windows and Mac developers do for their applications) and simply instruct the users to drop the file into iTunes.
And yet the developers don't do that. Some of them offer their rejected apps (usually for free) through Cydia, but that requieres jailbraking the phone so it's not a popular alternative.
It seems to me you are missing something.
OK, so instead of looking at the 129 murders in the city of Atlanta in 2007 let's look at the 458 murders in the whole metropolitan area that year.
Of course Atlanta now doesn't look 17 times as bad as London, only 3.5 times as bad. (Or almost 5 times if we take into account the differences in population using the estimates that you provided).
So even though the "17 times" figure was overblown, the main point of the GP still holds: the GGP is full of shit, because murder rates in Atlanta are several times higher than in London.
Have we just been baited into reading crap for no good reason? Does that qualify as scam? Scam baiting? Or Baiting scam?
None of the above. Read TFS again. Nurse Nasty said that scambaiting is a fun sport. He never claimed that the comic book itself was actually funny. If you feel disappointed it's your own fault.
Some people might find the comic book funny and others won't. The point is not if the comic book itself is funny. What is amusing is the fact that this guy got all these creeps to take humiliating pictures of themselves, and that he published them for the world to see. Given that these are some of the very few people in the world that deserve such treatment, that is well worth the read.
I agree that that is what "beg the question" meant originally, and that is what it should mean. Unfortunately the incorrect use has become so widespread that it is even mentioned in the dictionaries. From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
beg the question:
1 (of a fact or action) raise a question or point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question.
2 avoid the question; evade the issue.
3 assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it.
It is sad, but to the "incorrect" use appears first and the original use appears last.
Dude, read the sister post by rotor. What he and dcw3 are disputing is this assertion by the GP:
In other words, unless wikipedia is wrong, two thirds of the population has attended college.
(emphasis mine). Well, Wikipedia only claims 53.9%, so rounding it to two thirds is at least careless and at most dishonest.
Fascinating. Thanks for the info.
But do take into account that Bugorski was using an accelerator from 1978, and for all we know it may not have been one of the top of the line even at that time. The LHC is the most powerful accelerator built till now, and 30 years have passed. Chances are that the beams Dr. Jackson refers to are orders of magnitude more energetic than the one that hit Bugorski.
Dude, like a true Slashdotter you didn't RTFA, congratulations. Dr. Jackson didn't use the exact words mentioned in the summary (except, of course, the direct quote RE: 87kg of TNT).
In reference to the black holes, he gives a short but complete explanation of why they would not destroy the planet.
And about the Higgs boson, he said "I'd put the chance we will find the Higgs boson or something similar to it at pretty close to 100 per cent."
The summary is not misleading, but the scientist didn't really use the emphasis you frown upon.
In addition to what I said in a sister post, take a look at this brief Reuters article: It seems that some "respected" developers are scaling back their Android operations (even more!) in favor of even more support for the iPhone.
My point is: the industry is moving around. Some developers are upset with Apple's App Store policies, but contrary to what you think there is far from a mass migration to Android at least for now .
Now the good devs are leaving for Android? I may buy a droid or droid++ next year.
Sure, go ahead. But let me point out that none of the articles said that the developers were going to concentrate their efforts on Android.
In fact, the only mention of Android or the Droid was in the xkcd strip featured in the Ars Technica article. The Rogue Amoeba guy explicitly said that they were going back to focusing on the Mac, and Williams, the Second Gear guy, said "with the latest app rejection being Google Voice, I am one step closer to selling off my iPhone products and focusing entirely on the Mac once more" (quoted from the Ars Technica article).
While it is obvious that some of the fleeing developers will turn to other mobile platforms, there is not enough information to conclude that "the good devs are leaving for Android"
I know that this wouldn't have worked for you that time because you were precisely trying to configure the Internet access. But once that's up and running, get her to turn on "Screen Sharing" in the "Sharing" system preference panel, and to configure the VNC server in that panel. Then you will be able to access the computer using a VNC client.
Of course you need to tell her to activate Screen Sharing when you are going to help her and to turn it off after you finish so that she won't risk getting hacked (as with any VNC server). Also, you need to configure port forwarding in her wireless router, but that is not Mac specific at all.
Now, you may want to make yourself a favor and get a Mac mini. With a Mac on your side you won't need to activate the VNC server nor configure the router, because you can simply use the Screen Sharing feature of iChat.
Oh, I did not watch Tuesday's The Daily Show until now, so I missed this clip, which is extremely relevant to our discussion. Hannity's clip can be found on FOX's website. The switch starts at 1:30 (watch the foliage and the amount of people).
Let me paraphrase you:
So the question becomes: Why did FOX's editing room use footage of a DIFFERENT event? The answer becomes obvious when you listen to the overvoicing (sic) from the host and a guest that appears regularly in FOX's programs - the previous event had a higher turnout, closer to the numbers claimed in the voiceover.
That's reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.
- They didn't blatantly lie. [or did they?]
Instead they distorted the truth, with creative video edits and voiceovers.
Now, you may claim that Stewart is "accusing FOX of a distortion that is not a distortion. HE'S the one who is deliberately not telling the truth." In other words, that TDS did a creative video edit to make it seem like FOX did something that they didn't do.
Unfortunately for you that's not the case. The situation was so clear and embarrassing that Sean Hannity had to acknowledge it on air. He says that it was "an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless". I hope that you are not so gullible as to think that it was indeed a mistake. This was as much a mistake as MSNBC cutting the footage to conceal a man's skin color.
But of course distorting the truth in this way is not new for FOX. Here you have a brief compilation of several other instances in which FOX clearly used deceptive techniques such as "creative video edits and voiceovers" to push their agenda, every one of them as egregious as MSNBC's sleazy trick you linked to. Except that the main message in that case was true (white men with guns, one with an AR-15, were at the event), while in most (all?) of these cases the main message is the deceptive one (e.g., the event had a far less turnout than what the commentators claimed and the images showed).
Of all the media in the present-day USA, FOX is the one that most frequently resorts to tactics reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.
I would love to see how you rationalize everything you said in your posts now. Really. I expect an answer from you.
[...] to commemorate the 400 years since 1609, when Galileo looked up.
Galileo was born in 1564. I'm pretty sure that in 45 years he had at least one chance to look up...
Anyway, pretty picture. Now, in a few years when pollution and terrestrial lights has hidden the details of the night sky even in the remote, uninhabited regions, our grandchildren will say:
Grandad, did the sky really look so beautiful back then?
And we will bring out a wide, warm smile and say:
Not even remotely!
From the Snow Leopard Tech Specs:
General requirements
Mac computer with an Intel processor
But, the Atom IS an Intel Processor, just not one sold in a Mac n Cheese.
Which is the whole point of my post, which was a reply to eldavojohn, who felt that "They should explicitly state their product's system requirements and let the consumer decide (like everyone else)".
General requirements
Mac computer with an Intel processor
hmmmm, if only we could figure out who makes the Atom ....
hmmmm, if at least one of the computers that use Intel's Atom was a Mac ....
Yeah I watch Rachel Maddow at least once a week,
... good for you, that shows some willingness to at least listen to those with which you dissent, a priceless quality ...
and a lot of the things she accuses FOX of distorting, are not distortions. SHE'S the one who is deliberately not telling the truth.
True. But that is not much different from what FOX did in the clip you linked to: they deliberatedly did not tell all the truth, and instead withheld essential information.
And what you said is true not only of Madow, but of all the left-wing media (and comedians) I referred to. But then again, most o those accusations against the right-wing media are in fact true.
Maybe the least guilty of them is MediaMatters.org. Even though they do editorialize (a lot!), they always include the complete footage they are referring to, as to avoid being accused of quoting out of context. That's why Bill O'reilly hates them so much and rants about them every few months, but NEVER mentions them by name. He says it's because he doesn't want to send traffic to them, but if the information was as blatantly false as he claims the visitors would never return. No, he knows that the information posted there is frequently undisputable and that some of the visitors would actually realize that it is he who is lying.
Anyway we need at least ONE organization that is pushing for Constitutional limitations and small government.
That is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to and which I absolutely respect.
As I acknowledged in my post not once but twice, MSNBC was sleazy and dishonest.
So the question becomes: Why did MSNBC's editing room CUT the pan, and instead put the video on a loop, thus concealing the man's skin color?
Because they didn't have footage of the white men with weapons. They knew those white men were there, and that one also had an AR-15, but they didn't have the footage. And as I showed you, footage of those white men does exist, just not in MSNBC's hands. Nevertheless using that loop without clarification was misleading, sleazy and dishonest.
(BTW, contrary to your claims, the clips showed by CNN and MSNBC are not from the same footage. But that's a moot point because I'm sure MSNBC's complete footage also showed the face of the guy; no reasonable cameraman would have omitted filming him. The FOX clip you linked to shows no video of the event at all, only a still.)
That's reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.
- They didn't blatantly lie.
Instead they distorted the truth, with creative video edits and voiceovers.
In that case, what the FOX commentator did was reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.
- He didn't blatantly lie.
Instead they distorted the truth, by omitting vital information like the fact that in the exact same event there were several white men with guns, one of them an AR-15.
The message that someone who watches the MSNBC clip will take home is that there was a white man with an assault rifle at the event. Which is entirely true, although the man they saw on the screen was not that white man.
The message that someone who watches the FOX clip will take home is that there were no white men with guns at the event, because the man on the screen was black. Which is essentially false, since those white men were there also (one of them with and AR-15), and FOX knew it.
That by itself makes FOX's distortion of reality much worse than MSNBC's. Added to that is the fact that the whole point of FOX's clip is to set the record straight, to lay all the cards on the table because they were denouncing MSNBC's sin of omission (of footage). They can't do that if they in turn commit a sin of omission (of obviously vital information that they clearly had).
But what shocks me most here is that even though I acknowledged MSNBC's dishonesty repeatedly and made my main point (FOX's dishonesty) perfectly clear and highlighted it in boldface, you deliberately decided to ignore my point completely, and tried to sweep it under the rug by making absolutely no reference to it whatsoever.
They should explicitly state their product's system requirements and let the consumer decide (like everyone else).
From the Snow Leopard Tech Specs:
General requirements
Mac computer with an Intel processor
Only Apple makes Macs and Apple does not make any product with the Atom processor. Therefore, no computer with the Atom is supported. Neither is any computer with an AMD procesor. Or any computer not made by Apple, since all Mac clones are over ten years old and used PowerPCs.
None of those computers are supported. The fact that it works on some of them is a happy coincidence. There it is, written clearly in the very first requirement.
Oh, one more thing:
You showed an instance in which FOX calls out MSNBC for manipulating the information in a sleazy way (although, as I demonstrated above, it wasn't really so sleazy as the FOX commentator made it sound).
Well, this kind of calling out manipulation by the media is far more frequent from the other side (the left denouncing the right). Olbermann and Madow show dishonesty by FOX and other right wing commentators pretty much daily. MediaMatters.org is a site pretty much dedicated to uncovering the dishonesty of FOX and the right. Even Jon Stewart and Colbert do it in a regular basis in their comedy shows (although to be fair occasionally they call out MSNBC and other left media too).
If you realized how sleazy and dishonest FOX is, you would be ashamed to get your "news" from them.
Fascinating clip, even if unrelated to the parent post.
Anyway, let's analyze it. MSNBC showed footage of a man carrying an assault rifle and a pistol in a presidential event in Arizona. An MSNBC commentator said that it was worrisome to have white people show up with guns at an event presided by the first black president. Some days later, a FOX commentator points out that MSNBC was dishonest because the footage of the man they showed actually corresponds to a black man, not a white one, but MSNBC never showed his face. And I agree, it is a sleazy move.
Well, take a look at this CNN clip. It turns out that there were two men carrying assault weapons at that event. One of the was black, the other was not.
In fact, there were several other people carrying guns in that event, by some accounts close to a dozen. You can see one of them, a white man, actually interviewing the black guy in this clip, 3:20 into the clip.
So, although the MSNBC commentators were dishonest because they used the clip of the black guy, everything that they said still holds: white people were showing up with guns in various events where Obama was present (not only that event, but including it).
Furthermore, note that both CNN and The Daily Show's clips are from August 18, while FOX's is from August 20, so by that time FOX had to know about the white men that were carrying guns, including an AR-15, at that exact same event. Unlike MSNBC's clip, the aim of FOX's clip is to show you the complete picture with all the facts, yet they omitted this fundamental information (and no, what the guy says at 0:50 does not qualify at all).
Thus: yes, MSNBC was sleazy and dishonest, but in the end what we see is that FOX was far more sleazy and dishonest when they called MSNBC to account.
I would love to hear what you have to say in light of this "new" information.
P.S.
I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020.
Can you please send me a link to the video? I've been searching all through the web for over half an hour and couldn't find it. In fact, I couldn't find any other references to the such a video, the closest I got was other people saying that "[Frank] supports a government takeover of health care", but no references to a video of him saying those words. I would have expected conservatives to flood YouTube with copies of such a video, but I couldn't find any.
Please enlighten me. If you point me to the video , I promise to swallow my pride and publicly apologize to you for calling you a liar and a troll.
Dude, get a clue !!! The bill has no provision that the recipient of health care be a legal resident. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, unwelcome aliens will take full advantage of the U.S. taxpayers.
Dude, that's a lie. The provisions you want are clearly stipulated in Title III, Subsection C, Section 347. See my reply to Andrealp's reply to you for instructions on how to get the actual text of the bill.
You have to stop believing what Glenn Beck et al. say. They are lying in your face and you are believing them. Then you come to public forums with those lies and make a fool of yourself when proven wrong.
They obviously lied to you about illegal aliens. What more are they lying about? Food for thought.