- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
New Wine help and discussion forum
Today the new Wine help and discussion forum at wine-forum.org went live, the forums are meant to be a meeting place for anyone interested in Wine usage or development. In the past there there has never been a single forum dedicated just to Wine. In the past the Wine project has used mailing lists, newsgroups and other methods for user discussion leaving many postings about Wine in other forums where Wine was always relegated as a sub-forum. |
|
|
Comments (41)
21 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:they think that streaming multiple formats will cost more because they can't understand that if someone is pulling OGG they're not pulling WMV.
I believe they are referring to the cost of creating material in other formats and the additional storage cost.
Give them a break Bob, this is NPR we are taking about, they can't be Luddites.
> this is NPR we are taking about, they can't be Luddites.
Of course they can be. They are tax leaches who do not have to compete in a free market, which means they get to be inefficient and remain on the air.
My example above, WCPE, is a community supported radio/internet station which does not take a penny of government money, so they have to be as efficient as possible at all times. Yet they can stream half a dozen different media formats.
Each of the "costs" you mention are insolvable only to people who are already predisposed to their preconceptions of technology. Luddites.
My example above, WCPE, is a community supported radio/internet station which does not take a penny of government money, so they have to be as efficient as possible at all times. Yet they can stream half a dozen different media formats.
Each of the "costs" you mention are insolvable only to people who are already predisposed to their preconceptions of technology. Luddites.
Quoting:They are tax leaches who do not have to compete in a free market, which means they get to be inefficient and remain on the air.I don't think we are talking about the same NPR. The NPR I am talking about is mostly supported by public donations and a little from government funding.
Compete they have to. Due to the reduction of government funding, now they are running ads for some commercial companies and almost never during the shows. It is always before or after the show. Unfortunately, MS is one of the companies that donate handsomely to them. Mind you, that doesn't make them biased in any way, or at least I haven't noticed.
>Mind you, that doesn't make them biased in any way, or at least I haven't noticed.
Perhaps not towards Microsoft, but...seriously, you haven't?
Perhaps not towards Microsoft, but...seriously, you haven't?
Jesus, Bob. Enough with the mises.org stuff, already. NPR gets a pittance of taxpayers' money, much much less than you think they do. It's mostly listener supported. Inefficient? Do you actually listen to NPR?
>NPR gets a pittance of taxpayers' money, much much less than you think they do
You presume to know something that you have no evidence to support. How reliable does that make you?
The question isn't how much federal money they get. The question is why they get any at all.
You presume to know something that you have no evidence to support. How reliable does that make you?
The question isn't how much federal money they get. The question is why they get any at all.
> Perhaps not towards Microsoft, but...seriously, you haven't?
Chortle! Ever listen to "Marketplace"? It's a litany of everything that can be twisted to sound like a "market failure".
> Jesus, Bob.
As an atheist, I'm offended. By Cromm, have you no respect for diversity? :^)
Just kidding. Really.
> Enough with the mises.org stuff, already.
You are welcome to ignore me at any time. It's called "voluntary interaction", something very efficient indeed. You might have heard about it.
> NPR gets a pittance of taxpayers' money, much much less than you think they do.
Oh really? Then the fact that they still get any is even more repulsive, since they obviously don't need it.
> Inefficient?
Yes. You say not, that's fine. Too bad I am forced at gunpoint to subsidize what I consider to be inefficient. See? It's not just opinion. If it were just opinion, I wouldn't be upset. No one makes me pay for rap music, for instance, so my opinion of rap music is merely academic rather than a basis for conflict.
Sadly, that conflict follows all coercive regulation, and since that regulation ever increases, the sphere of action at the discretion of the individual grows ever smaller and conflict grows, and grows, and grows.
> Do you actually listen to NPR?
Occasionally. I drop in on Marketplace every few months to find out what segments of the free market are presently being targetted by the socialists, but other than that it's just hit and miss when there isn't anything good on the music stations or I want to hear voices instead of noise on the FM dial.
Sadly, "my" local NPR affiliate doesn't play Thistle and Shamrock, which because of the NPR structure no other station in "my" area can therefore play, so I'm SOL. So much for listener "service", even though I am forced to subsidize it the one show I want they don't play.
Yes, it's a very small quantity of money. It's called "concentrated benefits with dispersed costs" and it's how all the little special interests justify taking their little slice of the government tax pie to live at the expense of everyone else.
Dying the death of a thousand little cuts is no better than dying from one big cut. I prefer not being cut at all.
Chortle! Ever listen to "Marketplace"? It's a litany of everything that can be twisted to sound like a "market failure".
> Jesus, Bob.
As an atheist, I'm offended. By Cromm, have you no respect for diversity? :^)
Just kidding. Really.
> Enough with the mises.org stuff, already.
You are welcome to ignore me at any time. It's called "voluntary interaction", something very efficient indeed. You might have heard about it.
> NPR gets a pittance of taxpayers' money, much much less than you think they do.
Oh really? Then the fact that they still get any is even more repulsive, since they obviously don't need it.
> Inefficient?
Yes. You say not, that's fine. Too bad I am forced at gunpoint to subsidize what I consider to be inefficient. See? It's not just opinion. If it were just opinion, I wouldn't be upset. No one makes me pay for rap music, for instance, so my opinion of rap music is merely academic rather than a basis for conflict.
Sadly, that conflict follows all coercive regulation, and since that regulation ever increases, the sphere of action at the discretion of the individual grows ever smaller and conflict grows, and grows, and grows.
> Do you actually listen to NPR?
Occasionally. I drop in on Marketplace every few months to find out what segments of the free market are presently being targetted by the socialists, but other than that it's just hit and miss when there isn't anything good on the music stations or I want to hear voices instead of noise on the FM dial.
Sadly, "my" local NPR affiliate doesn't play Thistle and Shamrock, which because of the NPR structure no other station in "my" area can therefore play, so I'm SOL. So much for listener "service", even though I am forced to subsidize it the one show I want they don't play.
Yes, it's a very small quantity of money. It's called "concentrated benefits with dispersed costs" and it's how all the little special interests justify taking their little slice of the government tax pie to live at the expense of everyone else.
Dying the death of a thousand little cuts is no better than dying from one big cut. I prefer not being cut at all.
Quoting:The question is why they get any at allShall we just say for the enjoyment many listeners/viewers get out of their programs that you don't get to listen to or see any where else!
Before you complain about peanuts may be you should complain about the money wasted on huge pork barrels projects, unnecessary wars, wasted spending etc. etc. etc...!
Quoting: Perhaps not towards Microsoft, but...seriously, you haven't?Just because some people don't agree with them doesn't mean they are biased. I find them very objective and fair in their analysis and the material they present. Well, at least much better than any other organizations or reports.
> Shall we just say for the enjoyment many listeners/viewers get out of their programs that you don't get to listen to or see any where else!
If the programs are that good, why do they have to force people who don't want them to pay for them?
> Before you complain about peanuts may be you should complain about the money wasted on huge pork barrels projects, unnecessary wars, wasted spending etc. etc. etc...!
We complain about all of it, Abe. Not that anyone ever listens. IMO, the federal government should be shrunk to 1/3 of its current size or less. That's not just peanuts.
> Just because some people don't agree with them doesn't mean they are biased.
No, it doesn't. But that doesn't change the fact that they are biased. Only some people don't agree with Rush. Does that mean that he's not biased either?
If the programs are that good, why do they have to force people who don't want them to pay for them?
> Before you complain about peanuts may be you should complain about the money wasted on huge pork barrels projects, unnecessary wars, wasted spending etc. etc. etc...!
We complain about all of it, Abe. Not that anyone ever listens. IMO, the federal government should be shrunk to 1/3 of its current size or less. That's not just peanuts.
> Just because some people don't agree with them doesn't mean they are biased.
No, it doesn't. But that doesn't change the fact that they are biased. Only some people don't agree with Rush. Does that mean that he's not biased either?
> Shall we just say for the enjoyment many listeners/viewers get out of their programs that you don't get to listen to or see any where else!
Then let them pay for it.
I'm not asking anyone to pay for a bevy of nubile Japanese women for my enjoyment, but by your definition of "why is it right for them to rob me at gun point" it would be just as reasonable for me to demand subsidies from you for my enjoyment.
I'm sure that I can find someone who enjoys pushing clams up someone else's nose. Shall we have taxpayers subsidize that too? Clams are cheap, it won't cost very much.
I recall where Federal art money was used to pay for crucifixes in cans of human poop. Oh well, if someone enjoyed it, by your definition, there's no room to complain.
And please don't bring up the straw-man of the endless waste of government expenditure. It's a straw-man because I've never said not to cut anything, so you can't catch me in a hypocrisy. I'll gladly assert that it should all, every last penny, be cut. All of it. Now. Right now. Shut it down and walk away. Amen.
Then let them pay for it.
I'm not asking anyone to pay for a bevy of nubile Japanese women for my enjoyment, but by your definition of "why is it right for them to rob me at gun point" it would be just as reasonable for me to demand subsidies from you for my enjoyment.
I'm sure that I can find someone who enjoys pushing clams up someone else's nose. Shall we have taxpayers subsidize that too? Clams are cheap, it won't cost very much.
I recall where Federal art money was used to pay for crucifixes in cans of human poop. Oh well, if someone enjoyed it, by your definition, there's no room to complain.
And please don't bring up the straw-man of the endless waste of government expenditure. It's a straw-man because I've never said not to cut anything, so you can't catch me in a hypocrisy. I'll gladly assert that it should all, every last penny, be cut. All of it. Now. Right now. Shut it down and walk away. Amen.
Quoting:If the programs are that good, why do they have to force people who don't want them to pay for them?
Quoting:Then let them pay for it.They aren't forcing any one, on the contrary, people are donating to keep NPR flourishing after the massive cuts by the government. If you are talking about the little money they get from government, complain to the government and don't accuse NPR of forcing any one. I believe you know better on how the government functions. Besides, there are many citizens who like to keep NPR partially funded by public money also available to many other organizations that some of the people believe in keeping them funded by the government.
Quoting:'m not asking anyone to pay for a bevy ...I can see you are not, but many others are. Vote and change the system if you can.
Quoting:I recall where Federal art money was used to pay for...If it doesn't interest you, it is of interest to many others. If you don't like the system, vote against it.
Quoting:And please don't bring up the straw-man of the endless waste of government expenditure....
Quoting:We complain about all of it, Abe. Not that anyone ever listensAnd why not? I would rather complain about the much bigger waste than the little funding which some consider very important educational and intellectual material. You know, there is a big difference between what is being wasted on useless pork barrels and on enlightening analysis.
Quoting:the federal government should be shrunk to 1/3 of its current size or less. That's not just peanuts.I agree with that, but it is what it is. If the money is going to be wasted any way, I would rather see it go to the beneficial programs the NPR has.
Quoting:No, it doesn't. But that doesn't change the fact that they are biased. Only some people don't agree with Rush. Does that mean that he's not biased either?Come on now, you are not serious comparing NPR people with Rush, are you?
Could you explain how is NPR is biased? They always show both sides of a story, they always have supporters of all views and perspectives, so where is the bias?
> I find them very objective and fair in their analysis and the material they present.
I'll bet you do.
>Shall we just say for the enjoyment many listeners/viewers get out of their programs that you don't get to listen to or see any where else!
If they are getting so much enjoyment, why don't THEY pay for it?
I used to write copy and do on-air work during fund-raising drives for the PBS station down in Dallas. I am a great believer in public television and public radio. Note, however, that I said "public", not government. Too many people use them as if they are interchangeable. They're not.
I'll bet you do.
>Shall we just say for the enjoyment many listeners/viewers get out of their programs that you don't get to listen to or see any where else!
If they are getting so much enjoyment, why don't THEY pay for it?
I used to write copy and do on-air work during fund-raising drives for the PBS station down in Dallas. I am a great believer in public television and public radio. Note, however, that I said "public", not government. Too many people use them as if they are interchangeable. They're not.
>Come on now, you are not serious comparing NPR people with Rush, are you?
Of course not. Rush is very up-front about his bias, whereas NPR folks are in denial. Besides, Rush doesn't take my money to put his bias on the air.
Of course not. Rush is very up-front about his bias, whereas NPR folks are in denial. Besides, Rush doesn't take my money to put his bias on the air.
> If you don't like the system, vote against it.
I do, I always have, and it makes no difference. The reason it makes no difference is because there are a whole bunch of people who think the ends justify the means.
It's interesting to me that "The ends do not justify the means" is treated like a virtue, up to the point where someone's favorite tax subsidized program comes up. Then suddenly robbing your neighbors at gun-point, robbery as a means, becomes virtuous because the ends justify it.
> I would rather complain about the much bigger waste than the little funding which some consider very important educational and intellectual material.
Because you're not thinking it through. Those huge, wasteful things you are upset about are made up of innumerable little things, each one just as hard to argue against as you believe NPR to be hard to argue against.
"Oh, it's so little, and it benefits some people so much, how can you say it's wrong?"
I don't see how you say it's ok to take my money for NPR when I disapprove, and then say it's not ok to take your money for something else when you disapprove.
Those two positions are, to me, mutually contradictory.
I do, I always have, and it makes no difference. The reason it makes no difference is because there are a whole bunch of people who think the ends justify the means.
It's interesting to me that "The ends do not justify the means" is treated like a virtue, up to the point where someone's favorite tax subsidized program comes up. Then suddenly robbing your neighbors at gun-point, robbery as a means, becomes virtuous because the ends justify it.
> I would rather complain about the much bigger waste than the little funding which some consider very important educational and intellectual material.
Because you're not thinking it through. Those huge, wasteful things you are upset about are made up of innumerable little things, each one just as hard to argue against as you believe NPR to be hard to argue against.
"Oh, it's so little, and it benefits some people so much, how can you say it's wrong?"
I don't see how you say it's ok to take my money for NPR when I disapprove, and then say it's not ok to take your money for something else when you disapprove.
Those two positions are, to me, mutually contradictory.
Quoting:Then suddenly robbing your neighbors at gun-point, robbery as a means, becomes virtuous because the ends justify it.
What is it with you and robbing at gun-point? who is robbing who here?
NPR & PBS are getting money from a pool of funds allotted by the government, that is who is taking our money and should be complaining about and to.
Quoting:Because you're not thinking it through. Those huge, wasteful things you are upset about are made up of innumerable little things, each one just as hard to argue against as you believe NPR to be hard to argue against.
Oh yes I am thinking it through. The little money they are getting is like an itch compared to other funds that are bleeding the country to death. Don't you think you shouldn't be wasting your time on little ones when there are much bigger fish to fry!
Quoting:If YOU get to say billing me for NPR against my will is ok, then YOU have no room to complain about _ANYTHING_.No that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is NPR is not holding a gun to your head forcing you to give them money. As a matter of fact, they plead to their listeners and viewers to donate. No forcing, coercion, or obligation, just simply asking for voluntary donations. And I as a citizen happen to believe that they deserve public funding just like schools and everything else that deserve to be funded. You happen to disagree, that is your prerogative and just as mine to agree.
> What is it with you and robbing at gun-point? who is robbing who here?
Do you have some other definition of taxation?
> What I am saying is NPR is not holding a gun to your head forcing you to give them money.
Yes, they are. You said it yourself, they are tax funded. Even if it is one _penny_, that penny had to be stolen from someone before the government could hand it out.
> Don't you think you shouldn't be wasting your time on little ones when there are much bigger fish to fry!
If I cannot even point out the hypocrisy of funding NPR by taxes while complaining about other things being funded by taxes, how do you expect me to be able to successfully argue against anything that is big?
I can say all day that "I don't like..." this or that, but if I don't object to everything I'm just being a hypocrite.
My objection is not based upon the size of the budget. My objection is to the budget. I'm still wondering how I can be any more clear since you still seem to not get it.
Do you have some other definition of taxation?
> What I am saying is NPR is not holding a gun to your head forcing you to give them money.
Yes, they are. You said it yourself, they are tax funded. Even if it is one _penny_, that penny had to be stolen from someone before the government could hand it out.
> Don't you think you shouldn't be wasting your time on little ones when there are much bigger fish to fry!
If I cannot even point out the hypocrisy of funding NPR by taxes while complaining about other things being funded by taxes, how do you expect me to be able to successfully argue against anything that is big?
I can say all day that "I don't like..." this or that, but if I don't object to everything I'm just being a hypocrite.
My objection is not based upon the size of the budget. My objection is to the budget. I'm still wondering how I can be any more clear since you still seem to not get it.
> They aren't forcing any one,
What happens if I calculate the portion of my taxes going to NPR and refuse to pay it? Would you call the resulting arrest and seizure of property force or not?
> If you don't like the system, vote against it... Vote and change the system if you can.... If you don't like the system, vote against it.
I do. All the time.
> You know, there is a big difference between what is being wasted on useless pork barrels and on enlightening analysis.
a) No, there isn't. It's a matter of degree, not kind. b) I've never heard enlightening analysis from NPR (well, with the possible exception of Car Talk, and that's only possible). I've heard lots of "analysis", but none of it has been enlightening, except to the extent it exposes the biases of those giving the analysis. I have to admit that the degree of that bias is sometimes "enlightening".
> Come on now, you are not serious comparing NPR people with Rush, are you?
Dino already answered that as well as I could.
> Could you explain how is NPR is biased?
Yes, but not in the time I have now.
> They always show both sides of a story,
No, they don't. And when they do, one side is often favored by their "analysis"
> they always have supporters of all views and perspectives
Again, no they don't. And when they do, one side is often carefully chosen so as not present a valid opposing view. Many times, neither side presents a valid view, but that's mere incompetence, not bias.
The very stories they choose to cover shows their bias, much less the way they choose to cover them.
> What I am saying is NPR is not holding a gun to your head forcing you to give them money.
The government is. If NPR doesn't want to be considered an accomplice in the act, it should stop accepting government funding.
What happens if I calculate the portion of my taxes going to NPR and refuse to pay it? Would you call the resulting arrest and seizure of property force or not?
> If you don't like the system, vote against it... Vote and change the system if you can.... If you don't like the system, vote against it.
I do. All the time.
> You know, there is a big difference between what is being wasted on useless pork barrels and on enlightening analysis.
a) No, there isn't. It's a matter of degree, not kind. b) I've never heard enlightening analysis from NPR (well, with the possible exception of Car Talk, and that's only possible). I've heard lots of "analysis", but none of it has been enlightening, except to the extent it exposes the biases of those giving the analysis. I have to admit that the degree of that bias is sometimes "enlightening".
> Come on now, you are not serious comparing NPR people with Rush, are you?
Dino already answered that as well as I could.
> Could you explain how is NPR is biased?
Yes, but not in the time I have now.
> They always show both sides of a story,
No, they don't. And when they do, one side is often favored by their "analysis"
> they always have supporters of all views and perspectives
Again, no they don't. And when they do, one side is often carefully chosen so as not present a valid opposing view. Many times, neither side presents a valid view, but that's mere incompetence, not bias.
The very stories they choose to cover shows their bias, much less the way they choose to cover them.
> What I am saying is NPR is not holding a gun to your head forcing you to give them money.
The government is. If NPR doesn't want to be considered an accomplice in the act, it should stop accepting government funding.
> I've never heard enlightening analysis from NPR (well, with the possible exception of Car Talk, and that's only possible).
Car Talk is where I heard about "Male Answer Syndrome".
That syndrome has been of immeasurable assistance in understanding politicians, used car salesmen, and other professional liars.
Car Talk is where I heard about "Male Answer Syndrome".
That syndrome has been of immeasurable assistance in understanding politicians, used car salesmen, and other professional liars.
Oh, Abe, if you want an excellent example of NPR's biases: Try to find any NPR coverage of the current Espiscopalian fiasco which isn't either ignorant about, bewildered by, or disdainful of the traditional Anglican position.
You may find the occasional guest who can express the traditional position clearly and well, though I doubt it. However, if you do, compare how that guest is treated to the treatment of the other guest(s).
I know NPR's biases, so I know better than to listen to NPR for coverage of such issues. Thus, I can't provide any examples.
You may find the occasional guest who can express the traditional position clearly and well, though I doubt it. However, if you do, compare how that guest is treated to the treatment of the other guest(s).
I know NPR's biases, so I know better than to listen to NPR for coverage of such issues. Thus, I can't provide any examples.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Bureaucrat-speak translation: The committee are a bunch of luddites, they think that streaming multiple formats will cost more because they can't understand that if someone is pulling OGG they're not pulling WMV. They think it will have to stream both at once to each user.