But it tastes SOOOO good. The summer after high school I worked at a milk distributor and got to drink as much milk as I could. I drank at least 12 gallons/week that summer. I learned that "as much as I could" was substantially less than "as much as I wanted."
I have Sid Meier's Pirates. It is on a 3.5" floppy (I think DD, not HD, but I'm not at home to check) It boots to the game. You need to have a second floppy to save games. It's cool. Someday I may buy the new version.
IMO This is a publicity stunt. Click Defense is suing Google to get people to think about click fraud, so they'll buy software from Click Defense to save themselves.
So, you say that (for example) a reporter that happens not to like the UN will be just as likely to gather and diseminate information that puts the UN in a positive light? (Another example) "Bias does not filter" would also imply that a reporter with strong Al Qaeda aympathies would be as likely to report on humanitarian efforts of US troops in Iraq as on cruelties by US troops.
Bias IS a filter. Bias is a lessened ability to see both sides, thus the less seen side gets "filtered" out, at least to a degree.
"They do seem to be very, very biased, but it's better for information to be collected for me to sort out what's useless, biased drek than it is for someone else to decide what's drek and filter it for me"
You accept and agree that Indymedia is biased. THEN You suggest that it is not filtered.
This is a contradiction.
Disclaimer: I know nothing about Indymedia. This comment is solely to highlight the logic (or lack thereof) in the parent post.
Some of the books in the list are surprises to me. I expected Alice in wonderland, but didn't expect Five Children and It.
It's hard to tell sometimes whether what I've read equates with one of the books on the list. For example, it is not clear whether Les Miserables and Notre Dame of Paris are abridged or not? (I read the unabridged of both of those.)
I was without a television before I had internet access (which happens to be free at at least two public libraries within walking distance from my apartment). Internet access is also not required for material participation in our society.
I'm sorry that you missed the words "overriding motivator" in my post, otherwise I fail to see now you would think that I would call "crime" by the name of "greed."
While I'm flattered by your intense interest in my personal information, you allowed it to distract you from the points that it illustrated. I will attempt to clarify: 1- You asserted that a television was required for material participartion in this society. I gave one example to demonstrate the non-universality of your claim. 2- I did not use my FYI at the bottom of my previous post as support for any of my previous statements. It was merely added to help give you a little more idea of my perspective (i.e. I have been incomeless without stealing.)
If you would like to re-read my previous post and respond to my actual responses to your post, I should be happy to continue the discussion.
You've expressed an amazingly gullible (though not uncommon) view.
"To materially participate in our society today, you must own a television." Nope. I don't own one. I feel connected. I probably had more information and less FUD about the last national election than the average person that does own a television.
"But what you are suggesting is that there is no such thing as poverty or economic crime." No. I am suggesting that the overriding motivator for theft is the same for all income levels, greed. Observe the fact that there are many extremely poor people that don't steal, and many non-poor that do. Giving people free money doesn't reduce crime.
"you may suddenly find yourself knitted into a DeFarge scarf" My take on that very bloody revolution is that it was motivated much more by greed (on the part of its leaders), legal powerlessness (on the part of the non-aristocracy) and FUD than actual poverty. That poverty was a symptom of the causes of the revolution rather than the cause itself.
FYI: I was on unemployment for the full 6 months once. I did work hard looking for a job before, during, and after unemployment. I did eventually find a job that was inadequate, but helped while I looked for other work, which I eventually found.
Slashdot Mirror
But it tastes SOOOO good.
The summer after high school I worked at a milk distributor and got to drink as much milk as I could.
I drank at least 12 gallons/week that summer.
I learned that "as much as I could" was substantially less than "as much as I wanted."
I currently drink only about 3 or 4 gallons/week.
"of medicine's most fundamental beliefs: that people need to coat themselves with sunscreen whenever they're in the sun"
Fundamental???
That's WHY we send Bruce.
Slashdot
Your local telephone directory will tell you who to call to get rid of those pesky trees.
I have Sid Meier's Pirates.
It is on a 3.5" floppy (I think DD, not HD, but I'm not at home to check)
It boots to the game.
You need to have a second floppy to save games.
It's cool.
Someday I may buy the new version.
IMO
This is a publicity stunt.
Click Defense is suing Google to get people to think about click fraud, so they'll buy software from Click Defense to save themselves.
"I'm convinced there's a "net station" market out there,"
At least twice, since I've been paying attention, others have been sure of that same thing. They've introduced products, and gone out of business.
I read the list of ingredients 3 times and still can't find it.
I think you left out the TV.
(Can you have a chicken dinner without a chicken?)
I figured any power other than hydroelectric in SC2K was a waste of money.
Wind is more expensive (in terms of space and $).
Anything else has to be rebuilt every 50 years.
Not again.
I'm just sad that the article messed up the conversion.
It said "100 million Celsius (180 million F)"
When it should have said "100 million Celsius (180 million +32 F)"
Science reporting these days.
I appreciate your post about the universality of bias.
I actually agree with you on that.
I freely admit that when I suggested that there are only two sides to any given issue that I was oversimplifying.
However, I can't see how your post in any way addresses whether bias is a filter, unless it was meant as support for my assertion.
"This is the "first hit free" model."
Just because it made the guys at ID Software great thumping wads of cash . . .
So, you say that (for example) a reporter that happens not to like the UN will be just as likely to gather and diseminate information that puts the UN in a positive light?
(Another example) "Bias does not filter" would also imply that a reporter with strong Al Qaeda aympathies would be as likely to report on humanitarian efforts of US troops in Iraq as on cruelties by US troops.
Bias IS a filter. Bias is a lessened ability to see both sides, thus the less seen side gets "filtered" out, at least to a degree.
"They do seem to be very, very biased, but it's better for information to be collected for me to sort out what's useless, biased drek than it is for someone else to decide what's drek and filter it for me"
You accept and agree that Indymedia is biased.
THEN
You suggest that it is not filtered.
This is a contradiction.
Disclaimer: I know nothing about Indymedia. This comment is solely to highlight the logic (or lack thereof) in the parent post.
Allow me to restate, since I agree.
I always figured that "Troll" was an attribute of the post, not of the reader.
You mean like cable TV and DVDs?
"But what do I know...I still can't type faster than a 486."
I don't know. My 486 has never even seen Mavis Beacon. Probably can't type worth old stinky beans.
Deoxyribonucleic Acid
All the best mice use it.
First run through I count 69, I think.
Some of the books in the list are surprises to me.
I expected Alice in wonderland, but didn't expect Five Children and It.
It's hard to tell sometimes whether what I've read equates with one of the books on the list. For example, it is not clear whether Les Miserables and Notre Dame of Paris are abridged or not? (I read the unabridged of both of those.)
"I just wish the spammers had a "not an idiot" list, so they could stop wasting their resources sending the stuff to me."
That would be wonderful, if it weren't for the fact that many idiots would get confused and put themselves on the list.
I always figured that "Troll" was an attribute of the poster, not of the reader.
I was without a television before I had internet access (which happens to be free at at least two public libraries within walking distance from my apartment). Internet access is also not required for material participation in our society.
I'm sorry that you missed the words "overriding motivator" in my post, otherwise I fail to see now you would think that I would call "crime" by the name of "greed."
While I'm flattered by your intense interest in my personal information, you allowed it to distract you from the points that it illustrated.
I will attempt to clarify:
1- You asserted that a television was required for material participartion in this society. I gave one example to demonstrate the non-universality of your claim.
2- I did not use my FYI at the bottom of my previous post as support for any of my previous statements. It was merely added to help give you a little more idea of my perspective (i.e. I have been incomeless without stealing.)
If you would like to re-read my previous post and respond to my actual responses to your post, I should be happy to continue the discussion.
You've expressed an amazingly gullible (though not uncommon) view.
"To materially participate in our society today, you must own a television."
Nope. I don't own one. I feel connected. I probably had more information and less FUD about the last national election than the average person that does own a television.
"But what you are suggesting is that there is no such thing as poverty or economic crime."
No. I am suggesting that the overriding motivator for theft is the same for all income levels, greed. Observe the fact that there are many extremely poor people that don't steal, and many non-poor that do. Giving people free money doesn't reduce crime.
"you may suddenly find yourself knitted into a DeFarge scarf"
My take on that very bloody revolution is that it was motivated much more by greed (on the part of its leaders), legal powerlessness (on the part of the non-aristocracy) and FUD than actual poverty. That poverty was a symptom of the causes of the revolution rather than the cause itself.
FYI: I was on unemployment for the full 6 months once. I did work hard looking for a job before, during, and after unemployment. I did eventually find a job that was inadequate, but helped while I looked for other work, which I eventually found.