But... but... I thought this administration was going to be about change? (smirk)
And then they can let out the pirates to make room for all those people who read books out loud to their children without paying royalties for the privilege.
There's a lawyer ad on TV that comes on really, Really, REALLY LOUD. It hurt my ears. It scared my birds. I fell down and I couldn't get up.
Can I sue him?
I agree; don't dump it all on Facebook. But they should take steps to make sure their login systems are secure. Otherwise, we're going to see the online version of user manuals that tell you not to take a bath with your toaster while it's plugged in during a lightning storm. Zzzzzap!
I think newspapers have caused many of their woes themselves. Papers cannot compete with the Internet for speed, so instead of trying to rush stories to the next print edition just to get the story out first, newspapers should focus on adding content to their product (and I don't mean more ads). Nor can they compete with the Internet for variety of opinion and free expression. Newspapers are often very biased, but there's no need to read only one newspaper on the Web, so at least you get exposure to multiple viewpoints on an issue.
Newspapers fall between the immediacy of the Internet and the monthly schedule of a magazine. They can take a day or two to seek out interviews, prepare informational graphics, and give readers some real background for stories. I'd rather wait a day and get the real story instead of getting a hackneyed reaction to partial information.
If newspapers go under, it's because they offer nothing of value -- and if they offer nothing of value, it's because they aren't trying hard enough.
Yes, and it's easier to fit in the bottom of the birdcage or kitty litter pan, too.
I doubt either are worried about piracy for the sake of commercial enterprise; rather, it's about who gets control of the media.
No, the sinner needs to be punished, too. I'm sick of the lawsuits -- they only enrich the lawyers. They destroy companies and innovation. Small inventors are afraid to put their product out because crApple might get them.
It's time to put a stop to this behavior, and as consumers we can flex our spending muscles and stop rewarding companies that engage in this kind of behavior.
That's a simplification that just isn't always true in real life. A driver has to look at all the traffic and pedestrians around, as well as traffic signals and potholes, etc. If you are behind a car and the driver suddenly brakes for no reason, and you are looking to the side because here comes a pedestrian, you might not see the car in front of you has stopped.
I have seen drivers try to cause accidents, and I have had drivers try to trap me into hitting them. It happens. People are jerks (and worse). Don't assume that only the car behind needs to pay attention to what is going on -- the driver in front needs to be predictable and not do something stupid -- like suddenly braking in the middle of an intersection to change lanes.
If a "slowpoke" is going the speed limit, fine. But I have to agree that there are plenty of people driving 15 mph in a 30-mph zone and that causes a lot of frustration. Most often, they're talking on a cell phone. Isn't that surprising?!
Cameras are revenue for the state -- money, money, money.
I think the problem is that the media is so focused on the presidential elections that nothing else is ever written about or put on TV. Most of the population (unfortunately) relies on the media to provide information about candidates. Well, they fail us every time.
We need to do our own research (as others here have noted) and we need to ask the difficult questions of our representatives and would-be representatives. Since most of us don't have face time with politicians, we need the media to do that. I wish they'd stop playing favorites and do some real investigative reporting -- and not just for some candidates, either. The Fourth Estate, as journalism likes to refer to itself, is dysfunctional. And an uninformed electorate can't make informed decisions in the voting booth.
Journalism has itself to blame for its own demise. Anonymous, you write that good journalism should provide facts and unbiased information -- but in reality, few newspapers today can offer their readers any kind of depth or unbiased articles. It's all about hyping the story. Journalists don't take the time to do any research and half the time they don't even try to interview more than one or two people for an article.
People are moving to blogs because frankly, there is more information in some of them than in many newspapers. And if blogs are biased -- as many newspapers are -- at least the readers have the option to reply in a public forum. Yes, you can write a letter to the editor, but that doesn't mean you'll get your 15 minutes of fame or the chance for your views to be publicly aired. At least on a blog, you have that chance to respond, and in turn, be responded to by others.
If newspapers are to survive, they must provide much more credible content, and in-depth reporting (as you note) than they currently offer readers.
I think you're right. This could be played up to make money for the estate. But then the lawyers wouldn't get their cut.
Unfortunately, pitchforks and torches have been outlawed. It seems that we might accidentally put out an eye with the pitchfork, so all the pitchfork companies were sued into bankruptcy. And torches create carbon dioxide, which is burning up the planet, so of course we can't have them, either.
Baseball bats are still legal.
"the Democrats dreams of controlling the population of a 3rd world country"
Ohhh... Smack!
"the Democrats dreams of controlling the population of a 3rd world country"
Ohhh... Smack!
Every professor I've had would go rabid if they thought you used Wikipedia as an end source for a paper.
But the key point is that you shouldn't rely on it to be accurate. Trust, but verify. As others have noted, it is an excellent starting point, even if all you get from it is a few names that you can then do more research on.
Re: Re: Is This Like the Others?
Really. The media and government gripe that Americans spend too much money and don't save enough. Now that things are tight and Americans are saving more money and spending less, they're berated for that. I guess the stupid serfs will never please their (would-be) masters, will they?