Hey folks. Its time to bite these greedy corporations back. Lets find out who is pressing the charges and boycott every last frigging movie these folks ever make or show again until they agree to drop the charges. This is simply ridiculuous. When will it stop? Its time to tech these corporations a lesson that they will not soon forget!
How about this? After 9/11 when they decided feeding the lunatic fringe was a good idea, advertisers who had more then 2 braincells saw it was a sinking boat and bailed faster then the titanic striking an iceberg. Eventually they came back once the lunatic fringe went away and some sense of normality came back, this allowed them to begin working towards a way to make the site profitable. Ala a gigantic pay system within a pay system. For many people they realized what was happening said: "Fuck you!" and bailed as fast as they could.
Eventually people stumbled back/in/over and they began to recover some more readership but since the haydays when they were popular their site still sucks. And it will never be the same. I too remember reading Salon back in the late 90's when it was actually good, and not part of the lunatic fringe.
They killed themselves, then decided to grab a giant oaken stake and drive it through their heart. Luckily for them, they missed their heart, put it through a lung and it's healed up since then. Now they're a half corpse hoping that by splashing around in the big kids pond again, that they'll get more readership. Let me say: Fuck and them. In that order.
I said "unqualified", and you jumped to the "executive experience" Republican talking point. I don't think Sarah Palin had particularly valuable executive experience (mayor of Wasilla doesn't count, and she was not governor for long),
She had more experience as Gov of AK than Obama did as Senator from IL. Also, let me add that being a governor, where you alone are seen as being responsible for a state is a whole hell of a lot different than being a senator, where you actions are blurred with those of 99 other senators. So I consider Palin's Gov experience much more highly than I consider Obama's legislative experience.
and I believe experience as a community organizer,
Really? Community Organizer? You consider handing out charity and tax payer money to more important than running and working for you own business? Seriously, has Obama ever held a blue collar job?
Here is your other post:
Here's some ideas. You might work on proving that they failed in some of the following ways and that those failures systematically favored Obama.
* the facts they presented were incorrect
* the facts they presented were irrelevant
* they omitted significant facts
* they masked editorial pieces as objective journalism
* the values described in their editorials are not shared by the majority of Americans
* the facts and values described in their editorials do not support their conclusions
Misrepresent facts? Don't know if I can point to any specific cases. However, there are plenty that were simply not reported/over reported. It's also important to as to HOW they present their stories. How many pictures of Obama have you seen with a aura around his head? How many sexist images have you seen of Palin?
Irrelevant facts? Sara Palin's reading list comes to mind. Did anyone ever ask Biden what he reads? How much coverage did Palin's wardrobe receive? How does that compare to Hillary's? For that matter, I heard more about how much money Palin's wardrobe cost than I heard about Obama's ties to
Omitted significant facts? Have you ever seen THIS video? That's Joe Biden. I saw the main stream media show fake pics of Palin in a bikini holding a rifle than I saw them show this video. I think this is by far the best example of bias! They'll report crap that makes one side look bad and completely ignore crap from the other side. How many times have you seen anyone other than FoxNews report on "Climate-Gate"? Hell, even
they masked editorial pieces as objective journalism... Remember when Chris Matthews got a tingle up his leg. He was covering the convention as a journalist, not an editor.
the values described in their editorials are shared by the majority of target audience (Fixed that for you). But the main question here should be, do they present a side that differs from the majority of their viewers/target audience? Fox is the only network that does this on a regular basis.
Oooh, create a GOD@Home app... I'll be there... prove the existence of a divine creator on your PS3
Actually in some ways it's about the same as the SETI@Home app...
I mean I can understand the whole Carl Sagan/semi-scientific thing, but if you're going to use CPU cycles, surely folding at home is a better option.
With longer lives we might actually find an extraterrestrial intelligence (notice I didn't use ET, beca Steven use Spielberg has kind of loaded that term with additional meaning thanks to the movie).
So the Slashdot summary links to an article in the Huffington Post. And the HuffPo article links to an article in Wired. And the Wired article links to the actual story in the Boston Globe
Slashdot: now a free treasure hunt with every story !
As I said, I already read it.
Majority rule? Only? Really?
Have you read any of the letters sent among the political theorists who drafted, wrote, signed and criticized the constitution? They specifically mention the problems of majority rule, which is called a simple democracy (presumably also a pun, on "simple as in stupid").
Here's a few quick quote/lesson:
"A simple democracy is the devil's own government."
- Dr. Jedediah Morse
I guess the discussion ends here - your conception of democracy might conceivably have been accepted as valid in ancient Athens (if people had not heard about Plato). Today, and at the time of the framing of the constitution, it is and was ludicrous.
PS: Since we're exchanging links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
I like this idea. Voting systems corporations claim their solution is accurate and secure, let them put their money where their mouth is and let people try and crack it.
All it will prove is that these machines are hard to hack for outsiders. But the number one threat is that of insiders; mainly the government in place (who has most to lose in an election) and corrupt programmers at the company making the voting computers.
"Don't drop acid, take it pass-fail!" -- Bryan Michael Wendt