I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people in this country would still prefer a balanced approach to factual news.
Awfully nice of you to apologize, but there's no need. What you are or aren't sure of is irrelevant.
Most people might CLAIM they would prefer a balanced approach to factual news, but that doesn't make it true. Ratings/subscription rates are much clearer measures of what people actually want (since they're paying for it either with money or time), and those numbers tell a clear story--no one cares about some abstract notion of balance or fairness. They care about hearing their own biases and prejudices parroted back to them while being told it's fair and balanced. That is NOT the same thing.
While scarcity is not an issue with "news" there is something to say about an organization who actually goes out and verifies the information for a story prior to writing or broadcasting it.
And? Now you're making an irrelevant, non-sequitur value argument.
Is truly balanced reporting BETTER? That's a separate issue (frankly, I'd say no, but that's only because I don't buy the claim that reporting CAN be balanced in any meaningful sense--it requires a notion of objective TRUTH separate from the person interpreting that TRUTH, which we could debate endlessly, but I doubt could exist in any non-trivial sense).
What I'm talking about here are historical norms. The historical norm (for the 500+ years we've had the printing press) has been bias and sensation. Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow were aberrations. What is better or worse is irrelevant. The norm is bias, and that's what we've returned to.
Christ how many idiots are going to say this as if it were what the story is talking about?
REPEAT AFTER ME NUMBNUTS: This story is about US DHS controlling who is allowed on flights which DO NOT originate in the US, terminate in the US, OR AT ANY POINT cross over the US.
Though personally I still think that news are supposed to be neutral, and that the whole idea that a news outfit can have a political slant is a perversion, regardless of the direction
Historically speaking, you're completely wrong. Bias has been the norm since the invention of the printing press (and with it, newspapers). The idea that newspapers/stations/sites should be neutral is an aberration that was born, and died, in the 20th Century as a result of the sudden scarcity of preferred news media outlets (specifically television/radio licenses in the early decades following the invention of those technologies). Now that scarcity is once again no longer an issue (as it wasn't when print rags were the only option--and note that neutrality was never common in print rags except for the handful of 'national standard' papers), neutrality is no longer valued.
one thing - win7's drag-explorer-to-the-edge-and-it-fills-exactly-half-the-screen really saves the time i spend in a fit of OCD dragging edges around so i can move shit from two folders fast.
In Gnome/KDE every window can do that (haven't used XFCE or LXDE so I can't say, but it seems like that's a pretty standard feature of every competent window manager).
Given that still extant hunter gatherer societies do not have systems of writing, and known systems of writing all post-date agriculture, and arise only in agricultural societies it is probably safe to generalize and say they couldn't write. Probably because, like the remaining extant hunter gatherers in the Amazon or parts of Africa, they had no use for it. Societies were small, their knowledge base was small, and oral transmission was good enough. Why bother creating and then teaching an entirely new system of communication that offers no benefit in societies of 50 people?
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, you've discovered Gnosticism.
30 years ago was 1982. It's been more like 60 years.
Enhance. Enhance. Enhance. Enhance
Would you shut up and just print the damn thing?
No it doesn't.
That stupider/worse things happen than THING A does not make THING A ok.
Sure, but every single state that went to John McCain in 2008 (the core 'red states') received more than they paid in the previous years.
Depends on how the algorithm evaluates position. It's trivial to find positions at more than -6 in piece value that are one move from check mate.
This might be the stupidest thing I've read all year.
I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people in this country would still prefer a balanced approach to factual news.
Awfully nice of you to apologize, but there's no need. What you are or aren't sure of is irrelevant.
Most people might CLAIM they would prefer a balanced approach to factual news, but that doesn't make it true. Ratings/subscription rates are much clearer measures of what people actually want (since they're paying for it either with money or time), and those numbers tell a clear story--no one cares about some abstract notion of balance or fairness. They care about hearing their own biases and prejudices parroted back to them while being told it's fair and balanced. That is NOT the same thing.
While scarcity is not an issue with "news" there is something to say about an organization who actually goes out and verifies the information for a story prior to writing or broadcasting it.
And? Now you're making an irrelevant, non-sequitur value argument.
Is truly balanced reporting BETTER? That's a separate issue (frankly, I'd say no, but that's only because I don't buy the claim that reporting CAN be balanced in any meaningful sense--it requires a notion of objective TRUTH separate from the person interpreting that TRUTH, which we could debate endlessly, but I doubt could exist in any non-trivial sense).
What I'm talking about here are historical norms. The historical norm (for the 500+ years we've had the printing press) has been bias and sensation. Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow were aberrations. What is better or worse is irrelevant. The norm is bias, and that's what we've returned to.
Point to me.
Remember, your responses must have nothing to do with the previous comment.
Now to resume: I am a banana!
They banned the old soviet weather balloons as sorcery (equating weather forecasting with telling the future).
Christ how many idiots are going to say this as if it were what the story is talking about?
REPEAT AFTER ME NUMBNUTS: This story is about US DHS controlling who is allowed on flights which DO NOT originate in the US, terminate in the US, OR AT ANY POINT cross over the US.
Though personally I still think that news are supposed to be neutral, and that the whole idea that a news outfit can have a political slant is a perversion, regardless of the direction
Historically speaking, you're completely wrong. Bias has been the norm since the invention of the printing press (and with it, newspapers). The idea that newspapers/stations/sites should be neutral is an aberration that was born, and died, in the 20th Century as a result of the sudden scarcity of preferred news media outlets (specifically television/radio licenses in the early decades following the invention of those technologies). Now that scarcity is once again no longer an issue (as it wasn't when print rags were the only option--and note that neutrality was never common in print rags except for the handful of 'national standard' papers), neutrality is no longer valued.
one thing - win7's drag-explorer-to-the-edge-and-it-fills-exactly-half-the-screen really saves the time i spend in a fit of OCD dragging edges around so i can move shit from two folders fast.
In Gnome/KDE every window can do that (haven't used XFCE or LXDE so I can't say, but it seems like that's a pretty standard feature of every competent window manager).
Ooh! I love the non-sequitur game!
Good luck entering a PIN so you can call 911 when you're being physically assaulted.
Your turn.
STOP. GIVING. HIM. IDEAS.
Depends on the state. The sex offender registries are mish-mash of half-baked thinking and poor design.
Given that still extant hunter gatherer societies do not have systems of writing, and known systems of writing all post-date agriculture, and arise only in agricultural societies it is probably safe to generalize and say they couldn't write. Probably because, like the remaining extant hunter gatherers in the Amazon or parts of Africa, they had no use for it. Societies were small, their knowledge base was small, and oral transmission was good enough. Why bother creating and then teaching an entirely new system of communication that offers no benefit in societies of 50 people?
Bob's bitch tits are a poor substitute indeed.
Quick, you'd better stop thinking to slow the process down.
How is an adult's decision to consume ANY substance a reasonable basis for detention?
Just because prohibition is law does NOT make it reasonable.
Try taking your own dick out of your mouth first.
That's not very chill at all. Good of you to add hypocrisy to his list though.
Let the games...continue.
That's a retarded point. By that logic an unlimited plan is physically impossible anyway since all cables have finite (limited) total bandwidth.
Hannibal wasn't the one who said the 'it puts the lotion on its skin...'