Wow... site will not even allow me to log in to sign it... defending their own?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Having a quick way to determine signal/noise ratios in a wifi-impacted building is a useful trick for those of us building out wifi
I love how when I counter and opinion suddenly proof is demanded when none was provided
A link... sure... how about: http://www.thedailyshow.com/
The fact John Stewart can base an entire segment of his show off showing the lies Fox told just the day before (not once and a while, daily) is pretty much proof for any rational person.
Regardless of my political leanings, that fact alone would bother me and make me question them as a source.
If you would really like a detailed analysis, feel free to commission one, I'll be happy to consult on the project for my usual fee in doing such research
Using the word Progressive they way you do convinces me you have not. "Progressive" and "Conservative" are just yet another in a long string of "us" and "them."
You want education, try thinking outside of the us vs them mentality. That is what you have been taught to think like and it is counter productive.
Not everyone do disagrees with you is uneducated, nor wrong.
And if you want to debate a point, don't site-step it. I asked you if you had researched the money behind Fox News, and you could not answer, which tells me you haven't. Don't point fingers without examining all sides of an issue.
You instead went off on some irrelevant tirade which didn't even make sense, or have bearing on my question.
Fox only brings on alternate viewpoints to try and discredit them.
Look up the 5-10 times they had Peter Schiff on there talking about the housing crisis and subsequent hit to the finantial markets. He turned out to be absolutely correct, but they brought him on and had the hosts actually laugh at him. Then would bring on three-four "experts" all of whom have been WRONG so many times they should have been fired refute him.
Hardly fair and balanced coverage. It was a smear campaign against what Peter was saying.
Lies are lies no matter who dolls them out, and Fox has been proven to lie far more than any of the above combined.
They may have leanings but at least they try for truth.
Have you done the same research to see where the money for Fox News comes from and who is associated? Might give you a clue as to their political adgenda.
No... of course not... that would require a level of self-awareness this sort of silly discrediting effort speaks against.
How about the fact Fox activly discredited people predicting the housing crash and associated financial system fallout? Just one tiny example of the harm they do.
They do it anyway via shell corporations and off-shore holdings.
essentially foreign-owned criminal cartels illegally extending their influence into our Federal Government.
The problem is they are doing it legally. It's up to the people to fight it and convince politicians it's not in their best interest to accept **AA party lines or BS, and that we don't want it.
I would have to disagree. I grew up in Silicon Valley in California and I find I have more in common, views wise, with people who are from the same place, or other metropolitan areas where education and diversity are the norm.
Not saying those from the mid-west are illiterate hicks, just that in my personal and very limited experience (important qualifiers) people from the mid-west or south tend to have a willful ignorance about the world that colors their views on things. No matter how educated they seem to be, they tend to choose to ignore it in favor of cultural and religious views. They also tended towards fundamentalist religious views rather than moderate, more modern interpretations. To me that was the major culture shock spending time in each environment.
In regards to point #2, many IN the US often slap our heads and exclaim "WTF" when our government does stuff. The problem is that's all they do, so the government doesn't care.
If that really is the wording and effect of the law, I actually approve of that version more than the U.S.
Things can be true but serve no relevance to the public except to damage someone.
Maybe that is why you guys have reporters who still try and print news stories
Intend does indeed play a role. It is argued in the sentencing phase of the trial once someone has been convicted.
"Your Honor I request leniency for my client as his actions were innocent, not intending harm."
I intentionally left it gender neutral. Under current US laws it is possible for a picture of an under-aged male with his shirt off to be considered porn depending on the context.
If they are outside at the beach for example, no, it's not. If they are in the process of undressing (likely from a laptop in a bedroom) bingo, do not pass go, go directly to jail.
Tell ya what... tell me where you sister lives and I'll send her a camera... it's ok... I promise my intent is not criminal.. you can trust me!