I lived and worked in the US for a span of time before and after 9/11, I was completely taken aback by the new media before and after 9/11. I moved back to Canada and thought once again I would be in the land of the boring newscaster, where he droned on for what seemed hours about the daily facts. But it wasn't anymore, the newscaster was the same, but the splash and fireworks from the American network news had gotten the better of him.
I turned to the newspapers, they were no better. Headlines of hype and fear mongering with following articles of little or no substance, but there were a lot of ads to read about the next sale at Sears!
In Canada the CBC is a government funded news agency, or rather it used to be but the they've turned to advertising to augment their budget needs. I still read their news online and then go in search of comparable stories from other agencies around the globe and bloggers.
If the news media as a whole could do their job without the need for a dollar you'd have unbiased factual information. As long as they need to "sell" ads to generate the income required for operation then the bias will always tend towards the dramatic and not the factual.
But who sets the standard for "normal" use? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. If at the minimum they stated battery life based on simple things like "Watch 2 dvd's back to back and you gotta plugg'r in again".
Since consumers are becoming lazier and lazier by nature it's no wonder they sue for their own lack of research.
I would tend to agree to some of what consumers are concerned about. The manufacturers test their machines without all the extra software running that most users have installed. So, the reported battery life is accurate when running just Windows.
Consider battery runtime is reduced by approx. 45mins by just running an AV software suite.
Is it possible the jury that set the penalty actually thought it out and decided to make a laughing stock of the whole situation? The jury consisted of 6 people, could it have been that difficult for them to all agree on something this absurd?
RSS
Twitter
Re: Irony (as ArcticChill)
Aye ye land lubbers....hand over your mp3's or we'll keelhaul you, your ISP, your Telco's/Cable providers.
So basically it's back to people don't kill people, guns kill people?
Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'donell fat.
From the North (as ArcticChill)
I lived and worked in the US for a span of time before and after 9/11, I was completely taken aback by the new media before and after 9/11. I moved back to Canada and thought once again I would be in the land of the boring newscaster, where he droned on for what seemed hours about the daily facts. But it wasn't anymore, the newscaster was the same, but the splash and fireworks from the American network news had gotten the better of him.
I turned to the newspapers, they were no better. Headlines of hype and fear mongering with following articles of little or no substance, but there were a lot of ads to read about the next sale at Sears!
In Canada the CBC is a government funded news agency, or rather it used to be but the they've turned to advertising to augment their budget needs. I still read their news online and then go in search of comparable stories from other agencies around the globe and bloggers.
If the news media as a whole could do their job without the need for a dollar you'd have unbiased factual information. As long as they need to "sell" ads to generate the income required for operation then the bias will always tend towards the dramatic and not the factual.
So ummm..... (as ArcticChill)
....just what newspaper is paying the coward to haunt your site? Or should I wait until tomorrow to read it in his newsprint?
Re: Re: Need more disclosure (as ArcticChill)
But who sets the standard for "normal" use? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. If at the minimum they stated battery life based on simple things like "Watch 2 dvd's back to back and you gotta plugg'r in again".
Since consumers are becoming lazier and lazier by nature it's no wonder they sue for their own lack of research.
Expectations (as ArcticChill)
I would tend to agree to some of what consumers are concerned about. The manufacturers test their machines without all the extra software running that most users have installed. So, the reported battery life is accurate when running just Windows.
Consider battery runtime is reduced by approx. 45mins by just running an AV software suite.
A wild hair (as ArcticChill)
Just a random thought out of the wilderness....
Is it possible the jury that set the penalty actually thought it out and decided to make a laughing stock of the whole situation? The jury consisted of 6 people, could it have been that difficult for them to all agree on something this absurd?