When Russert was asking that question, it was pretty obvious that the 'sound byte' of the evening was now 'he's going to protect this country with spitballs'. And I would imagine Zell has had to deal with the media doing things like that for a long time. Not to mention he was already pissed off from making the speech.
Don't forget the context of the quote. For whatever reason, Chirs couldn't wait for Zell to answer the question, so Chris was doing his thing and talking (yelling?) over the Senator each time he tried to answer Chris' question. Zell finally got pissed off and made his comment. I think Zell was ready for Chris since Chris had just thrown Michelle Malkin off his show, a day or two previous, after Michelle wouldn't agree with Chris that "self inflicted" = "shot himself".
Pretty much right, since you have to account for motion out there, nothing's static.
GL goes over this in the DVD extras and his point was that you couldn't simply go from point A to point B since you'd have to miss all the planets/stars/junk in the middle or run headlong into something at an enormous rate of speed.
So... his point was that the route between point A and point B might actually be a longer distance than the straightline distance. Han's pride was in having a navigational computer that could come up with a route that only covered 12 parsecs.
This issue itself illustrates the absolute passivity of Germans (and explains the rise of the Reich): they are protesting about a few dollars of tax -- a superficial process issue -- not the principle of the state's right to own and control their media.
I don't think that POV is exclusively German. That seems to be the norm in the EU, rather than the exception.
No. What would happen is that advertisers would "flock" to spend their finite budget advertising during programmes with the largest audiences, yes.
I'd have to disagree with this, based on what's happening here in the US. On my TV, there are several hundred channels. Not all are TV (there are a bunch of music stations) and not all are free (the Pay Per View or subscription based services), but what has happened by and large is that there are a huge number of specialized stations that cater to certain segments of the audience.
Are you looking for a fashion channel? Got it. Looking for an animal channel? Got it. How about a classic movies channel? Got it. A channel for computer geeks? Got it. A golf channel? Got it.
Sure, there are fads that come and go, like in any other market, but is that a reason to remove the opportunity of choice? It seems that the industry recognized that there is little money to be made by being just a clone and the real money will be made by those who take a chance and produce something different that will draw in the viewers.
I'd guess I'd have to ask if you've been to Europe?
When I went there a few years back, I was amazed at the attitude towards fees and taxation. There was an amazing acceptance of fees for this, fees for that, taxes on this, taxes on that, etc. When I asked about it, the response was invariably how it paid for the common good. Their criticism of the US revolved around how we treated poor people, rampant consumerism, and how people were dying in the streets due to lack of healthcare.
Personally, I saw it as an overreliance on government, but that was my American perspective.:-)
Problem with that is that there is too little advertising revenue around for the UK's existing 3 terrestrial independant channels as it is - that's why we end up with endless cheap-to-make "reality" shows, live pig-wanking on TV, programmes letting us literally watch paint dry, etc. That's what the independant TV channels come up with for us these days.
Wouldn't this be a problem with the quality of programming? If the viewers were flocking to the programs, it seems natural that advertsement would go where the viewers are.
It's very hard to get the full political spectrum in the U.S..
Hard to get the full spectrum? Surely you jest!:-) For a more liberal bent on the news, you can listen to NPR, some talk radio, CNN, MSN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, WP, LATimes, etc.
The conservative side is well-represented (most religious stations, Fox News, etc.), there are centrist-rightist networks like CNN, and even center-left networks like Comedy Central (though there doesn't appear to be a left-leaning news station, jokes about CBS/Dan Rather aside.)
CNN is center right compared to whom? I think it depends on your perspective. For someone who is very Liberal, I guess CNN could be center-right, but I've _never_heard it called that here in the States.
As for Dan, he's known for going after the Republican Presidents and playing soft-ball with the Democrat Presidents, so nobody was surprised at the NG story he presented. I think most people were surprised at the poor quality of the fake evidence he presented.:-)
You really don't realize how far to the right the media has swung in the U.S. until you look at centrist broadcasting from the rest of the world (with the exception of fundamentalist middle eastern nations)
I think we need some geographic context here. When people complain about the American media being liberal, they aren't comparing it to the rest of the world. The comment is specifically in the context of American media.
The ATIWonder HDTV is ok. I love watching it (after the pain of installation & configuration), but the software you use to control it (ATI MMC) is absolutely horrible.
Valid concern? Everyone is acting as if it doesn't get cold up there? Hello? Even if there is a rise in the tempature in the lake that is measurable, just wait until winter and the whole system will be 'recharged'.
But as soon as Disney tried to put the movie away because of benefits they've received from the Bush family, the press pounced, and Moore had a documentary that was "scandalous", and just like Clinton has proved himself, people love a scandal (and I'm sure/.ers will as well...I'd wager this thread will get about 1200 posts...any takers?)
Haven't see the movie yet, but that little episode had marketing gimmick written all over it!
Really? I'm not sure what's going on, but even my friends who don't own one now use it as a verb. As in: "Did [some show] get TiVo'd?" or "Will you TiVo [some show] for me?"
It depends on your perspective. From a coding point of view, you're correct; just throw a code jockey in place and give him the assignment to use a coding library within coding standards to produce results.
There's a bigger picture that comes into place when you have to start thinking about how the different libraries, legacy systems, dlls, interfaces, outputs are going to be used. This is where institutional knowledge is key and just bringing in a coder or someone cheap from the outside isn't going to work too well until they build up the same institutional knowledge.
You got me, but evidently there is some biological material which is native to these parts which is described as tiny hairlike 'things' that get sucked into the intakes for the plant. Once in there, they play all kinds of havoc and clog the membranes. Once _that_ happens, everything shuts down for a cleaning/replacement.
While cleanings/replacements were expected, the operational lifetime of the membranes is now so short that has made it cheaper to have the plant sit idle, rather than running. There are bids being placed to come in and fix the problem, but at this point there is a great deal of skepticism about this problem being fixed (wouldn't the previous management companies have fixed it, if possible?).
Exactly, here is Tampa, an unexpected presence of fibrils in the intake water has caused the membranes to foul too quickly. There is a cleaning process which might help the situation, but the wastewater it creates is hazardous, so there's no way to clean them effectively yet. Supposedly another company (3rd? 4th?) is going to try and come in and fix it, but we'll see.
The problem with the plant here in Tampa is that while it may be the largest, it isn't doing anything except sitting there. The filters have turned out to be too expensive and need replacement too often to make it worthwhile to turn on.
What, so NPR can't interview anyone without also interviewing someone at the same time that has an opposing viewpoint?
Did I say that? You have to take it as a whole. How many stories have there been about what are perceived as negative effects of the tax cuts?
Oh, so just because he's a journalist, he's not allowed to state an opinion? Even off the air, away from his show?
Again, did I say that? It's important to be an informed consumer and if someone says that NPR is the least biased news source out there, I'd question their view point or suggest that they are mistaken.
That's ok, we're not discussing your politics, but NPR's. 8-)
I don't think questioning the Pres is the issue; there are plenty of reports of the Repubs doing that these days, but rather when someone is so far out on the limb, there are legitimate questions about their ability to be objective. Are you going to take a guy who "bashed radio stations for playing patriotic music as the United States went to war and even for playing the national anthem" as someone who is going to present a balanced approach?
Here's another example of NPR reporting (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/bre ntbozell/bb 20031022.shtml): "Reporter Mike Shuster was intent on driving home the theme that the Bush foreign policy may (read: we hope) one day be analyzed as an utter failure. His three primary, supposedly nonpartisan "experts" were Ivo Daalder, a member of Clinton's National Security Council; Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign; and John Mearshimer, a regular critic of Bush foreign policy who argued in Foreign Policy magazine that Iraq should have remained under "vigilant containment," which we could also describe as maintaining a murderous tyrant in power. Their controversial views and Clinton connections were not developed by NPR."
Just because Dan has to have 2 inch lifts on his left shoe doesn't mean he can't see the marketability of a good action shot. Also, you're ignoring the fact that while Dan has political outlook, he also has a need for ratings.
As for media criticism of the build up to the war, where were you? In the bunker already? The phrase of the day for months was "We support the troops, but..." or was it "we need to have a coalition"?
I'm a Conservative/Moderate and I listen to NPR, I feel that their news is the best and least biased around because they are non-profit, they don't have to worry about keeping one side or the other happy.
NPR usually gets critiqued for their viewpoint selection. In other words, they choose the people they agree with to appear. The problem here is that with the opposing viewpoint minimized, the listener has little to go on other than what NPR presents. Their on-air personalities have also demonstrated political bias, which would also call into question their ability to objectively present or select for air a news item. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not realistic to claim that they are the least biased.
Students at the University of Kentucky were treated in early April to a fervent antiwar and anti-Bush diatribe by a national left-leaning celebrity. In an accusatory tone, the speaker claimed President George W. Bush had "offered an attractive bribe to Turkey in exchange for permission to use Turkey as a base from which to invade Northern Iraq" and charged that he had "told the rest of the world that the United States is ready to act alone in virtually every field." The celebrity railed against the press for allegedly not being as tough on Bush as it was on former president Bill Clinton, declaring: "The press didn't wait until the intern scandal to ask tough questions of Bill Clinton, so why is the incumbent getting a pass?"
"Who was this celebrity? One of the febrile Hollywood left? Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen? No, the author of this rant was none other than newscaster Bob Edwards, host of Morning Edition on the "objective" National Public Radio (NPR)."
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the context of the quote. For whatever reason, Chirs couldn't wait for Zell to answer the question, so Chris was doing his thing and talking (yelling?) over the Senator each time he tried to answer Chris' question. Zell finally got pissed off and made his comment. I think Zell was ready for Chris since Chris had just thrown Michelle Malkin off his show, a day or two previous, after Michelle wouldn't agree with Chris that "self inflicted" = "shot himself".
Pretty much right, since you have to account for motion out there, nothing's static.
GL goes over this in the DVD extras and his point was that you couldn't simply go from point A to point B since you'd have to miss all the planets/stars/junk in the middle or run headlong into something at an enormous rate of speed.
So... his point was that the route between point A and point B might actually be a longer distance than the straightline distance. Han's pride was in having a navigational computer that could come up with a route that only covered 12 parsecs.
Supposedly, according to TW, these are firmware or service upgrades that are controlled at the office.
I don't think that POV is exclusively German. That seems to be the norm in the EU, rather than the exception.
I'd have to disagree with this, based on what's happening here in the US. On my TV, there are several hundred channels. Not all are TV (there are a bunch of music stations) and not all are free (the Pay Per View or subscription based services), but what has happened by and large is that there are a huge number of specialized stations that cater to certain segments of the audience.
Are you looking for a fashion channel? Got it. Looking for an animal channel? Got it. How about a classic movies channel? Got it. A channel for computer geeks? Got it. A golf channel? Got it.
Sure, there are fads that come and go, like in any other market, but is that a reason to remove the opportunity of choice? It seems that the industry recognized that there is little money to be made by being just a clone and the real money will be made by those who take a chance and produce something different that will draw in the viewers.
I'd guess I'd have to ask if you've been to Europe?
:-)
When I went there a few years back, I was amazed at the attitude towards fees and taxation. There was an amazing acceptance of fees for this, fees for that, taxes on this, taxes on that, etc. When I asked about it, the response was invariably how it paid for the common good. Their criticism of the US revolved around how we treated poor people, rampant consumerism, and how people were dying in the streets due to lack of healthcare.
Personally, I saw it as an overreliance on government, but that was my American perspective.
Wouldn't this be a problem with the quality of programming? If the viewers were flocking to the programs, it seems natural that advertsement would go where the viewers are.
Hard to get the full spectrum? Surely you jest! :-) For a more liberal bent on the news, you can listen to NPR, some talk radio, CNN, MSN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, WP, LATimes, etc.
The conservative side is well-represented (most religious stations, Fox News, etc.), there are centrist-rightist networks like CNN, and even center-left networks like Comedy Central (though there doesn't appear to be a left-leaning news station, jokes about CBS/Dan Rather aside.)
CNN is center right compared to whom? I think it depends on your perspective. For someone who is very Liberal, I guess CNN could be center-right, but I've _never_heard it called that here in the States.
As for Dan, he's known for going after the Republican Presidents and playing soft-ball with the Democrat Presidents, so nobody was surprised at the NG story he presented. I think most people were surprised at the poor quality of the fake evidence he presented. :-)
You really don't realize how far to the right the media has swung in the U.S. until you look at centrist broadcasting from the rest of the world (with the exception of fundamentalist middle eastern nations)
I think we need some geographic context here. When people complain about the American media being liberal, they aren't comparing it to the rest of the world. The comment is specifically in the context of American media.
According to the evidence, they weren't for making centrifuges, they really were for making artillery rockets.
Of course, the question then becomes if those rockets were to be fitted with the engines that had a greater range than Iraq was allowed to have.
Anyone else with any other political rumors to spread around?
How about that draft, huh?
Anyone else alleging anything else we need to know about?
The ATIWonder HDTV is ok. I love watching it (after the pain of installation & configuration), but the software you use to control it (ATI MMC) is absolutely horrible.
Come on... with articles like "The Invisible U.S. Military Offensives in Weather Weaponry":
f au lt.asp?area_2=imc/open%20newswire/2004/Aug/66619.8 671875.dat
:-)
http://tampaindymedia.org/bin/site/templates/de
How can you say that?
Valid concern? Everyone is acting as if it doesn't get cold up there? Hello? Even if there is a rise in the tempature in the lake that is measurable, just wait until winter and the whole system will be 'recharged'.
Haven't see the movie yet, but that little episode had marketing gimmick written all over it!
Really? I'm not sure what's going on, but even my friends who don't own one now use it as a verb. As in: "Did [some show] get TiVo'd?" or "Will you TiVo [some show] for me?"
Sort of like googling.
It depends on your perspective. From a coding point of view, you're correct; just throw a code jockey in place and give him the assignment to use a coding library within coding standards to produce results.
There's a bigger picture that comes into place when you have to start thinking about how the different libraries, legacy systems, dlls, interfaces, outputs are going to be used. This is where institutional knowledge is key and just bringing in a coder or someone cheap from the outside isn't going to work too well until they build up the same institutional knowledge.
You got me, but evidently there is some biological material which is native to these parts which is described as tiny hairlike 'things' that get sucked into the intakes for the plant. Once in there, they play all kinds of havoc and clog the membranes. Once _that_ happens, everything shuts down for a cleaning/replacement.
While cleanings/replacements were expected, the operational lifetime of the membranes is now so short that has made it cheaper to have the plant sit idle, rather than running. There are bids being placed to come in and fix the problem, but at this point there is a great deal of skepticism about this problem being fixed (wouldn't the previous management companies have fixed it, if possible?).
Exactly, here is Tampa, an unexpected presence of fibrils in the intake water has caused the membranes to foul too quickly. There is a cleaning process which might help the situation, but the wastewater it creates is hazardous, so there's no way to clean them effectively yet. Supposedly another company (3rd? 4th?) is going to try and come in and fix it, but we'll see.
The problem with the plant here in Tampa is that while it may be the largest, it isn't doing anything except sitting there. The filters have turned out to be too expensive and need replacement too often to make it worthwhile to turn on.
The problem here is that if he's waaayy off the left side of the spectrum, the Dems might look positively right-wing to him.
Did I say that? You have to take it as a whole. How many stories have there been about what are perceived as negative effects of the tax cuts?
Oh, so just because he's a journalist, he's not allowed to state an opinion? Even off the air, away from his show?
Again, did I say that? It's important to be an informed consumer and if someone says that NPR is the least biased news source out there, I'd question their view point or suggest that they are mistaken.
That's ok, we're not discussing your politics, but NPR's. 8-)
e ntbozell/bb 20031022.shtml):
I don't think questioning the Pres is the issue; there are plenty of reports of the Repubs doing that these days, but rather when someone is so far out on the limb, there are legitimate questions about their ability to be objective. Are you going to take a guy who "bashed radio stations for playing patriotic music as the United States went to war and even for playing the national anthem" as someone who is going to present a balanced approach?
Here's another example of NPR reporting
(http://www.townhall.com/columnists/br
"Reporter Mike Shuster was intent on driving home the theme that the Bush foreign policy may (read: we hope) one day be analyzed as an utter failure. His three primary, supposedly nonpartisan "experts" were Ivo Daalder, a member of Clinton's National Security Council; Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign; and John Mearshimer, a regular critic of Bush foreign policy who argued in Foreign Policy magazine that Iraq should have remained under "vigilant containment," which we could also describe as maintaining a murderous tyrant in power. Their controversial views and Clinton connections were not developed by NPR."
Then there is the whole Israel issue....
Ignoring the comment on the Jews...
Just because Dan has to have 2 inch lifts on his left shoe doesn't mean he can't see the marketability of a good action shot. Also, you're ignoring the fact that while Dan has political outlook, he also has a need for ratings.
As for media criticism of the build up to the war, where were you? In the bunker already? The phrase of the day for months was "We support the troops, but..." or was it "we need to have a coalition"?
Ohhh... mainstream _Australian_ media. Maybe that makes sense then?
I'm a Conservative/Moderate and I listen to NPR, I feel that their news is the best and least biased around because they are non-profit, they don't have to worry about keeping one side or the other happy.
NPR usually gets critiqued for their viewpoint selection. In other words, they choose the people they agree with to appear. The problem here is that with the opposing viewpoint minimized, the listener has little to go on other than what NPR presents. Their on-air personalities have also demonstrated political bias, which would also call into question their ability to objectively present or select for air a news item. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not realistic to claim that they are the least biased.
Check out: http://www.insightmag.com/news/438506.html
Students at the University of Kentucky were treated in early April to a fervent antiwar and anti-Bush diatribe by a national left-leaning celebrity. In an accusatory tone, the speaker claimed President George W. Bush had "offered an attractive bribe to Turkey in exchange for permission to use Turkey as a base from which to invade Northern Iraq" and charged that he had "told the rest of the world that the United States is ready to act alone in virtually every field." The celebrity railed against the press for allegedly not being as tough on Bush as it was on former president Bill Clinton, declaring: "The press didn't wait until the intern scandal to ask tough questions of Bill Clinton, so why is the incumbent getting a pass?"
"Who was this celebrity? One of the febrile Hollywood left? Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen? No, the author of this rant was none other than newscaster Bob Edwards, host of Morning Edition on the "objective" National Public Radio (NPR)."