Shadowrun
Off-topic => Off-off-topic => Topic started by: The_Gun_Nut on <11-10-12/1243:25>
-
You folks might want to check this out. It seems important.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/11/01/one-month-until-regulate-internet/ (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/11/01/one-month-until-regulate-internet/)
BTW, a "top down" approach is only of benefit to those at the top...
-
(http://squathole.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/6a00e55291ee8488330134855cbf83970c-800wi.png)
You had me until Fox News.
-
Like to see them try.
They have a budget and a timeline.
Hackers don't.
-
The internet will become truly regulated at the same time both political parties finish reigning in their respective protest parties.
IE: NEVER.
-
It's been pretty much going downhill lately. Things are turning to the worst in the US at least with the new Six Strikes program going into effect soon. On the plus side the copyright trolling businesses have been taking a hit lately.
-
You folks might want to check this out. It seems important.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/11/01/one-month-until-regulate-internet/ (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/11/01/one-month-until-regulate-internet/)
BTW, a "top down" approach is only of benefit to those at the top...
+1 to Kat9. Once again, Fox News shows their stripes of spinning the story to how they want. The UN meeting next month is a Treaty Conference (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/head-of-itu-un-should-internet-regulation-effort/) to discuss the Internet Telecommunications Regulations that were last updated in 1988. Not too mention, nothing will be decided without a consensus of the 193 member states.
So, it looks like Fox News is again trying to spin the story (like they do with universal healthcare, et al) to make it seem that the rest of the world is this evil place that wants to force their ideas on Americans who "know what's best".
-
They aren't always wrong (point in fact, Obama did win, and they reported it...albeit with much whining). So I figured it was best to get some second looks.
Better safe than sorry.
-
They can have my Intertubes when they pry them from my cold, dead hands!
-
I guess modern politics is fine as long as the moderators agree.
-
I guess modern politics is fine as long as the moderators agree.
I apologize. You are absolutely correct in that I shouldn't have endorsed this politically. Just coming off the election has me a bit riled up still. Won't happen again!
-
Since when is Fox news an official political party?
Fox-bashing is funny, albeit a bit too easy.
I didn't know this forum had a policy against it.
-
Fox news is as political and biased as every other news organization out there. Especially the ones that say they aren't. Fox is just...more in-yo-FACE and up front about it. They also like to go against all the other newsies out there, which gets the others riled up. It's a vicious cycle.
-
Miss Piggy puts it best! (http://youtu.be/6vYj7YVPo70)
-
Hey, I live on the other side of the world, and know not to trust anything fox news airs. :P
-
There are sources for non-biased news still out there: BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/) and NPR News (http://www.npr.org/sections/news/).
Of course, there are some news organizations that would tell you that those are biased, but they REALLY aren't. They just tend to stick straight to the facts and limit opinions, which is the opposite of most of the major news news networks.
-
There are sources for non-biased news still out there: BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/) and NPR News (http://www.npr.org/sections/news/).
Of course, there are some news organizations that would tell you that those are biased, but they REALLY aren't. They just tend to stick straight to the facts and limit opinions, which is the opposite of most of the major news news networks.
They also don't use The Onion as a primary source....
-
Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com) is actually quite unbiased in their reporting too.
They write more on topics or regions that much of the western press barely reports about or only mention a a small footnote.
(Unimportant stuff that doesn't sell as many papers as important news about Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend)
-
Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com) is actually quite unbiased in their reporting too.
They write more on topics or regions that much of the western press barely reports about or only mention a a small footnote.
(Unimportant stuff that doesn't sell as many papers as important news about Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend)
I have never understood why Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend or other gossip-mongering sells papers or gets ratings or what have you. But then I guess I'm too logical to understand. :P
-
Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com) is actually quite unbiased in their reporting too.
They write more on topics or regions that much of the western press barely reports about or only mention a a small footnote.
(Unimportant stuff that doesn't sell as many papers as important news about Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend)
I have never understood why Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend or other gossip-mongering sells papers or gets ratings or what have you. But then I guess I'm too logical to understand. :P
Because we live in a world where cheap celebrity is the closest thing that we have nowadays that could possibly be interperated as legitamate heroism and bravery.
Typing that sentence out made me depressed. :(
-
Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com) is actually quite unbiased in their reporting too.
They write more on topics or regions that much of the western press barely reports about or only mention a a small footnote.
(Unimportant stuff that doesn't sell as many papers as important news about Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend)
I almost listed AlJazeera with the others, but I don't feel they have any "weight" yet (at least in American media).
-
I have never understood why Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend or other gossip-mongering sells papers or gets ratings or what have you. But then I guess I'm too logical to understand. :P
Because we live in a world where cheap celebrity is the closest thing that we have nowadays that could possibly be interperated as legitamate heroism and bravery.
Typing that sentence out made me depressed. :(
Worship your new religion! WORSHIP IT OR BE CAST OUT!!!
-
Typing that sentence out made me depressed. :(
Worship your new religion! WORSHIP IT OR BE CAST OUT!!!
But I can't! I like reading books too much to be a mindless consumer! There's got to be some way to cure me, doc, right?! Hypnosis, psychological conditioning, I'll even take trepanning! You gotta help me, doc! YOU GOTTA HELP MEEEEE!!! :'(
-
There's all sorts of bias. Selecting what not to report is a form of bias (or is it censorship?). But, ya, the BBC tends to lay out "just the facts" more than other news orgs out there.
It seems to me that most "news" organizations out there are, more and more, trying to compete for ratings/ad money, and so tend to sensationalize a story, or only pick the ones that fit into the "dramatic story" style.
Call me a cynical, jaded Gen-X slacker, but such is our world.
-
I am a cynical Millennial generation gamer, and I agree with your very much, sir. I'd tack on that some certain networks have been thoroughly politicized, at least in America... *cough*Nox Fews and EmEs-EnBeCee*cough*
-
I'd say the BBC has a clear bias. That bias is "the Americans are being idiots again", so it's at least nonpartisan enough to be useful since it treats both ends of our rabid political spectrum with equal contempt.
-
There are sources for non-biased news still out there: BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/) and NPR News (http://www.npr.org/sections/news/).
Of course, there are some news organizations that would tell you that those are biased, but they REALLY aren't. They just tend to stick straight to the facts and limit opinions, which is the opposite of most of the major news news networks.
Best option, as always, is to compare multiple sources. If a news story is only being carried by one outlet or outlets with a particular agenda then chances are it's bunk. Personally I like to cross reference BBC News, NPR, the Daily Show and the NY Times, with the occasional dip into the Dallas Morning News and Yahoo news for light and prurient stories.
Typically if three to four respected media outlets with different parent companies and political sponsors are reporting the same outline of facts then chances are it's verifiable.
Fox does seem to have by far the lowest factual accuracy of any major media source though. Studies like this one
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html
keep showing that Fox watchers are actually less informed than people who watch no news at all when tested on verifiable factual events.
-
I'd say the BBC has a clear bias. That bias is "the Americans are being idiots again"...
Um, when did this become news?
Oh, right, the BBC is far enough away from the US to need the constant reminder, while the CBC doesn't even have to. ;D
And I just found another reason to not go to the next GenCon. :P
-
I'd say the BBC has a clear bias. That bias is "the Americans are being idiots again"...
Um, when did this become news?
Oh, right, the BBC is far enough away from the US to need the constant reminder, while the CBC doesn't even have to. ;D
And I just found another reason to not go to the next GenCon. :P
Honestly I listen to a lot of BBC and I honestly think there's as little bias as possible towards American affairs. CBC is pretty much just unavailable in the south. We get Lost Girl as part of BBC America and the occasional show on PBS, but the last CBC show I was really tuned into was Red Green.
-
My this got nationalist and political quick.
-
I think the BBC gets held up as unbiased because every news outlet native to the US has its political slant, while the BBC doesn't take sides. Oh, and there have been a few CBC shows that made their way here. I know Flashpoint wasn't exactly a blockbuster, but it's on.
-
My this got nationalist and political quick.
You can have my beer when you pry it from my cold, dead hand!!!
It'll probably be empty anyhow. ;D
-
My this got nationalist and political quick.
It was intended to be from the outset. I wanted to know how legit the link in the OP is. There is some truth to it, but probably not as bad as being spun.
--------------
OTOH, no news isn't necessarily good news. By not reporting on it, a news outlet can help hide the importance of an event. Especially if said outlets parent organization were to benefit from obcuring said event.
-
My this got nationalist and political quick.
It was intended to be from the outset. I wanted to know how legit the link in the OP is. There is some truth to it, but probably not as bad as being spun.
--------------
OTOH, no news isn't necessarily good news. By not reporting on it, a news outlet can help hide the importance of an event. Especially if said outlets parent organization were to benefit from obcuring said event.
Anything the UN does or sponsors is for political reasons. After all it's filled with politicians! And just like everything the UN gets involved with, it will flounder around, doing nothing, change nothing, and over half the politicians will decry that their people's rights and morality is being trampled on by the imperialistic, capitalism of the 'west'.
-
See, NOW it's getting political.
Going to resist replying, but I'd suggest this thread close or people keep this about media, before it gets ugly.
-
I have never understood why Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend or other gossip-mongering sells papers or gets ratings or what have you. But then I guess I'm too logical to understand. :P
I never understood the fuss over some wench named for a hotel. :P
Also: EVERY kind of media outlet is biased in one way or other. Some of them have that in their internal rules even. If you know which ones are biased and how, you can take that into account, and take everything with a grain of salt. Take that as advice from a journalist who wouldn't sell out. That's why I'm a librarian now. :P
-
Everyone has an agenda, the good journalists are able to keep it somewhat in the closet while they're working.
Of course, by the time the editor is done with it, you get "Spider-Man Saves Ten Children From Fire" to "Spider-Man Interferes With Firefighters Saving Children".
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S5VI9ORCv6c/TxBihGOj3vI/AAAAAAAAATE/_y44tOZ1qjo/s1600/wallpapers_30535.jpg)
-
And it's never Lupus.
-
And it's never Lupus.
I was hoping the last season would be nothing but people with Lupus, leading to a House/24 crossover where Jack Bauer has to stop some crazed band of Russian Ultranationals from giving the entire US population Lupus.
-
*Except in case of a werewolf.
-
Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com) is actually quite unbiased in their reporting too.
They write more on topics or regions that much of the western press barely reports about or only mention a a small footnote.
(Unimportant stuff that doesn't sell as many papers as important news about Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend)
I have never understood why Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend or other gossip-mongering sells papers or gets ratings or what have you. But then I guess I'm too logical to understand. :P
Because we live in a world where cheap celebrity is the closest thing that we have nowadays that could possibly be interperated as legitamate heroism and bravery.
Typing that sentence out made me depressed. :(
having read about a classmate's death last night, i find that highly offensive. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/16/bomb-disposal-expert-takes-his-last-lonely-walk.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/16/bomb-disposal-expert-takes-his-last-lonely-walk.html)
-
Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com) is actually quite unbiased in their reporting too.
They write more on topics or regions that much of the western press barely reports about or only mention a a small footnote.
(Unimportant stuff that doesn't sell as many papers as important news about Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend)
I have never understood why Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend or other gossip-mongering sells papers or gets ratings or what have you. But then I guess I'm too logical to understand. :P
Because we live in a world where cheap celebrity is the closest thing that we have nowadays that could possibly be interperated as legitamate heroism and bravery.
Typing that sentence out made me depressed. :(
having read about a classmate's death last night, i find that highly offensive. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/16/bomb-disposal-expert-takes-his-last-lonely-walk.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/16/bomb-disposal-expert-takes-his-last-lonely-walk.html)
Damn, man... just... ouch. You handling it okay?
--- --- ---
Also, I do agree wholeheartedly. It's not that there are no more heroes, it's that the brainless masses out there just don't care about them anymore. They've got movie-star heroes to worship, who are so much "cooler," and better-looking, and who they can watch "first-hand" on the screen.
Brave men do deeds that would have become legendary even a century ago, and they're nothing more than a historical footnote, or a a 2-minute "filler" blurb between political scare-mongering and celebrity gossip... because that's what sells.
-
Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com) is actually quite unbiased in their reporting too.
They write more on topics or regions that much of the western press barely reports about or only mention a a small footnote.
(Unimportant stuff that doesn't sell as many papers as important news about Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend)
I have never understood why Paris Hilton's latest boyfriend or other gossip-mongering sells papers or gets ratings or what have you. But then I guess I'm too logical to understand. :P
Because we live in a world where cheap celebrity is the closest thing that we have nowadays that could possibly be interperated as legitamate heroism and bravery.
Typing that sentence out made me depressed. :(
having read about a classmate's death last night, i find that highly offensive. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/16/bomb-disposal-expert-takes-his-last-lonely-walk.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/16/bomb-disposal-expert-takes-his-last-lonely-walk.html)
I've left a message regarding my post in your inbox, beowulf_of_wa. Again, I'm sorry for your loss.
Also, I do agree wholeheartedly. It's not that there are no more heroes, it's that the brainless masses out there just don't care about them anymore. They've got movie-star heroes to worship, who are so much "cooler," and better-looking, and who they can watch "first-hand" on the screen.
Brave men do deeds that would have become legendary even a century ago, and they're nothing more than a historical footnote, or a a 2-minute "filler" blurb between political scare-mongering and celebrity gossip... because that's what sells.
That's what I was trying to say. People in this day and age who's bravery and sacrifices would have gotten them immortalized in stories told and loved in older days now get marginalized for actors and flawed people who are pasted on the news on a daily basis. Hell, there are men and women in today's societies who would have been the greatest explorers, warriors, and storytellers that have ever lived, had they been born before the world was introduced to the advances of technology and capitalism. We can now find them in flophouses, waiting in souplines, and living on the streets. If you've ever read Sin City and read anything about Marv, that terrifying-yet-oddly-pitiable/lovable murderous psychopath, you would know what I mean.
-
thank you all for your thoughts,
TwitchyD: call it unfortunately perfect timing, Wade went on his "long lonely walk" on the 10th, and news of his death was passed within the EOD community on the 12th. it took me almost a week to realize it was my classmate that i was reading about (just last night, when i saw his portrait in the above linked article) and it hit me like a 800 pound gorilla gripping my chest. was still basically in shock this morning when i had the misfortune of reading your (now-obviously sarcastic) post. an emotional over-reaction.
thank you all for your kind words.
-
I'm just glad to see you feeling a little better, beowulf. Not the greatest, obviously, but it seems like you're alright today.
Welcome back.
-
So...this in from BBC. Still haven't seen anything from CNN or MSNBC about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20429625 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20429625)
Weeks after FoxNews pointed it out. They aren't the only ones biased, just the most obvious about it.
I'm betting the poll showing FN followers being "less informed" was funded (or promoted, produced, whatever it's called) by one of their competitors.
-
You can actually check the attribution of the several polls showing that data. No such funding relationship exists. Pew Research found pretty much the same results.
-
All right, I'm beginning to get some messages that this may be getting political again. So, to give you all an education, why don't you go check out what exactly the ITU is for:
About ITU (http://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/default.aspx)
No matter what Google (ITU's answer to their claims (http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-google-campaign-an-itu-view/)), nor what Robert Pepper says (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/10/02/net-threat-the-dangers-from-global-web-regulation/) (who apparently disagrees with his co-worker Monique Jeanne Morrow (https://itunews.itu.int/En/3028-Interview-with-Monique-Jeanne-Morrow.note.aspx)); the ITU was set up to make sure everyone has equal access to the communications in the world, NOT to censor the internet or make sure certain people can't get it (that's the job of governments - like China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China) and the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States)).
C'mon people, you're all hanging out in a forum about a game that tells you to question everything you hear and seek out your own truth. Instead of posting the latest article bought and paid for those with their own agendas, go out, use a search engine and educate yourself.
-
:o Censoring the Internet all over again...
-
C'mon people, you're all hanging out in a forum about a game that tells you to question everything you hear and seek out your own truth. Instead of posting the latest article bought and paid for those with their own agendas, go out, use a search engine and educate yourself.
Too many people consider it a game, not a teaching tool for learning how to think for oneself.
-
C'mon people, you're all hanging out in a forum about a game that tells you to question everything you hear and seek out your own truth. Instead of posting the latest article bought and paid for those with their own agendas, go out, use a search engine and educate yourself.
Too many people consider it a game, not a teaching tool for learning how to think for oneself.
I tried that once (thinking for myself) but the public educational system beat me till I started just regurgitating the answers it wanted...
So now I let others do my thinking for me, and accepting responsibility for when my actions f**k up their plans.
-
I tried thinking for myself, but then the pizza came, and I got distracted.
-
I thought it was just a tool to distribute porn more quickly... all other content a mere byproduct for some niche fetish groups I don't understand.
-
I thought it was just a tool to distribute porn more quickly... all other content a mere byproduct for some niche fetish groups I don't understand.
I love it when I don't need to think too hard on what to say in response to a post. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-glb-_heEg) ;D
Also, link is NSFW. Should have put this warning down earlier. My bad.
-
I thought it was just a tool to distribute porn more quickly... all other content a mere byproduct for some niche fetish groups I don't understand.
I love it when I don't need to think too hard on what to say in response to a post. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-glb-_heEg) ;D
First... might want to include a NSFW warning on that thing.
Secondly... I got to go see Avenue Q live when they took the show through Chicago. All I can say for those that haven't seen is that this song in no way misrepresents the whole experience. ;D
-
I thought it was just a tool to distribute porn more quickly... all other content a mere byproduct for some niche fetish groups I don't understand.
I love it when I don't need to think too hard on what to say in response to a post. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-glb-_heEg) ;D
First... might want to include a NSFW warning on that thing.
Secondly... I got to go see Avenue Q live when they took the show through Chicago. All I can say for those that haven't seen is that this song in no way misrepresents the whole experience. ;D
Oh, god, I was lucky enough to see it while it was still in New York. Frigging hilarious.
-
You both suck ;)
-
You both suck ;)
And mine was totally by accident, too. I was up visiting family for Christmas when I saw a poster on the subway advertising it and remembered hearing a couple songs from it, so I suggested it and we got some last-minute tickets for a good price.
My mother's a professor of social work, and she loved it. Even wanted to use one of the songs in one of her classes.
--- --- ---
Saw Wicked up there, too, but we actually planned that one more than 24 hours in advance.
-
You both suck ;)
I know. It takes talent to suck as much as I do. :D