why are you getting hysterical and sarcastic about someone referencing a socialist agenda? Of course there is a socialist agenda, all movements have them. Just look at the Democratic Socialists of America: Environmental protection and environmental justice must be part of a democratic socialist agenda.
the socialist agenda would include things such as:
universal healthcare
more retirement benefits provided by the govt
more social equality
a right wing agenda would include:
lower taxes
increase military spending
lessen benefits provided by govt (Such as social security, unemployment insurance, ect...)
having an agenda is not some grand conspriacy claim. Socialist promot socialist ideas, republicans promote republican ideas, libertarians promote libertarian ideas, simple as that.
well i dont think the topic of the original post was about bias from the right, and the wording of the claim that If only left-wingers are interested in a particular topic (like sustainability or Peak Oil), they can and in fact do crowd out attempts to insert balance. innately suggests (at least to me) that poster meant that the same would be true if you replaced left winger with right-winger.
Walk a mile in my shoes, buddy. You'll find out it ain't all peachs 'n cream.
Doubtful. You most likely have a personal computer that you can call your own, or perhaps your family's. You probably eat well, have a closet full of clothes to choose from, get a free education (high school), or pay(have payed for) for a good quality education if you're in college. Chances are that you own your own car, or can use on of your families cars. Given the current US unemployment percentage (5.1%) you most likely have a job. You spend your free time on niche news websites such as slashdot. I could go on, but the point is, you (and I also fit into all of those above claims), that we have a good life compared to most the rest of the world, regardless of where we fit in on the American class system.
Now, that all being said, it is in no way an excuse for these immoral scams. Stealing is wrong no matter what and these people prey on the old and poor who are ticked into this scam. What they do is unexcusable, and their reasoning offered in the article is just that, excuses for behavoir they know is wrong.
For instance, when mozilla comes out with an upgraded version and my FF browser's auto-update thing downloads the whole new browser version, does that count as one of these downloads? Cause that just means that every time they come out with a new version the download counter gets the who user base added to it.
100 million is impressive, Im just wondering where the numbers are coming from.
The degree to which land on the moon may be owned has been the subject of debate and international treaties since the start of the Cold War. This seminar will address the relationship of existing treaties to lunar property rights and the role of such ownership as an incentive for commercial space settlement. Panelists will address the following questions:
Why settle the moon?
What are the policy implications of a lunar settlement?
What are the opportunities and challenges?
Should privately funded missions play a role in lunar settlement?
It seems to me that homestead acts in the 1800s really drove the development and settlement of the American west, could something similar drive private space exploration?
from the amazon link: Customers who viewed this book also viewed
* Advanced Sex : 101 Positions and Techniques, for the Sexually Adventurous by Randi Foxx
Finally, over 65 comments and this is the only one that actually applied some sense and read the article. Someone apply a +1 Intelligent, or whatever the "not being a dumbass" mod is.
The EU plan was applauded by states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt to express misgivings on his weblog: "It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours.
"We really can't have a Europe that is applauded by China and Iran and Saudi Arabia on the future governance of the internet. Even those critical of the United States must see where such a position risks taking us."
Well, here is an article from the New York Times' Public Editor complaining about the Times not correcting their errors. Try www.bugmenot.com to get around the registration.
An Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times who makes an error "is expected to promptly correct it in the column." That's the established policy of Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page. Her written policy encourages "a uniform approach, with the correction made at the bottom of the piece."
Two weeks have passed since my previous post spelled out the errors made by columnist Paul Krugman in writing about news media recounts of the 2000 Florida vote for president. Mr. Krugman still hasn't been required to comply with the policy by publishing a formal correction. Ms. Collins hasn't offered any explanation.
As questions about compliance with the corrections policy for The Times' Op-Ed columnists continue to arise, Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, told me in an e-mail Tuesday that she will "address the issue in a forthcoming letter from the editor" in the paper.
Ms. Collins' comment came in response to my Monday query about the handling of an error by columnist Frank Rich. That mistake has turned out to be the latest of five appearances that versions of the same "college roommates" error have made in The Times this month. While minor in normal times, the mistake has been made a total of four times by three Op-Ed columnists attacking cronyism--and once in a news article. In all five instances, Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's 2000-campaign manager and a former head of FEMA, and Michael Brown, his successor at FEMA, were described variously as college roommates, college buddies or college friends. In fact, the two men didn't even attend the same college. While they have been friends for 25 years, a spokeswoman for Mr. Allbaugh said they didn't know each other during their years at different Oklahoma colleges.
With partisan charges of cronyism hanging over the Bush administration's handling of hurricanes, of course, it's not surprising that the college roommates description seems to have become more sensitive.
Regardless, do you reall think the CEO or Owner of these huge corporations is making story decisions in the newsrooms? That would be a lot of micromanagement. Don't turn this into some classwarfare angle of rich vs. poor.
Slashdot Mirror
the socialist agenda would include things such as:
a right wing agenda would include:
having an agenda is not some grand conspriacy claim. Socialist promot socialist ideas, republicans promote republican ideas, libertarians promote libertarian ideas, simple as that.
well i dont think the topic of the original post was about bias from the right, and the wording of the claim that If only left-wingers are interested in a particular topic (like sustainability or Peak Oil), they can and in fact do crowd out attempts to insert balance. innately suggests (at least to me) that poster meant that the same would be true if you replaced left winger with right-winger.
recycled comment here
found it
Walk a mile in my shoes, buddy. You'll find out it ain't all peachs 'n cream.
Doubtful. You most likely have a personal computer that you can call your own, or perhaps your family's. You probably eat well, have a closet full of clothes to choose from, get a free education (high school), or pay(have payed for) for a good quality education if you're in college. Chances are that you own your own car, or can use on of your families cars. Given the current US unemployment percentage (5.1%) you most likely have a job. You spend your free time on niche news websites such as slashdot. I could go on, but the point is, you (and I also fit into all of those above claims), that we have a good life compared to most the rest of the world, regardless of where we fit in on the American class system.
Now, that all being said, it is in no way an excuse for these immoral scams. Stealing is wrong no matter what and these people prey on the old and poor who are ticked into this scam. What they do is unexcusable, and their reasoning offered in the article is just that, excuses for behavoir they know is wrong.
not long!
So the EU wasnt kidding!
weird, i try to zoom in to see the footsteps, but the surface its showing looks nothing like the hollywood soundstage?
we find out that's no moon!
as long as we have enough ion cannons for the evitable 'zerg rush
For instance, when mozilla comes out with an upgraded version and my FF browser's auto-update thing downloads the whole new browser version, does that count as one of these downloads? Cause that just means that every time they come out with a new version the download counter gets the who user base added to it.
100 million is impressive, Im just wondering where the numbers are coming from.
The same way the UN's resolutions do[n't]?
It seems to me that homestead acts in the 1800s really drove the development and settlement of the American west, could something similar drive private space exploration?
from the amazon link: Customers who viewed this book also viewed
* Advanced Sex : 101 Positions and Techniques, for the Sexually Adventurous by Randi Foxx
Why do I find that so funny?
So thats why the bible doesnt make any sense!
cynical much?
Dont forget the ad with the UFO at the bottom of the page. That just reeks of legitimate scientific news site
Finally, over 65 comments and this is the only one that actually applied some sense and read the article. Someone apply a +1 Intelligent, or whatever the "not being a dumbass" mod is.
John Smith of 742 Evergreen Terrace
And tell Homer to give me back my circular saw, okely-dokely?
Flame off! awww
Here's an article about errors in the LA Times.
Additional OP/ED from Public Editor Errors about the 16 words in the SOTU.
National Review refuting NYTimes story
Maureen Dowd misrepresenting Bush quotes
I'll have a DNS system, shaken, not stirred.
tell that to my mom asking me for help with electronics since I was in middle school. Still though, parent's point well taken, and I have to agree.
you mean wealthy media owners like Ted Turner of Turner Broadcasting? Or Sumner Redstone owner of Viacom?
Regardless, do you reall think the CEO or Owner of these huge corporations is making story decisions in the newsrooms? That would be a lot of micromanagement. Don't turn this into some classwarfare angle of rich vs. poor.