Some AC felt the need to make a lame '42' reference. Then, against all odds, it somehow managed to get back around to being on topic when someone else gave it a -1, thus rendering it a nicely prime 41. Then you came along and decided to be an ass. Well done.
But wait! With 41 you don't just get an "on topic" prime number. You'll also find that 41 is actually a twin in the twin prime pair of (41, 43)! That's right, it is completely on topic... so.... nah nah nahnah nah.
Now, as far as I can tell I've managed to make two relevant posts on the topic out of a seemingly impossible "42 duh duh" comment. On the other hand, you've managed only to be an asshole and contribute nothing other than bad karma. As far as you comment about making more money goes, I'm confused, who knows, maybe I got whooshed or missed a meme or something. Or maybe I've just been trolled. But, maybe you'd make more if you weren't such an asshole and instead just let people have a good time without trying to piss on 'em. Especially when it doesn't even matter.
I suppose I should have realized that by Fox News you meant the channel... since MSNBC is also a channel (even though they have MSNBC news also).
In any case, to argue that somehow Rachel Maddow is somehow a beacon of factual speaking is craziness. Even compared to the whatever Fox News talking head you want to use. And the Daily show is GREAT. The problem is he can get away with lying whenever he wants because it's in humor and if someone doesn't get it they can just be called to dense to get the joke. Everybody laughs (because he's funny), but he can be as loose as he wants with the facts because its humor based.
And you don't think the network stations have a point of view? They're pro-establishment, which is why something like Occupy Wall Street can go on for weeks without media coverage, while a random, small pro-Corporate Tea Party rally gets instant coverage.
I think everybody has a slant. I never said anyone didn't. All I asked what why they had to both report the facts and their opinion. Let them do whichever, but once they start reporting their opinion then we should expect their "facts" to have a certain amount of bias to them. That's all I meant.
As far as the coverage of the Tea Party and Occupy was concerned... I assume you're joking... or high (nothing wrong with that). If you think either "movement" didn't get covered or got covered then your view is completely colored by your politics. Nothing wrong with that, but I guarantee that people who lean a different way see the news coverage exactly opposite to the way you do. In their view Occupy was made out to be some wonderful grassroots campaign made up of people with higher than average intelligence and and optimistic view on life who just want a "fair shake" (someone elses money). But the tea party rallies were made of racist bigots who wanted nothing more than to tear the country apart and starve the children. It was all horse shit. Neither group was as bad or as good as anyone said, but political view points change that... so they should be left out of the news.
[all a joke... and yet...]
But then my fucking BRAIN kicks in and my memory takes over and the truth starts to show up again. Cable doesn't come with DVR in my neck of the woods and since I work hours that aren't always standard (like many people) I would need something that could allow me to watch my SHOWS on my timeline. Plus, pretty much everyone likes to be able to just pause stuff and come back to it later. Okay $10 per month for DVR.
Just $50 bucks.
WTF? That's not the HD cable and DVR teir. Fine... another 15 bucks a month.
Just $65 bucks now to have something that actually resembles my netflix / hulu setup that I get for $15.
So now I'm home from work and I'm ready to just shut my brain off for a while (before I get started doing even more work) so I want to watch one of my shows I've recorded with my handy dandy DVR. But guess what, the wife just got the kids to bed and wants to watch her shows while she folds laundry. I personally hate effing "Pickers" or "Animal Cops" so I guess I'll just leave the TV to her and try to tune it out. Sadly, no sports.
But since I only came back to cable for sports then giving up the TV to animal planet defeats the whole purpose, right!? I Guess we'll just have to add another box to the system. After all, why should I get to watch basketball and her miss her shows? So, here's another $10-$15 box depending on if it also has DVR. Of course, Grandma who lives with us because she can't live on her own will also want to be able to decide what she wants to watch (this is the same as the kids in your example) so she gets her own box at another expense.
So now $80-$90.
But I still don't have the latest and greatest movies. Maybe I should add some movie tiers? Well, shit, now we're right back where we started at over $100 for cable and we haven't even gotten to taxes, fees, etc.
Many people who have jobs and lives often can't make use of a "constant stream of everything"... sorry to burst your bubble on your little rant there... but just because someone chooses to operate in the market in a way different than you doesn't necessarily make them idiots. It might actually mean that you're the idiot and that you have no idea what you're talking about. Or it could just mean you're different and have different needs. You might not be willing to pay a premium for on demand, but someone else will be willing to do so because it fits their lifestyle. Companies that can respect that will find new opportunities. People that can't respect that (when it is not a moral issue) can safely be ignored.
The MSNBC talking heads at least stick to facts when presenting their point of view
Wow. Just Wow. Why do they even present both? They should keep their point of view out of it.
Metal detectors detect conductive materals.
Water is a conductor... a pretty good one. I think your explanation is missing something. And you're not allowed to say "ferrous conductors" because, well, then we're back where you guys started.
Incidentally, and strangely on topic, there was an episode of "Bones" where some bad guy rigged up a handheld machine that shot ice pellets as a projectile with enough force to pierce human flesh.
You'd end up with the same people in charge because those people ARE smart - politically or "socially". They ARE calculating. Many of them are eloquent and if given time to actually prepare a speech on each topic would be even more so. I don't think your method changes anything... which is quite sad to actually think about.
There has never been a society with both a functional government and no government distortions in the market. That's because *any* government action distorts the marketplace.
It almost seems like you think that any adaptation by the market is a distortion by the agent the precipitated the adaptation of the market. But, I assume you don't actually think that way because if you did then you'd also believe that ANY event distorts the market - even by a given individual, not just the government. That is, if I decided I wanted a tree cut down all of a sudden I've somehow distorted the tree removal market by getting involved. Or if I want my ass scratched for me that I've distorted everything because an ass scratcher didn't even exist until I said I wanted to buy one. But so far as I can tell, you're only blaming the government in your distortion discussion so you're obviously not going to subscribe to the idea that ANY event distorts the market... after all... if that were the case there'd be no actual free market because it'd be getting distorted by everyone anytime anyone made any decision.
Did viagra distort the market for get 'er uppers when they came on the scene? Of course not. The drug was only invented because there was a market (known or unknown - talked about or all hush hush - doesn't matter). The market was there even though no one thought about it consciously or talked about it at all. Surely they didn't distort anything by simply giving people a product they wanted. So why are all these other example you mentioned any different? I know why, and I'll say so at the end, but humor me.
If the government has a police force to enforce laws, suddenly there's a demand for cruisers, tasers, nightsticks, pepper-spray, etc that wasn't there before, distorting the market.
This could just as easily have happened if the people of the community got together and decided to create a local security force... like a volunteer police force. Nothing was created by the government in this example that would not be created by a private venture to do the same thing. And guess what, if the government didn't want to do it, and the people wanted protection, I can promise you that someone would step in and do the job. The government didn't create that market... it was there with or without them.
If the government has a fire department (with a very real government interest that its cities don't burn down), there's a demand for hoses, trucks, pumps, hydrants, etc that wasn't there before, distorting the market.
Two issues here. First, the city doesn't belong to the government (possession).
Second, again, no one distorted a market. A market was essentially created... or it could be argued that the market came to visibility. Much like the police item already discussed, the decision to create a fire department whether public or private would cause the market to change. It wasn't the government that created the market... it was the need for service that created the market. There was nothing preventing the cities from having their own fire department or just not having one at all. This happens all the time in rural areas.
If the government builds a road (to ensure that its police and fire departments can get to where they're needed), that distorts the property values around the road (e.g. look at what happens at nearly every exit ramp of major highways).
This is getting old, but citizens can build roads too. And if they're needed bad enough the citizens of an area will do it. Maybe in the case that the road was between two far away places (interstate) you have an arguable point, but that's the best you get, is arguable. I'd say (1) that the government doesn't have to be involved, but since they are (2) the market was obviously there. Unless the government is in the business of building roads to nowhere and for no reason then there was a value in having the road. The market value of the land was already X without a road and Y with a road. That is, there was already the market, there just wasn't a road. The building of the road didn't do anything - no matter who built it.
If the government fights a war, that causes major distortions in the markets for clothing, weapons, ships, fuel, food, and just about everything else.
I'd like to think that you can continue this exercise on your own not, but this one is a little more interesting simply because of its size. After all, we don't ever think of little towns going to war for themselves. But then again, they could (montegue and capulet could certainly happen on larger scale). What about this? I could get into a fight with my neighbor... would that distort the market for bandaids in the local convenience store? If an earthquake occurred would distort the market for batteries and generators and food? If locusts came and ate all the leaves off of all the fruit trees would that distort the market of fruit? I'd say no, the market would adjust - it would not be "distorted". All of these things are events that happen and the market adjusts. The events themselves don't have a will, they don't distort. They are simply PART OF the variables involved in the market.
So here's where your words ring almost true. The governement CAN distort the market. If the government bails out companies (and people) who make bad decisions, then THAT distorts the market. Fairly participating in the market doesn't distort it, but picking winners and losers does distort it. If the government raises taxes on cigarettes to the point that they can no longer be afforded then they've obviously distorted the market. They aren't involved in the market, they're just shaping it. There are infinite example of ways to distort the market and probably every government everywhere has done so at one point or another. But, none of the items you mentioned are distortions... they are simple participations.