News Stories

[chikorita157]

Originally Posted by Harufox

I thought Apple'd go into an increasingly popular market with a normal Netbook

The problem with netbooks is it's inferior hardware which makes it unusable IMO. They come with small keyboards and trackpads and screens and they are slow. This is the main reason I find netbooks a pointless device because a laptop at that price point can pretty much do the same job, but faster. Not to mention, netbooks do not fit in your pocket compared to a Smartphone. I use my smartphone alot just to surf the internet, check email and play music. Some people may disagree, but personally, I will never replace my 15 inch laptop for a netbook.

[Haruka_Kitten]

Without turning this into a flame war, I'm all for the netbook.

It's unique size is great for me as a student, as I could probably carry one in my backpack for school. It's modest pricing and same-spec config means that it's a more cut-throat market, and you pay for bigger screens, more useful keyboards and better battery life.

I would not expect it to be used for gaming, but for a couple of word documents, some browsing, a bit of AnimeSuki, email, it top trumps my Nokia N80 hands down.

We all have our different needs. I already got a gaming computer, I just need something I can carry and whip out when and where I need necessary for, say, a school project.

It appeals to me in much the same way a small car does. Being efficient, nifty, surprisingly useful, and above all else, cheap. I don't need a Corsa to outrun a Camaro, I don't need an EeePC to outrun an Intel Core 2 Quad.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Harufox

Without turning this into a flame war, I'm all for the netbook.

It's unique size is great for me as a student, as I could probably carry one in my backpack for school. It's modest pricing and same-spec config means that it's a more cut-throat market, and you pay for bigger screens, more useful keyboards and better battery life.

I would not expect it to be used for gaming, but for a couple of word documents, some browsing, a bit of AnimeSuki, email, it top trumps my Nokia N80 hands down.

We all have our different needs. I already got a gaming computer, I just need something I can carry and whip out when and where I need necessary for, say, a school project.

It appeals to me in much the same way a small car does. Being efficient, nifty, surprisingly useful, and above all else, cheap. I don't need a Corsa to outrun a Camaro, I don't need an EeePC to outrun an Intel Core 2 Quad.

well considering your in australia, the game front is kind of week there so it's understandable for the lack of power, but for the most part I don't find it hard to fit my laptop into my backpack, actually i'm more afraid to stick a netbook in there just because my books could crush it if I wasn't careful on how i set my backpack. In the end functionality beats form anyyday, and for the most part it's been my moto.

[mg1942]

There is a netbook killer out there and it's called the Latitude D420/430. I got mine on ebay for just $190 in really good condition (avg price is around +/- 250.)
Latitude D420/430 comes with a "real" processor (Core 2 Duo @ 1.2 ghz) and a "real" screen resolution (1280 * 768). The best part about this is that its 3 lb chassis is entirely made of magnesium alloy. Unlike other shiney laptops and netbooks out there, i can just throw it in my backpack without worrying about it getting dinged or scratched

[Kaioshin Sama]

According to a Public Policy Poll Fox News is the most trusted name in news in the United States.

Yep......

[Seitsuki]

.........Holy. ****. Thank God that was a survey of only 1000 Americans, they must have been unlucky as heck in their selection or I fear for the future -_-
At least Jon is still most trusted newscaster (...wait is he??)

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama

According to a Public Policy Poll Fox News is the most trusted name in news in the United States.

Yep......

.......

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by mikita

.........Holy. ****. Thank God that was a survey of only 1000 Americans, they must have been unlucky as heck in their selection or I fear for the future -_-
At least Jon is still most trusted newscaster (...wait is he??)

jon stewart is comedian it would be terrible for people to think of him as a trustworthy newscaster... because wait for it.... he's a comedian, his satire may make us think about the moronic world we live in but he's not a newcaster. Honestly I blame the 24 news cycle for this, 24 hours news creates for stations that tell people what they want to hear, instead of the truth.

oh yea on fox news being the most trusted news source... i'll stick with ap, rueters. And as long as they run oriely and pat obrian's 700 club there will be little to no credibility on the "fair" and balanced. Oriely in the video mg1942 posted said for this president they use facts to back up their criticism, they sure as hell didn't when bush was in office.. OOPS not fair then but supposedly fair now. Also promoting "grassroots" movements is called astroturfing not grassroots movements. TWC does it and fox news does it.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

jon stewart is comedian it would be terrible for people to think of him as a trustworthy newscaster... because wait for it.... he's a comedian, his satire may make us think about the moronic world we live in but he's not a newcaster. Honestly I blame the 24 news cycle for this, 24 hours news creates for stations that tell people what they want to hear, instead of the truth.

a few yrs ago a media professor did a study and found that the Jon Stewart show has as much or more news then the avg news show.

depending on how you look at it the avg news show is pathetic or Jon Stewart is a real news caster.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

a few yrs ago a media professor did a study and found that the Jon Stewart show has as much or more news then the avg news show.

depending on how you look at it the avg news show is pathetic or Jon Stewart is a real news caster.

my point is he's a comedian first, and although I love his show, to classify it as news would demean the work he does, because concious comedy like conscious rap is just awesome, using a medium not traditionally meant to voice a minorities voice has become a powerful tool, and if you slapped the label of news media on him his impact would be far less.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Deathkillz

Like hell I care! I still want one!

Just imagine gaming on this thing...bring on the new generation of RTS gaming

I just watched the higher quality version of that.


that clip... is way over the top... they make it sound like they'll cure cancer.

[Demongod86]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama

According to a Public Policy Poll Fox News is the most trusted name in news in the United States.

Yep......

Well, I may not be any better, but I get my news from MSNBC because Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and Dylan Ratigan are funny

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by mg1942

.......

Bill O'Reilly is as much a news caster as Keith Olbermann.

If that didn't make any sense to you, then I'll spell it out. Neither of them are news casters. They are opinion pieces who both lie or stretch the truth.

[Vexx]

The primary problem I have with either Fox or MSNBC, etc.... is that they've totally smudged the lines between news, opinion, and crappy entertainment. Inevitable mere seconds after the first twit decided that the news had to be a profit center rather than a community service required to keep one's frequency license.

[Haruka_Kitten]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The primary problem I have with either Fox or MSNBC, etc.... is that they've totally smudged the lines between news, opinion, and crappy entertainment. Inevitable mere seconds after the first twit decided that the news had to be a profit center rather than a community service required to keep one's frequency license.

You're sort of right. I'll always watch a news programme and either think "are they telling me my news, or are they giving me the sh**s?". To satiricise the news is a bit like satiricise the queen: may be funny, but not to the palace it isn't. Hearing that a dog managed to fend off a snake, I don't give a crap that he was "in a bit of a bind.". As funny as that sounds, that's not what I wanna hear. Another highly used cliche like "got more than he/she/they bargained for".

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Harufox

You're sort of right. I'll always watch a news programme and either think "are they telling me my news, or are they giving me the sh**s?". To satiricise the news is a bit like satiricise the queen: may be funny, but not to the palace it isn't. Hearing that a dog managed to fend off a snake, I don't give a crap that he was "in a bit of a bind.". As funny as that sounds, that's not what I wanna hear. Another highly used cliche like "got more than he/she/they bargained for".

This counts for pretty much any news service around the world. The reason for this is because first of all, the people who spread the news are out to make a profit. They make a profit by presenting us with news that they believe audiences find interesting. And it's not as if they don't know what the masses find interesting. People like reading about other people suffering and the news presents us the facts in such a way that conditions us to believe whether it's right or wrong. A recent example would be the Haiti Earthquake. People find stories on destruction and devastation interesting, and news wires, in this case, all appealed to the readers to help, making them feel they need to give something to them. If news wires didn't do that, I doubt even half the people who offered to charity would've actually done so.

News wires tell us who are the enemies and who are allies. Through this kind of conditioning, they gain more and more readers because their stories are fascinating. Facts are embellished with the opinions of the writers to make the stories even better. If news wires only presented cold hard facts, it would be half as attractive. News casters know that and make use of this as a way to make profit. This holds true if the news services were owned privately, like most american news services. If the news are owned by governments, we still wouldn't get the full picture because the politicians want the people to believe that what they are doing is right in order to encourage loyalty. If they didn't do that, the government would risk losing support and they can't afford to look bad. Rather than doing something that is genuinely right for the people, they do the same as privately owned news wires do and condition the masses to think in certain ways, making the job a whole lot easier for themselves and persue their own self-interest at the same time.

In the end, politicians and reporters are out for a profit, not caring whether or not people get the full picture, and neither one is willing to allow others to make their own opinions of what is really happening.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Bill O'Reilly is as much a news caster as Keith Olbermann.

If that didn't make any sense to you, then I'll spell it out. Neither of them are news casters. They are opinion pieces who both lie or stretch the truth.

Very true. The problem is they're often treated as newscasters by the viewers who take what they're saying without question. After all, it says (Fox News/MSNBC) on the bottom of the screen* there, so they wouldn't be allowed to say it if it wasn't true. Though even on the real news shows that claim to offer analysis, it's usually random people shouting the same talking points at each other over and over rather than actually doing analysis.

Sooner or later someone's going to get the idea of having those people fight in roman style gladiatorial combat to determine which side is correct on an issue. While that would be far more entertaining, it's not a good way to discuss policy.


*Actually I think MSNBC has their station logo on the top of the screen, but the point is it's there.

[LynnieS]

Google "sister" launches in China

A new search engine and social network provider called Goojje has appeared online in China.

The site contains very similar branding to Google, and the final syllable "jje" sounds similar to the Mandarin word for older sister (jiejie).

There isn't much info here, but from this article, it looks like Goojje is meant to be used to support Google instead of a local "replacement". Whether that is true or not, we probably won't know till later.

Russia ready to rebuild Afghanistan but with Western funds

Russia is ready to help reconstruct Afghanistan, but it is up to Western countries to come up with the funds, a Russian newspaper reported on Wednesday, quoting Russia's envoy to NATO.

I'm guessing that this, given the "have not sent troops" statement, is aimed toward a few EU countries as well as, say, Japan? A bit cheeky, though, IMHO. Why wouldn't these target countries just send engineers on their own instead?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by LynnieS

Google "sister" launches in China
There isn't much info here, but from this article, it looks like Goojje is meant to be used to support Google instead of a local "replacement". Whether that is true or not, we probably won't know till later.

Probably built from the technology partially siphoned and reversed engineered from Google. To support Google means to work with it and indirectly steal technology, the CCP certainly has gutsy assholes willing enough to do that kind of crap.

Searching in Chinese is already horrendously difficult. Let's stick to English.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Bill O'Reilly is as much a news caster as Keith Olbermann.

If that didn't make any sense to you, then I'll spell it out. Neither of them are news casters. They are opinion pieces who both lie or stretch the truth.

The problem is Oriely masquerades as a newscaster, who bringing "truth and balanced" news to you, the same goes for all the opinion people, who are just "trying to bring the truth" to your home. It's fine to be a pundit/opinion machine but to claim a spade is not a spade is just wrong, because again the people who watch t.v. as their main source of information, and to an extent the people on the internet are extremely gullible.

The news sells when the peddle fear, and what sells better than war and the possible end to civilization of the world. That's why you see hollywood pushing the end of the world movies because humans are afraid, and once they are afraid it is easy to capitavate them because fear makes us less rational, less logical, and with fear we are addicted to knowing about our fate, that's why late night news casts always try to hook their viewers with fear mongering headlines, fear that forces you to watch.