Well one outlet that doesn't take any corporate/foundation funding is: http://www.democracynow.org/ Any community-sponsored outlet is generally a good bet.
But as far as what we should "rally around," I think your question is missing the point. It isn't that the NYT, Slashdot, Fox, are 100% full of lies. There's obviously some truth/stories in there. You just need to figure out how to read them. Reading Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman is a great way to start to learn how to separate truth from falsehood.
And it's entirely possible that Democracy Now (not that I think this is at all likely) will be subverted by corporate goons tomorrow. So it's not like DN is infallible or anything. You just have to use your best judgment about how and where you consume news. As soon as you trust anyone else to carry out that task for you, you risk being deceived.
Think of how any positive, lasting social change has come about: popular movements. Women's rights, civil rights, labor rights, etc... every single time a bunch of people got angry, informed, and organized and refused to go home until their demands were met. If we had a million strong rally outside the White House, you'd be sure Obama wouldn't cave again and again to the fringe right and the business lobbies.
1) Recruiting people does not mean you share their ideological views. Indeed, one of the selling points of Kagan (according to her supporters) is that in spite of her supposed liberal views she was able to recruit people from across the ideological spectrum, including conservatives, to Harvard Law School.
2) As the Solicitor General, you are a lawyer for the government. You argue their cases. We should not confuse positions she took as the Solicitor General with her own personal opinions on the cases.
I am never very sympathetic to this argument that "media decentralization is bringing about the apocalypse." The New York Times can't print all the important news every day. Indeed, elite media outlets go out of their way to censor news that they feel is inconvenient for the elites -- see Chomsky and Herman's "Manufacturing Consent." Furthermore, there are dangers inherent in just the opposite, media consolidation. I don't want Rupert Murdoch (or whoever) determining programming on every channel I get.
From the linked article: "Editors Note - This story originally contained a representation that the biometrics trial in Atlanta and Detroit included the fingerprint scanning of US citizens. This has since been proved to be incorrect and the story has been modified - only non-US citizens will be expected to provide a biometric record."
Here's a good article explaining how Google makes plagiarism detection easy: http://questioncopyright.org/node/4
There was a story a couple years ago about one of these plagiarism detection services, Turnitin, getting sued for copyright infringement... does anyone know if that went anywhere? http://education.zdnet.com/?p=953
For anyone that hasn't read it, here is a great indictment of the idiocy of the newspapers, written by the lead writer for SearchEngineLand: http://daggle.com/090406-225638.html
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was a wizard of oz reference... "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto"
"Al-Jazeera" means "the Island" not "the Truth." You might be thinking of Pravda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera (right at the top)
Well one outlet that doesn't take any corporate/foundation funding is: http://www.democracynow.org/ Any community-sponsored outlet is generally a good bet.
But as far as what we should "rally around," I think your question is missing the point. It isn't that the NYT, Slashdot, Fox, are 100% full of lies. There's obviously some truth/stories in there. You just need to figure out how to read them. Reading Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman is a great way to start to learn how to separate truth from falsehood.
And it's entirely possible that Democracy Now (not that I think this is at all likely) will be subverted by corporate goons tomorrow. So it's not like DN is infallible or anything. You just have to use your best judgment about how and where you consume news. As soon as you trust anyone else to carry out that task for you, you risk being deceived.
Who knows? If it's explained honestly to people, they will care. And you might be surprised about Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/21/need-care-net-neutrality/ In terms of harm that the media causes, I think Fox is a relatively small player because most know they're full of it. As opposed to, say, the NYT http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730#
I agree, violence is not a solution. (But the Black Panthers were a much more complicated organization than you suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton )
Think of how any positive, lasting social change has come about: popular movements. Women's rights, civil rights, labor rights, etc... every single time a bunch of people got angry, informed, and organized and refused to go home until their demands were met. If we had a million strong rally outside the White House, you'd be sure Obama wouldn't cave again and again to the fringe right and the business lobbies.
It does not seem like the organization is calling for him to step down, rather a supporter of the organization.
1) Recruiting people does not mean you share their ideological views. Indeed, one of the selling points of Kagan (according to her supporters) is that in spite of her supposed liberal views she was able to recruit people from across the ideological spectrum, including conservatives, to Harvard Law School.
2) As the Solicitor General, you are a lawyer for the government. You argue their cases. We should not confuse positions she took as the Solicitor General with her own personal opinions on the cases.
If anyone wants the real story on Kagan (she's woefully unprepared for the Supreme Court) please read what Glenn Greenwald has recently been writing about her http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan and a debate yesterday http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/10/progressives_divided_over_obamas_nomination_of
Glenn Greenwald has been writing about the anthrax issue for a while... check him out: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax and http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/03/04/anthrax/index.html and http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/08/04/anthrax/ and http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/04/09/abc_anthrax/index.html for starters
http://questioncopyright.org/what_we_lose_when_we_embrace_copyright
This guy sounds like the most prolific patent filer, not necessarily the most prolific inventor.
I am never very sympathetic to this argument that "media decentralization is bringing about the apocalypse." The New York Times can't print all the important news every day. Indeed, elite media outlets go out of their way to censor news that they feel is inconvenient for the elites -- see Chomsky and Herman's "Manufacturing Consent." Furthermore, there are dangers inherent in just the opposite, media consolidation. I don't want Rupert Murdoch (or whoever) determining programming on every channel I get.
Well also tar doesn't produce any output to stdout, so this will create an empty bigfile... use the -O option for that. cat * | tar -zxO > bigfile
Too complicated. Just use a console all the time. Nobody will ask to use your 'DOS' machine again.
From the linked article: "Editors Note - This story originally contained a representation that the biometrics trial in Atlanta and Detroit included the fingerprint scanning of US citizens. This has since been proved to be incorrect and the story has been modified - only non-US citizens will be expected to provide a biometric record."
Offsite and Encrypted!
... has had to be inappropriate in some fashion. Can it really be called art if it doesn't challenge our sensibilities?
Here's a good article explaining how Google makes plagiarism detection easy: http://questioncopyright.org/node/4 There was a story a couple years ago about one of these plagiarism detection services, Turnitin, getting sued for copyright infringement... does anyone know if that went anywhere? http://education.zdnet.com/?p=953
For anyone that hasn't read it, here is a great indictment of the idiocy of the newspapers, written by the lead writer for SearchEngineLand: http://daggle.com/090406-225638.html
Everyone interested in patents or copyrights, and why they suck, should read Against Intellectual Monopoly, a book by two profs at Wash U in St. Louis: http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280
A post from not too long ago about how copyright sucks: http://slashdot.org/yro/03/02/14/1914236.shtml?tid=155
'The future is already here - it is just unevenly distributed.' -- Gibson
At least, I'm sure that's what the copyright holding associations would argue / propagandize.
She basically is http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/23/feinstein/
In related news, California DMV wants to start putting your biometrics on your driver's license. Send a letter to the state legislature urging against it: https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1256
See? We knew he would come and make everything right! Linux takeover of government ftw!
Please, don't be so delusional. He's just another politician.