W = bush.
O = Obama
Yes, the sentence on OCO2 is wrong. the first "emissions" was left in there by accident.

What is clearly wrong?
All of it is backed up by facts, not by BS.

Then become a Sikh, and stop boring us with this nonsense.

I happen to think dogs are great too, but that doesn't mean I should want to become a dog.

MechaStreisand, you are an unpleasant person. Your comments almost always refer to other people as "retards", "idiots" or "morons". It's a little bit unseemly for such a stupid sonofabitch to be doing that. It's really no way to go through life.

Your local news is probably the closest to being a friend for broadcast television. By only running three or four hours of news every day, they don't have to sensationalize news in-general just to survive, the bulk of their other programming does that for them.

I personally like NPR and some of the PBS news, but they're not infallible and they've made mistakes.

Here's an idea: how about you tell us which things the administration said about the US deaths in Libya were actually true. Because that will take less time.

Let's just keep it simple: the entire story about a spontaneous demonstration and a mob angry about some video on YouTube was completely fabricated. They knew it wasn't true, and that's been obvious since the day it happened. Today's email dump makes it even more clear. Purposeful, deliberate lying about the death of an ambassador and other Americans, all in the name of tamping down some prospectively unpleasant buzz that wouldn't resonate with the "Al Qeda is on the run!" narrative. Of course you, just like everyone else, already know this. Have fun being a part of theatrics, but just remember that pretending it's not so doesn't make you come across as any more credible. It's kind of embarrassing, actually.

My point in originally posting *yawn* it's worth taking with a grain of salt. I was judging the reporter, not the report. It may be factual, or it may be wildly inaccurate, or it might be factual from a technical perspective by narrowing or qualifying the statement, I do not know. I do know that I'm not going to take NewsCorp's word for it.

Fact of the matter is, I do not trust NewsCorp's motives as I do not know what those motives are in-whole, but the way I interpret their past direct actions, ie, that which they have themselves published or broadcast through their various properties, leads me to not assume that their intentions are what they seem to claim them to be. Even if they immediately decided to be wholly transparent and above-board it would probably take several years for me to be able to trust them, as there's usually no benefit in changing a negative opinion once it has been demonstrably earned.

Then become a Sikh, and stop boring us with this nonsense.

Here is your commenting history on Slashdot.

http://slashdot.org/~MechaStre...

You might not be the best person to be telling others not to be boring.

...it's that bad group of friends that will get you into trouble.

It did and it didn't. On the one hand, it added a "New York Post" aspect that's not worth the screen space it pollutes.

On the other hand, it spews out a lot of general political nonsense in its editorial pages. But then, that largely predates Rupert's takeouver. And besides, if it wasn't for editorial pages, where would the wackos of the world get a chance to speak? Outside of talk radio, anyway.

On the gripping hand, the WSJ does seem to be reasonably sane when it comes to purely financial matters. David Wechsel's appearances on NPR always seemed to me to be relatively free of the sort of wishful thinking that ideological thinking colors interviews and reports with.

You are referring to the mathematical logic concept known as "implication". Just because P implies Q doesn't mean that Q cannot be true event if P is false, only that Q MUST be true if P is false.

Therefore just because Q is true, that doesn't make P a credible indicator. When Q is true, it is true regardless of P's truth or falsehood and therefore lends no credibility to P.

Changing the transparency does not mean there are two colors. In fact, the LCD doesn't play with the color at all, just the polarization.

Oh, and I got the joke

You're trying to turn it around and imply that just because a non-credible source occasionally reported the truth that you can therefore automatically accept that source's assertions are always true or that that particular assertion has somehow become credible all by itself.

You cannot "bootstrap" the credibility of a source off a one-off sample. Just because a stopped clock shows the correct time doesn't mean that it can be depended to do so anytime you look at it.

It rates up there with "the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" - they've already proven their ability to be an enemy.

I'm skeptical about that assertion. Windows doesn't have d-bus either. A d-bus interface doesn't jibe with "write once/run anywhere", so I'm doubtful that the standard JVM would have such a thing in it. We had enough trouble convincing Sun that if there were OS's that didn't support environment variables that the degenerate case of an apparently empty environment was compatible.

Would you be more worried about what atheists thought, or what Sikhs would think if they knew you didn't belong to their religion?

Atheists think a lot of different things, and I'd like to think that most atheists aren't actually offended by the fact that religious people exist. That would be a pretty horrible way to go through life.

If there is a specific religious significance to the headwear, I wouldn't want believers to think I was denigrating their beliefs.

I'm old school in that I don't believe in being offensive without good reason.

Except for people who care that Obama and his administration blatantly lied about what happened in the period right before an election. And we see that Hillary Clinton knew very well that what was being said by both State and White House spokesdroids (and by her, and the president himself) was pure fabricated BS meant to placate prospective voters. They deliberately lied about what happened so that those events wouldn't contradict the narrative that Obama was trying to sell in his re-election bid. The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Clinton's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.

I still have a Model 500 around here somewhere. As a teenager I had modified it to allow me to record telephone conversations to cassette tape.