"Why? I have said it before and I will say it again -- IT DOES NOT MATTER! The Earth will fix itself. The human race is not important in the grand scheme of things as far as the Earth is concerned."
Nice. Do you take the same approach to individual pollution (like throwing plastic bags in a stream), or to violent criminal activity? I mean, really, killing 10 people doesn't make a difference to society as a whole, it will heal itself.
Your lack of respect for the world around us is scary. The Earth will go on, it is true. But in what form? Why should WE be the agents of change? How is it acceptable for us to cause mass extinctions, to remake the planet as we see fit? To poison other species, and ourselves, just because we think that in the long run, it doesn't matter?
Your selfish attitude should absolutely appall anyone with a sense of personal responsibility.
What gives you the right to deprive future generations from experiencing the Earth in its natural state, or as close to it as possible?
"Don't count out a huge volcanic eruption. With all the natural disasters so far this year, a nice big poof out of a volcano would round things out nicely."
Newsflash: The Vatican has announced that there are now Seven Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Cataclysmic Eruption, Typhoon, and Tsunami have the joined the elite group that previously consisted only of War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death.
Tornado and Nuclear Winter have issued a statement that they are upset with the choices of the mortal vessel of God. "How can we know that Cataclysmic Ereuption is up to the task? We have no paper trail that indicates how CE will act when put to the test in modern times. Despite assurances that CE is just as badass as the rest the Horsemen, we submit that this is an example of cronyism at its worst."
Despite doubts about whether or not human activity is contributing to gloabl warming, we still have the responsibility to minimize our impact.
As you point out, Climatology is hard. There are several known unknowns, and even more unknown unkowns. Until we can be CERTAIN that we are not taking the risk of causing dramatic climate change, particularly given the haunting specter of a threshhold after which climate changes accelerates, we need to proceed with caution.
If there is ANY believable evidence that our actions are causing global warming, we need to take action to lessen those actions.
Sure, that's what happens any time you have appointed bureaucrats. The question is, will those connections affect their ability to perform their functions fairly? There have been plenty of cronies who ended up being fantastic and unbiased in an appointed role.
"Yes, far too obvious. Which is why I said you were intentionally daft, and didn't just call you an idiot. Sarcasm is no substitute for insight. Please try to think up and present actual arguments in the future."
Dude, it was an actual argument, the argument being that your reason for disliking new names for things is also ridiculous.
Perhaps you think calling someone daft or an idiot construes an argument, since that is how you addressed my point?
Lighten up, take a load off, and unwad your panties.
Except that mediaresearch is full of opinion and judgements.
I did point out that mediamatters is biased, but at least they are exposing falsehoods and lies by omission -- they do not express their opinions as truth.
"Why make up new words when old ones exist and have the same meaning? There's nothing to be gained, and it only sows confusion and fragments language. And in this case, the word "Ajax" is, on top of it all, a lame marketing attempt."
Are the two terms absolutely equivalent? If not, then no problem with a new word. Language changes. Or perhaps you should avoid using any word that has a synonym that was in existence before it? Have fun there, the OED is a pretty big book.
"Don't be intentionally daft. You're just insulting everyone's intelligence."
Sarcasm. Pointing out how ridiculous your argument is by doing the same to the opposite position. I know/.ers often have trouble with non-literal interpretation (myself included), but really... wasn't it obvious?
I happen to agree with you, that the labels are applied differently. But that in itself is a problem. "Liberal bias" should mean the same as "Conservative bias" except for the direction of the slant.
"Calling authority into question is not bias"
If you call authority into question on every issue, there is no bias. But if you only call them into question when their policy is different from yours, that is bias. By definition.
If by "bias" we mean to include both types, expression of opinion or misstatement of fact, then your point is that the typically observed liberal bias differs from the typically observed conservative bias.
"For example, claiming moral equivalency between covering up a blowjob while under oath, and presenting false evidence of WMD programs as being justified in order to get rid of a dictator, is not a slanted opinion. There's no equivalency there, and that's an objective fact.""
I just want to point out that morality is by definition subjective, so you can't say that the apparent lack of equivalency is an objective fact. According to someone else's moral code, a lie is a lie no matter the consequences, so the equivalency holds... for them. Which is a subjective fact.
It's defensive maneuvering, in anticipation of the US exerting greater control.
Cuo Bono? Who knows, for now. But as cyberwar becomes a reality, and access to the internet becomes evermore an economic necessity, the EU is not happy with one nation having too much control over teh internets.
Would any nation willing cede control of its highways to another nation? I think not.
So, to answer your question of who benefits:
Potentially, any nation that is not the US. Any company doing internet business within any country not in the US. The politicians, who gain a better public image by standing up to the unpopular US.
If you're looking for corporate profits, I'm sure there are some companies that stand to make some cash. Enough to create a diplomatic crisis? Doubt it.
"Yes you can, just as newspapers (claim to) separate out news reporting from the editorial page."
This is why newspapers label the page "Opinion." Were FoxNews to have on onscreen graphic during their opinion shows that said "Opinion" then you could draw a parallel.
"And if you're referring to the talk radio host who promoted Bush's policies"
No, I'm talking about the social security propaganda piece that was sent to the networks to air as a news piece, with a "reporter" who was a paid actress.
"I don't think people interpret Hannity's "we need to just slash the DoE's budget" as a "fact"."
I'm not disputing that, since it clearly is an opinion. I'm talking about when Hannity or O'Reilly makes up facts to support their opinions. Time and again, they make up figures, misrepresent the truth, and lie by omission. When O'Reilly uses the results of a six-year-old poll to justify the statement that Bush's approval ratings are improving, there's a problem.
The call themselves Fox News, not "Fox News and Opinion".
Furthermore, the corrections are not corrections of opinion, but corrections of FACT. Whether or not it is an opinion show, factual misrepresentation is unacceptable.
I have no problem with conservative shows being biased in their opinion, as long as they don't claim to be a News show, claim to be fair and balanced, or claim to tell the truth when they lie about facts.
Until then, Fox News is a conservatively biased "News and Opinion" network.
"If anyone cites an opinion piece as evidence of bias or the lack thereof, they have revealed their analysis is not worth listening to."
I don't know where to begin with this.
First, it's "Fox News" channel. Any bias on the network is bad, because they pretend that it's all News.
Second, the "media" includes opinion, as well as news. Check out the total airtime devoted to liberal and conservative points of view, on purportedly "Fair and Balanced" Fox News, or on any other network. Check out how unwilling Colmes is to counter Hannity's arguments. Check out how frequently Hannity and Colmes have a four-person discussion where Hannity is the only liberal, despite the fact that he is a moderate.
When people allege bias, they can be talking about either news reporting, or opinion or both. And when a network claims to be a "News" network, then you cannot make the distinction between opinion-bias and news-bias.
Furthermore, take a closer look at News reporting. People alleging liberal bias in News reporting are off their rockers, when "News" programs often have "News segments" that are promotional materials for the conservative policies being implemented (remember that whole scandal?).
"You can't trust either organization exclusively. You have to trust yourself. It's all partisanship."
Yep, which is why I mentioned the bias when linking to it.
The problem is that neutral analysis is impossible to get. No one funds the research without an agenda.
The biggest problem I see, though, is that the shift of center in politics. My views used to be considered centrist... but somehow I've become considered to be a liberal. Have my views become more liberal? No. But the definition of center has become more conservative. What really cracks me up is that true conservatism is now considered by the mainstream to be ultraliberal.
The unfortunate thing about the shift of center is that people will discount ideas if they are too far from the norm. So some potentially good liberal ideas are ignored as being "crackpot" ideas. The same was true in the 30s, when some good conservative ideas were ignored for the same reason.
Well, we're surprised because this is a departure from FoxNews's typical behavior, independent of other networks.
Other networks with an online presence (& also print media) also do this. The difference is, they normally don't have errors so egregious that it requires such a big response.
The NYTimes does this in its opinion page. Recantments and corrections are also included in paper.
"When is the last time you saw CNN, the New York Times, or CBS news print this many well-articulated reader responses to an article?"
Well, one of the problems is that most of the dissenting responses are not well-articulated. This is not a stupid insult, this is truth. FoxNews happened to receive a ton of well-articulated responses because they were so clearly in the wrong.
CNN, CBS, the NYTimes have all owned up to their mistakes in the past.
Maybe you need to stop drinking the Neoconservative movement kool-aid and realize that if you think CNN, the NYTimes, and CBS are liberal, you're insane. Yes, they have certain columnists who are liberal -- but they also have conservative columnists. And if you want to read the liberal columnists online at NYTimes now, you have to pay $50 a year.
"The State should be a reflection of the people governed, not a role model. Choosing to support a standard virtually ignored by the constituents is callous and ignorant."
Can't one government be a role model for other governments? Whether or not the intent is to create a role model, governments are often role models.
The state should not necessarily be a reflection of the people governed. I'm not even going to bother mentioning all the terrible things that have been supported by government just because a majority of people have supported it. Plenty of times the unpopular decision is the best for the constituents, who may not understand the problem completely, or may have been misled about it.
"FWIW, My company has subcontracted for numerous projects that attracted State interest. When the project required changes to our customers' standards, by State Decree, the costs ballooned."
Yes, because everyone knows that short-term costs are all that matters -- I don't need to worry about longterm costs, I'm sure we'll find a way to pay for it later.
"For the record, all my liberal friends tell me constantly that Fox News is oh-so-biased and CNN is oh-so-great, without EVER citing a single example for either case."
Then your liberal friends are morons. CNN is also skewed in its coverage.
Do you want examples? Are your fingers broken? Any search engine can help you out.
If you want a biased, but truthful, look at examples of conservative bias in the media, check out http://www.mediamatters.org/
Yes, Bill O'Reilly has lambasted Media Matters on his program... which is a pretty good recommendation, for my tastes;)
Great for FoxNews to do this. But, this is not a front page story -- this is a story that has a link from the front page, which has the equivalent of a selective Table of Contents.
I love the editor's note down at the bottom of the column -- they bury their corrections as well as print papers do:). They don't even call it a correction.
Also, in mentioning the founders of ATL, they don't mention that Citizens Against Government Waste is not a citizens' group -- it is an industry-funded group.
"That said, your last point is the real problem. What happens to game production costs when photorealism is the standard."
When photorealism is the standard, only the standards will have photorealism.
Seriously, photorealism will never become the standard until production costs are much lower. The reason that more photorealistic games make a profit is, besides gameplay, because of the Wow! factor. When the Wow! factor is taken away (because everyone's got it) then the sales will be much lower, and photorealism ceases to be profitable... unless production costs are also low.
I think what we'll see is most games are produced to the JGE (just good enough) standard, with very few games pushing the envelope towards photrealism... which means that the standard will be JGE.
Actually, a new century starts every instant in time.
And "since 1999" refers to 2000 to the present, not 1999 to the present.
I'm fully aware that the first century did not start in year 0, but use of 1999 rather than 2000 creates a better mental separation from the present, which is better for comedic purposes.
When there is a valid threat to public safety in allowing protesting in a specific spot, then go ahead and disallow protesting in that specific spot.
But don't tell me that I can only protest in a specific location without giving me specific reasons why every other location presents a clear and present danger to the public.
"Oh wait - we already have that system, and it works just fine. "
You really think it works fine? How many permits get denied because the people in charge don't agree with the causes of the protestors? More than you think.
The natural tendency of government is to continually grab more power, and to deny dissent. Every little infringement of the Right to Free Speech adds up, and not being aware of, or concerned about, the implications makes you as bad as those who seek to limit it for their own benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why? I have said it before and I will say it again -- IT DOES NOT MATTER! The Earth will fix itself. The human race is not important in the grand scheme of things as far as the Earth is concerned."
Nice. Do you take the same approach to individual pollution (like throwing plastic bags in a stream), or to violent criminal activity? I mean, really, killing 10 people doesn't make a difference to society as a whole, it will heal itself.
Your lack of respect for the world around us is scary. The Earth will go on, it is true. But in what form? Why should WE be the agents of change? How is it acceptable for us to cause mass extinctions, to remake the planet as we see fit? To poison other species, and ourselves, just because we think that in the long run, it doesn't matter?
Your selfish attitude should absolutely appall anyone with a sense of personal responsibility.
What gives you the right to deprive future generations from experiencing the Earth in its natural state, or as close to it as possible?
Seeing as Pinatubo affected climate world-wide, I'm not so certain that a suthern hemisphere eruption would limit its effects to that hemisphere.
u per1
There are definitely volcanoes in New Zealand, South America, and the Pacific Rim that fit the bill.
If you want some interesting reading about possible effects of cataclysmic eruptions,, try:http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=S
J
"Don't count out a huge volcanic eruption. With all the natural disasters so far this year, a nice big poof out of a volcano would round things out nicely."
Newsflash: The Vatican has announced that there are now Seven Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Cataclysmic Eruption, Typhoon, and Tsunami have the joined the elite group that previously consisted only of War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death.
Tornado and Nuclear Winter have issued a statement that they are upset with the choices of the mortal vessel of God. "How can we know that Cataclysmic Ereuption is up to the task? We have no paper trail that indicates how CE will act when put to the test in modern times. Despite assurances that CE is just as badass as the rest the Horsemen, we submit that this is an example of cronyism at its worst."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Despite doubts about whether or not human activity is contributing to gloabl warming, we still have the responsibility to minimize our impact.
As you point out, Climatology is hard. There are several known unknowns, and even more unknown unkowns. Until we can be CERTAIN that we are not taking the risk of causing dramatic climate change, particularly given the haunting specter of a threshhold after which climate changes accelerates, we need to proceed with caution.
If there is ANY believable evidence that our actions are causing global warming, we need to take action to lessen those actions.
Period.
Reread my first post.
I most definitely made a point, in my very first sentences.
And, BTW, an ad hominem comment is far worse than using sarcasm to illustrate a point...
Sure, that's what happens any time you have appointed bureaucrats. The question is, will those connections affect their ability to perform their functions fairly? There have been plenty of cronies who ended up being fantastic and unbiased in an appointed role.
"Yes, far too obvious. Which is why I said you were intentionally daft, and didn't just call you an idiot. Sarcasm is no substitute for insight. Please try to think up and present actual arguments in the future."
Dude, it was an actual argument, the argument being that your reason for disliking new names for things is also ridiculous.
Perhaps you think calling someone daft or an idiot construes an argument, since that is how you addressed my point?
Lighten up, take a load off, and unwad your panties.
Except that mediaresearch is full of opinion and judgements.
I did point out that mediamatters is biased, but at least they are exposing falsehoods and lies by omission -- they do not express their opinions as truth.
"Why make up new words when old ones exist and have the same meaning? There's nothing to be gained, and it only sows confusion and fragments language. And in this case, the word "Ajax" is, on top of it all, a lame marketing attempt."
/.ers often have trouble with non-literal interpretation (myself included), but really... wasn't it obvious?
Are the two terms absolutely equivalent? If not, then no problem with a new word. Language changes. Or perhaps you should avoid using any word that has a synonym that was in existence before it? Have fun there, the OED is a pretty big book.
"Don't be intentionally daft. You're just insulting everyone's intelligence."
Sarcasm. Pointing out how ridiculous your argument is by doing the same to the opposite position. I know
I happen to agree with you, that the labels are applied differently. But that in itself is a problem. "Liberal bias" should mean the same as "Conservative bias" except for the direction of the slant.
"Calling authority into question is not bias"
If you call authority into question on every issue, there is no bias. But if you only call them into question when their policy is different from yours, that is bias. By definition.
If by "bias" we mean to include both types, expression of opinion or misstatement of fact, then your point is that the typically observed liberal bias differs from the typically observed conservative bias.
"For example, claiming moral equivalency between covering up a blowjob while under oath, and presenting false evidence of WMD programs as being justified in order to get rid of a dictator, is not a slanted opinion. There's no equivalency there, and that's an objective fact.""
I just want to point out that morality is by definition subjective, so you can't say that the apparent lack of equivalency is an objective fact. According to someone else's moral code, a lie is a lie no matter the consequences, so the equivalency holds... for them. Which is a subjective fact.
It's defensive maneuvering, in anticipation of the US exerting greater control.
Cuo Bono? Who knows, for now. But as cyberwar becomes a reality, and access to the internet becomes evermore an economic necessity, the EU is not happy with one nation having too much control over teh internets.
Would any nation willing cede control of its highways to another nation? I think not.
So, to answer your question of who benefits:
Potentially, any nation that is not the US. Any company doing internet business within any country not in the US. The politicians, who gain a better public image by standing up to the unpopular US.
If you're looking for corporate profits, I'm sure there are some companies that stand to make some cash. Enough to create a diplomatic crisis? Doubt it.
"Yes you can, just as newspapers (claim to) separate out news reporting from the editorial page."
This is why newspapers label the page "Opinion." Were FoxNews to have on onscreen graphic during their opinion shows that said "Opinion" then you could draw a parallel.
"And if you're referring to the talk radio host who promoted Bush's policies"
No, I'm talking about the social security propaganda piece that was sent to the networks to air as a news piece, with a "reporter" who was a paid actress.
"I don't think people interpret Hannity's "we need to just slash the DoE's budget" as a "fact"."
I'm not disputing that, since it clearly is an opinion. I'm talking about when Hannity or O'Reilly makes up facts to support their opinions. Time and again, they make up figures, misrepresent the truth, and lie by omission. When O'Reilly uses the results of a six-year-old poll to justify the statement that Bush's approval ratings are improving, there's a problem.
The call themselves Fox News, not "Fox News and Opinion".
Furthermore, the corrections are not corrections of opinion, but corrections of FACT. Whether or not it is an opinion show, factual misrepresentation is unacceptable.
I have no problem with conservative shows being biased in their opinion, as long as they don't claim to be a News show, claim to be fair and balanced, or claim to tell the truth when they lie about facts.
Until then, Fox News is a conservatively biased "News and Opinion" network.
"If anyone cites an opinion piece as evidence of bias or the lack thereof, they have revealed their analysis is not worth listening to."
I don't know where to begin with this.
First, it's "Fox News" channel. Any bias on the network is bad, because they pretend that it's all News.
Second, the "media" includes opinion, as well as news. Check out the total airtime devoted to liberal and conservative points of view, on purportedly "Fair and Balanced" Fox News, or on any other network. Check out how unwilling Colmes is to counter Hannity's arguments. Check out how frequently Hannity and Colmes have a four-person discussion where Hannity is the only liberal, despite the fact that he is a moderate.
When people allege bias, they can be talking about either news reporting, or opinion or both. And when a network claims to be a "News" network, then you cannot make the distinction between opinion-bias and news-bias.
Furthermore, take a closer look at News reporting. People alleging liberal bias in News reporting are off their rockers, when "News" programs often have "News segments" that are promotional materials for the conservative policies being implemented (remember that whole scandal?).
"You can't trust either organization exclusively. You have to trust yourself. It's all partisanship."
Yep, which is why I mentioned the bias when linking to it.
The problem is that neutral analysis is impossible to get. No one funds the research without an agenda.
The biggest problem I see, though, is that the shift of center in politics. My views used to be considered centrist... but somehow I've become considered to be a liberal. Have my views become more liberal? No. But the definition of center has become more conservative. What really cracks me up is that true conservatism is now considered by the mainstream to be ultraliberal.
The unfortunate thing about the shift of center is that people will discount ideas if they are too far from the norm. So some potentially good liberal ideas are ignored as being "crackpot" ideas. The same was true in the 30s, when some good conservative ideas were ignored for the same reason.
Well, we're surprised because this is a departure from FoxNews's typical behavior, independent of other networks.
Other networks with an online presence (& also print media) also do this. The difference is, they normally don't have errors so egregious that it requires such a big response.
The NYTimes does this in its opinion page. Recantments and corrections are also included in paper.
"When is the last time you saw CNN, the New York Times, or CBS news print this many well-articulated reader responses to an article?"
Well, one of the problems is that most of the dissenting responses are not well-articulated. This is not a stupid insult, this is truth. FoxNews happened to receive a ton of well-articulated responses because they were so clearly in the wrong.
CNN, CBS, the NYTimes have all owned up to their mistakes in the past.
Maybe you need to stop drinking the Neoconservative movement kool-aid and realize that if you think CNN, the NYTimes, and CBS are liberal, you're insane. Yes, they have certain columnists who are liberal -- but they also have conservative columnists. And if you want to read the liberal columnists online at NYTimes now, you have to pay $50 a year.
"The State should be a reflection of the people governed, not a role model. Choosing to support a standard virtually ignored by the constituents is callous and ignorant."
Can't one government be a role model for other governments? Whether or not the intent is to create a role model, governments are often role models.
The state should not necessarily be a reflection of the people governed. I'm not even going to bother mentioning all the terrible things that have been supported by government just because a majority of people have supported it. Plenty of times the unpopular decision is the best for the constituents, who may not understand the problem completely, or may have been misled about it.
"FWIW, My company has subcontracted for numerous projects that attracted State interest. When the project required changes to our customers' standards, by State Decree, the costs ballooned."
Yes, because everyone knows that short-term costs are all that matters -- I don't need to worry about longterm costs, I'm sure we'll find a way to pay for it later.
No, the AC has it right. The sad thing is that by being so extremely biased, FoxNews makes rightist networks seem liberal.
The center is moving to the right, and we're all paying the price.
"For the record, all my liberal friends tell me constantly that Fox News is oh-so-biased and CNN is oh-so-great, without EVER citing a single example for either case."
;)
Then your liberal friends are morons. CNN is also skewed in its coverage.
Do you want examples? Are your fingers broken? Any search engine can help you out.
If you want a biased, but truthful, look at examples of conservative bias in the media, check out http://www.mediamatters.org/
Yes, Bill O'Reilly has lambasted Media Matters on his program... which is a pretty good recommendation, for my tastes
Great for FoxNews to do this. But, this is not a front page story -- this is a story that has a link from the front page, which has the equivalent of a selective Table of Contents.
:). They don't even call it a correction.
I love the editor's note down at the bottom of the column -- they bury their corrections as well as print papers do
Also, in mentioning the founders of ATL, they don't mention that Citizens Against Government Waste is not a citizens' group -- it is an industry-funded group.
"I don't see how you guys can call it a dupe when the first sentance clearly states that it is "another look" at the realism vs. style debate"
Unless there's already been "another look." Unless they use unique identifiers, then "another looks could still be constured as a dupe.
Here's a second look... here's a third look... etc.
At least that way they'd shut up the ACs who think the editors are not keeping track of dupes. I mean, they are keeping track of dupes, right?
"Granted that segment of the population is fairly small, but isn't the goal of entertainment companies to entertain everyone they can?"
No, the goal is to get everyone they can to purchase their product. It's a cost/benefit thing.
Risk of lawsuit for not verifying age * (Cost of settlement of lawsuit + cost of lawyers to negotiate settlement and/or handle civil suit)
Vs.
Lost profits due to people not buying because of CC verification.
Besides, if a game trailer is forbidden, you can bet that every kid is going to want to see it.
"That said, your last point is the real problem. What happens to game production costs when photorealism is the standard."
When photorealism is the standard, only the standards will have photorealism.
Seriously, photorealism will never become the standard until production costs are much lower. The reason that more photorealistic games make a profit is, besides gameplay, because of the Wow! factor. When the Wow! factor is taken away (because everyone's got it) then the sales will be much lower, and photorealism ceases to be profitable... unless production costs are also low.
I think what we'll see is most games are produced to the JGE (just good enough) standard, with very few games pushing the envelope towards photrealism... which means that the standard will be JGE.
Actually, a new century starts every instant in time.
And "since 1999" refers to 2000 to the present, not 1999 to the present.
I'm fully aware that the first century did not start in year 0, but use of 1999 rather than 2000 creates a better mental separation from the present, which is better for comedic purposes.
There's a big difference between:
"You can only protest or demonstrate here" and
"You cannot demonstrate here."
When there is a valid threat to public safety in allowing protesting in a specific spot, then go ahead and disallow protesting in that specific spot.
But don't tell me that I can only protest in a specific location without giving me specific reasons why every other location presents a clear and present danger to the public.
"Oh wait - we already have that system, and it works just fine. "
You really think it works fine? How many permits get denied because the people in charge don't agree with the causes of the protestors? More than you think.
The natural tendency of government is to continually grab more power, and to deny dissent. Every little infringement of the Right to Free Speech adds up, and not being aware of, or concerned about, the implications makes you as bad as those who seek to limit it for their own benefit.