or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Fox News' giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fox News' giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad - Page 3

post #81 of 139
The new revolutionary iPad Magoo-edition.
post #82 of 139

Wow, more FoxNews hater link bait! 

 

Please, anytime you can show a lie, just post it here. I fully understand you don't like the opinions of @FoxNews and that's fine, but the news reporting is spot on and very informational (with the occasional human error that is always corrected). Do they lean Right, yes, but ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, all lean very Left so at least ONE news network that shows the other side can't be that horrible. 

 

NOT that I am a FoxNews fanboy as I constantly gripe at them about much of their 'entertainment' articles. One more anything about that Miley tramp!!! 

 

I would suggest that if ALL news outlets gave just the news without slant, then we, the people, would all be much better off. 

 

Now, back to the actual topic. I'm excited about the new Deck as it is modern and looks more 'real time' then normal broadcasts. The screen resolution has little, no nothing, to do with the news. The have a scrolling newswire at the top of the Deck and large vertical panels on the wall; all of which are controlled via the specialist's panels or the remote that Shep will have. 

 

All in all, this is a fresh new look and feel for a younger generation (which I'm not) and I think it will work out great. Should they have gone with 55' panels from Apple? Sure, when Apple makes 55' panels. 

post #83 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I don't get the point of this story, or at least what it was to do with iPad pixels.

 

Ummm... that's it's wasteful to pay so much and utilize such a large piece of equipment when it doesn't convey any more information than an iPad, whose cost, surface area and weight are a few orders of magnitude smaller.  Wow, you can see 4 tweets at a time!!!  I mean, really?  That's a pretty high cost per visible tweet.

 

 

Thompson

post #84 of 139
Originally Posted by AppleSince86 View Post
So Microsoft dumped another product they couldn't sell?

 


HA! The ORIGINAL Surface! It’s astonishing; I totally forgot about it (well, not astounding; I forget about everything, mother of humanity, I’m depressed). 

 

Seems the world has also forgotten about it, however. The only memory society will have of it looks like the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, where Keanu Reeves’ masterful acting ability truly shines as an alien whose emotions cannot be expressed within the human form.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #85 of 139

$5 says that if this story was "MSNBC's giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad" the comments would be gushing of how innovative and forward thinking it is to have such a large display and that Apple should build a 55" display or else they're doomed.

Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
post #86 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Fox News actually argued (and won) a case in front of the FL Supreme Court claiming that they had the right to lie on air and that nothing required them to tell the truth.

 

You mean this? Please read and educate yourself on the facts, not FUD from the Left! 

 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1310807.html

 

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf 

 

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/11/03/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth/ 

 

Quote:
 Clearly, the story that FOX News got a court ruling in favor of its right to “lie” in its news broadcasts has become something of a talking point among the cable news channel’s detractors. There’s only one problem – the story as popularly told is completely false, and is based almost exclusively on hysteria, hyperbole, and half-truths.

 

And you all complain about FoxNews lying? 

post #87 of 139

I'm not trying to turn this thread into a political discussion, but I just gotta laugh when I read comments like "Faux News", "They lie", "They spread misinformation"...hilarious!!! If you don't like Fox (who are by far the #1 most watched cable news organization) then don't watch it! But when 95% of the left leaning loons in this country religiously parrot whatever made up mush they are spoon fed by the likes of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and the rest...the whole "Fox news lies!" thing is about as pathetic as it gets! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

post #88 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmansfield View Post

My mother told me to never to sit that close to the television.

 

All these "don't sit close to the television" phrases originate from the time of CRTs which would produce X-ray and other nasty radiation that at close distance could be potentially harmfully strong. These reasons don't apply to modern LED backlit LCD screens.

 

Of course, LCD screens, regardless of size, can still harm your vision if their backlighting and contrast aren't properly adjusted for the viewing environment, but that's no different than staring at a very brightly lit paper surface in a dark environment, or doing similar things that are beyond the eye's "light metering" and "auto exposure" capabilities.

post #89 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan View Post
 

I'm not trying to turn this thread into a political discussion, but I just gotta laugh when I read comments like "Faux News", "They lie", "They spread misinformation"...hilarious!!! If you don't like Fox (who are by far the #1 most watched cable news organization) then don't watch it! But when 95% of the left leaning loons in this country religiously parrot whatever made up mush they are spoon fed by the likes of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and the rest...the whole "Fox news lies!" thing is about as pathetic as it gets! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It is the Lie they want to believe, so they do. I want the only news network that talks against our beloved to be doomed, so I will believe whatever rhetoric that plays into that. Just like Fandroids wanting Apple to be doomed! 

post #90 of 139
G.I.M.M.I.C.K.

This kind of gimmickry has already proven not to work at CNN.

This ridiculous hype, using massive screens providing no real functionality other than gimmickry, just serves the typical "look! aren't we great!" self-aggrandizing Fox hyperbole. They're pretty despicable over there.

Show me a news organization, a credible journalistic outlet, that really knows how to apply technology bringing to a mass audience?

How about streaming live news using handheld cameras/devices, tablet to tablet, and "airplay" that to the main screen and viewing audience? In-line tweets and reporting. Multi-camera views of an event, all coming from mobile devices? I'd begin to be impressed, maybe. Then it would depend on the quality of the reporting.

I care not one whit about the lying, craven, tabloid "reporting" at Fox 'news'. Why do I have to see headlines about them at an Apple Rumors website, when it's just making much ado of entertainment-as-news stupidity?? They have some nerve billing that as "journalism".
post #91 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post
 

Wow, more FoxNews hater link bait! 

 

Please, anytime you can show a lie, just post it here. I fully understand you don't like the opinions of @FoxNews and that's fine, but the news reporting is spot on and very informational (with the occasional human error that is always corrected). Do they lean Right, yes, but ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, all lean very Left so at least ONE news network that shows the other side can't be that horrible. 


Whether FOX is left or right doesn't matter. What matters is them making up news that are not true.

Second, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS are not left, certainly not very left, they are barely center.

 

Thanks to the hijacking of the definition of what's left and right by the extreme right in the US, people have no idea what's left and right in the US. Obama is considerably to the right of e.g. Germany's conservative-right party of chancellor Angela Merkel.

 

Obamacare is a hand-out to insurance companies and health-care providers, and far to the right of what Nixon (a Republican) proposed and what Thatcher (pretty staunchly right-wing conservative and bosom friend of Ronald Reagan) supported with the NIH in the UK.

 

Before right wingers and teatards frothing at the mouth call anyone "far left" they should bother studying politics.

 

Far left is essentially non-existent in the USA, what we have in the US is a center that's leaning left or leaning right, plus a right-wing, borderline christian-fundamentalist, fascist fringe movement that tries to hijack US politics by disregarding how democracy is supposed to work: simple majority rule, and not by a minority using procedural tricks to hold the majority hostage.

post #92 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
 


Whether FOX is left or right doesn't matter. What matters is them making up news that are not true.

Second, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS are not left, certainly not very left, they are barely center.

 

Thanks to the hijacking of the definition of what's left and right by the extreme right in the US, people have no idea what's left and right in the US. Obama is considerably to the right of e.g. Germany's conservative-right party of chancellor Angela Merkel.

 

Obamacare is a hand-out to insurance companies and health-care providers, and far to the right of what Nixon (a Republican) proposed and what Thatcher (pretty staunchly right-wing conservative and bosom friend of Ronald Reagan) supported with the NIH in the UK.

 

Before right wingers and teatards frothing at the mouth call anyone "far left" they should bother studying politics.

 

Far left is essentially non-existent in the USA, what we have in the US is a center that's leaning left or leaning right, plus a right-wing, borderline christian-fundamentalist, fascist fringe movement that tries to hijack US politics by disregarding how democracy is supposed to work: simple majority rule, and not by a minority using procedural tricks to hold the majority hostage.

 

Right, if you believe that FoxNews is making things up and that those news outlets are not left leaning, then you must be so far left you can't see it. So we'll just leave it at that, and it's time for lunch :) 

post #93 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving Muller View Post
 

 

Don't weather men use screens behind them by just stepping to the side? I would imagine they would try to use them the same way.

 

never been to a TV studio before, have you. :)

 

those "screens" behind them are typically blank green screens, with the image they're referencing (on an off-camera monitor) being composited onto the completed image you see broadcast.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is exactly how Fox intends to use this array of new "screens. ". Blank screens they will overlay anything they like onto from a control room. Nothing "live" about them. The people are the real props, the screens are just to drive home their scary FUD points or paid PR points… depending on scheduling.

post #94 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmansfield View Post

My mother told me to never to sit that close to the television.

 

 

For the purposes of this article, those are clearly tablets.

post #95 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan View Post
 

I'm not trying to turn this thread into a political discussion, but I just gotta laugh when I read comments like "Faux News", "They lie", "They spread misinformation"...hilarious!!! If you don't like Fox (who are by far the #1 most watched cable news organization) then don't watch it! But when 95% of the left leaning loons in this country religiously parrot whatever made up mush they are spoon fed by the likes of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and the rest...the whole "Fox news lies!" thing is about as pathetic as it gets! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It is the Lie they want to believe, so they do. I want the only news network that talks against our beloved to be doomed, so I will believe whatever rhetoric that plays into that. Just like Fandroids wanting Apple to be doomed! 

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/11/19/fox-news-year-in-apologies-fake-videos-false-in/157273

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/22/jon-stewarts-politifact-segment-annotated-edition/

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2012/04/yes-roger-fox-news-has-retracted-false-stories/51115/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

 

And on a funnier, but not a bit less true, note:

http://gawker.com/5813886/jon-stewart-rips-fox-news-for-editing-his-chat-with-chris-wallace

http://gawker.com/5814309/jon-stewart-reads-off-laundry-list-of-false-statements-by-lying-dynasty-fox-news


Edited by rcfa - 10/8/13 at 11:39am
post #96 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorpit View Post
 

$5 says that if this story was "MSNBC's giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad" the comments would be gushing of how innovative and forward thinking it is to have such a large display and that Apple should build a 55" display or else they're doomed.

 

um, I don't think so. Stupid is as stupid does.

post #97 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Wow, more FoxNews hater link bait! 

Please, anytime you can show a lie, just post it here. I fully understand you don't like the opinions of @FoxNews and that's fine, but the news reporting is spot on and very informational (with the occasional human error that is always corrected). Do they lean Right, yes, but ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, all lean very Left so at least ONE news network that shows the other side can't be that horrible. 

I don't need to. It's been done repeatedly (including some examples below). Fox News is the only "news" media to fight and win a state supreme court case to get affirmation of their right to lie.
Quote:

Nice try. You've mastered the Fox News red herring garbage. None of those links refutes what I said - you're simply trying to hide the facts behind a stream of nonsequitors. No one cares if Akres won their other arguments. The ruling is clear:

The appeals court decision (as affirmed by the supreme court) said:
" the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute."

That is, they supported Fox News' claim that there was no law requiring them to tell the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Right, if you believe that FoxNews is making things up and that those news outlets are not left leaning, then you must be so far left you can't see it. So we'll just leave it at that, and it's time for lunch 1smile.gif 


Jon Stewart (and Colbert, as well) regularly lampoon the constant lies from Fox News. All you need to do is go to their web site and watch virtually any of their shows for examples of Fox lying.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #98 of 139
How. Freaking. Ridiculous.
post #99 of 139
Must be a slow news day for Apple if this is worth writing about.
post #100 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

Must be a slow news day for Apple if this is worth writing about.

 

You are comment number 99, so apparently you think it is worthy of discussion and so do plenty of others

post #101 of 139
I would guess that Microsoft paid for the whole shebang, and then some.
post #102 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I don't need to. It's been done repeatedly (including some examples below). Fox News is the only "news" media to fight and win a state supreme court case to get affirmation of their right to lie.
Nice try. You've mastered the Fox News red herring garbage. None of those links refutes what I said - you're simply trying to hide the facts behind a stream of nonsequitors. No one cares if Akres won their other arguments. The ruling is clear:

The appeals court decision (as affirmed by the supreme court) said:
" the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute."

That is, they supported Fox News' claim that there was no law requiring them to tell the truth.

Jon Stewart (and Colbert, as well) regularly lampoon the constant lies from Fox News. All you need to do is go to their web site and watch virtually any of their shows for examples of Fox lying.

 

Nice try to you as well. The case, if you read it, stated that they lawsuit against FoxNews as to their ability to fire someone based on the plaintiff using a FCC regulation that was not law. You can't state you were protected by a law that does not exist. NOTHING at all said ANYTHING about FoxNews' ability to lie, but that you can't use that FCC ruling to warrant suit against being fired. 

 

Read it again. 

 

and you quote comedians as your news source? 'Nuff said! 

post #103 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Nice try to you as well. The case, if you read it, stated that they lawsuit against FoxNews as to their ability to fire someone based on the plaintiff using a FCC regulation that was not law. You can't state you were protected by a law that does not exist. NOTHING at all said ANYTHING about FoxNews' ability to lie, but that you can't use that FCC ruling to warrant suit against being fired. 

Read it again. 

and you quote comedians as your news source? 'Nuff said! 

I did read it. But, then, I didn't have Fox News making up stupid arguments.

The issues were:

Akre was fired. She claimed whistleblower status. The court ruled that whistleblower status was valid only if Fox had broken the law. But since Fox argued (and won) that there was no law requiring them to be truthful, Akre lost.

Fox's argument was simple - the law did not require them to be truthful. Period.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #104 of 139
Who in a normal situation has room for a 55 inch tablet, why get one that bad, 10 inch screens are ok, but 55 is to big.
post #105 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I did read it. But, then, I didn't have Fox News making up stupid arguments.

The issues were:

Akre was fired. She claimed whistleblower status. The court ruled that whistleblower status was valid only if Fox had broken the law. But since Fox argued (and won) that there was no law requiring them to be truthful, Akre lost.

Fox's argument was simple - the law did not require them to be truthful. Period.

 

Now go read it again. Take your free MSNBC 3-D glasses off. 

 

The case had nothing to do with truth or lies on appeal, but whether there was a law to which the judgement was granted, and there was NOT! 

 

The original jury found that Akre was wrongfully fired due to a whistleblower status, which could have been very well true. However, on the grounds (which is where Akre was wrong) based on a FCC rule that was NOT law. Therefore, you can't sue someone based on a law that does not exist. If Akre sued on whistleblower status, not claiming this false FCC law, she most likely would have won. 

 

I have not read up on the original article and what FoxNews supposedly wanted changed, so I can't comment on that. Although if need be, I'll go read more. 

post #106 of 139

The liberals who hate Fox News do so for two reasons...#1. Fox is the top cable news outlet..by a HUGE margin...Bill O'Reilly probably gets more viewers for his show than any CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazera and PBS shows combined! And #2. They can't control it to plant stories about how awesomely wonderful Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are and how awful and nasty Republicans are! And that makes them angry!!! Sorry little liberals, life isn't always the way you want it!! You'll realize that one day when you grow up and move out of your parents basement!!


Edited by Jordon Eagan - 10/8/13 at 1:55pm
post #107 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan View Post

The liberals who hate Fox News do so for two reasons...#1. Fox is the top cable news outlet..by a HUGE margin...Bill O'Reilly probably gets get more viewers for his show than any CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazera and PBS shows combined! And #2. They can't control it to plant stories about how awesomely wonderful Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are and how awful and nasty Republicans are! And that makes them angry!!! Sorry little liberals, life isn't always the way you want it!! You'll realize that one day when you grow up and move out of your parents basement!!

The sad part is, this dude likely even believes this drivel he writes to be true.

Chances are, he also believes in virgin births, intelligent design, dinosaurs and humans roaming together in paradise only a few thousand years ago, and that Jesus was a white boy speaking English...

...and certainly he believes in American exceptionalism, that USA is #1 regardless how far it is trailing large parts of the developed world, and other nonsense.

That's the result of living in the right-wing echo chamber where everything and anyone who doesn't agree with the orthodoxy must be a left-wing radical.
Even Reagan and Nixon's policies would be unbearably "left wing liberal" in today's Teapublican party, but to notice that would require to not engage in revisionist history like the right wing media does, and of course it would require memory and attention span beyond what Twitter-ready news-bites promote.
post #108 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan View Post
 

The liberals who hate Fox News do so for two reasons...#1. Fox is the top cable news outlet..by a HUGE margin...Bill O'Reilly probably gets more viewers for his show than any CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazera and PBS shows combined! And #2. They can't control it to plant stories about how awesomely wonderful Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are and how awful and nasty Republicans are! And that makes them angry!!! Sorry little liberals, life isn't always the way you want it!! You'll realize that one day when you grow up and move out of your parents basement!!

 

Actually, there’s no secret that Fox News was created by a rich Austrian to promote a conservative/right wing agenda. He said so. He bragged about it! It’s pretty pure propaganda for the Republican party, and particularly the billionaire-funded resurgence of the John Birch Society under the name Tea Party.

 

It’s an anti-corporate tax lobby that feeds the lower classes easily digestible sound bytes telling them why they should emotionally and religiously vote against their own interests in order to make the super rich even richer, under the delusion that they are protecting their faith and being patriotic. A far more effective way to promote fascism and socialism for the rich at the expense of a crushed middle class than any of the experiments of the early 1930s in Europe. The rich are actually getting much richer, and the middle class are inheriting the public debt that’s financing that concentration of wealth via public policy favoring the military industrial complex that Republicans used to warn us about before they were co-oped by Koch Enterprises and neocon groups like FreedomWorks. 

 

Chicken nuggets might be the most popular form of meat Americans eat, but that doesn’t mean they are a quality product, or even meat.

post #109 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Outside of a small handful specializing in click-baits, how many people are seriously saying that Apple is doomed?

There are far more people whining about predictions of impending doom for Apple when there has not been a serious prediction about this. But it fits the narrative of Apple being an underdog to perpetuate this myth.

DED's AI article itself is click-bait. Think about it...it's a television show, bring broadcast at a resolution of at most 1080p. Who cares that the background screens in the studio are only 1080p. You'd never see any higher resolution anyway because of the limitation of the television broadcast. A good 1080p TV for your home costs more than an iPad and has lower resolution. And if Apple comes out with an Apple television it will also cost more than an iPad and have lower resolution, and it probably won't have a touch interface.



So what is the point of this article other than click-bait for the Apple faithful? I like Apple, too. But kinda wish I hadn't wasted my time reading anotther fanboy article from DED.
post #110 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


DED's AI article itself is click-bait. Think about it...it's a television show, bring broadcast at a resolution of at most 1080p. Who cares that the background screens in the studio are only 1080p. You'd never see any higher resolution anyway because of the limitation of the television broadcast. A good 1080p TV for your home costs more than an iPad and has lower resolution. And if Apple comes out with an Apple television it will also cost more than an iPad and have lower resolution, and it probably won't have a touch interface.

So what is the point of this article other than click-bait for the Apple faithful? I like Apple, too. But kinda wish I hadn't wasted my time reading anotther fanboy article from DED.

 

Oh come now. The resolution of the displays obviously isn’t important to the viewing audience. They are stage props. But the point is, Fox is portraying these actors as being journalists who are fact checking twitter in real time. This is absurdly ludicrous. But even if Fox has some relevance as a fact checker for populist chatter on a social network, the tools required to do this would not be vast 55” screens with less pixels than an iPad. 

 

They are for show. They are useless and pointless as “tools.” It doesn’t matter than Microsoft makes them, and it would be equally absurd if the “news desk” was populated by a bunch of handsome people reviewing Twitter on handheld iPads, telling the audience what was true and what wasn’t. 

 

But don’t be confused, the point of the article is simply showing what a farce Fox is for presenting mega-screens with low resolution and calling them new age tools for journalists. A news room doesn’t require such nonsense to gather information. This is a phony set designed to impress stupid people who haven’t given any of this any thought. And who want to believe what Fox is telling them to decide about what’s being reported, while also saying "we report, you decide.”

 

Massive contradictions aside, these non-ergo, non-powerful low resolution big screen displays are simply silly distractions, much like Samsung’s mega screens shouting about how advanced the Galaxy Gear watch was.

post #111 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Oh come now. The resolution of the displays obviously isn’t important to the viewing audience. They are stage props. But the point is, Fox is portraying these actors as being journalists who are fact checking twitter in real time. This is absurdly ludicrous. But even if Fox has some relevance as a fact checker for populist chatter on a social network, the tools required to do this would not be vast 55” screens with less pixels than an iPad. 

They are for show. They are useless and pointless as “tools.” It doesn’t matter than Microsoft makes them, and it would be equally absurd if the “news desk” was populated by a bunch of handsome people reviewing Twitter on handheld iPads, telling the audience what was true and what wasn’t. 

But don’t be confused, the point of the article is simply showing what a farce Fox is for presenting mega-screens with low resolution and calling them new age tools for journalists. A news room doesn’t require such nonsense to gather information. This is a phony set designed to impress stupid people who haven’t given any of this any thought. And who want to believe what Fox is telling them to decide about what’s being reported, while also saying "we report, you decide.”

Massive contradictions aside, these non-ergo, non-powerful low resolution big screen displays are simply silly distractions, much like Samsung’s mega screens shouting about how advanced the Galaxy Gear watch was.

Well, yes, Fox is a farce. But if that was the point of the article then: a) why the numerous comparisons to iPads, and b) what is the article doing on AI?



I'm just kicking myself for getting suckered into clicking on the link and reading another pointless article that's about nothing at all. Certainly nothing concerning Apple.
post #112 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


Well, yes, Fox is a farce. But if that was the point of the article then: a) why the numerous comparisons to iPads, and b) what is the article doing on AI?

I'm just kicking myself for getting suckered into clicking on the link and reading another pointless article that's about nothing at all. Certainly nothing concerning Apple.

 

The story delivered the exact premise of the headline. If you felt “suckered,” it's a problem on your end. 

 

And the relevance to Apple is that its a popular story about a high profile deployment of professional information tools expressly in response to the shift from static TV watching toward mobile iPad use, using what appear to be mega-iPads, except they are actually only capable of displaying less information than Apple's consumer tablet, let alone a typical tool for journalists like a notebook or conventional PC.

 

If you cant connect such data points, Iat a loss to help you understanding it.  

post #113 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan View Post

The liberals who hate Fox News do so for two reasons...#1. Fox is the top cable news outlet..by a HUGE margin...Bill O'Reilly probably gets more viewers for his show than any CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazera and PBS shows combined! And #2. They can't control it to plant stories about how awesomely wonderful Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are and how awful and nasty Republicans are! And that makes them angry!!! Sorry little liberals, life isn't always the way you want it!! You'll realize that one day when you grow up and move out of your parents basement!!

Well, no. I can't stand Fox News because I don't like "news" media spreading blatant lies.

I'm only a liberal by Fox News standards. By virtually any other standard, I'm pretty conservative. The Tea Party has hijacked the language so much that words like 'conservative' and 'liberal' no longer have much meaning.

For example, Obamacare is essentially the same plan that Romney put in place in MA. Even more to the point, it's almost exactly the same plan proposed by the GOP in 1992 in opposition to Hilary's single payor plan (which I think was a terrible plan from the start). Yet Obamacare is being portrayed as the worst kind of socialism. So explain to me why it was OK in 1992, but it's now completely evil?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #114 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Actually, there’s no secret that Fox News was created by a rich Austrian to promote a conservative/right wing agenda. He said so. He bragged about it! It’s pretty pure propaganda for the Republican party, and particularly the billionaire-funded resurgence of the John Birch Society under the name Tea Party.

It’s an anti-corporate tax lobby that feeds the lower classes easily digestible sound bytes telling them why they should emotionally and religiously vote against their own interests in order to make the super rich even richer, under the delusion that they are protecting their faith and being patriotic. A far more effective way to promote fascism and socialism for the rich at the expense of a crushed middle class than any of the experiments of the early 1930s in Europe. The rich are actually getting much richer, and the middle class are inheriting the public debt that’s financing that concentration of wealth via public policy favoring the military industrial complex that Republicans used to warn us about before they were co-oped by Koch Enterprises and neocon groups like FreedomWorks. 

Chicken nuggets might be the most popular form of meat Americans eat, but that doesn’t mean they are a quality product, or even meat.

So, there are people who believe differently than you. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Everyone who has criticized Fox News in this thread is likely a Democrat. I'm not saying that all democrats criticize Fox News, I'm just saying that if you're criticizing, you're quite possibly a democrat. And if you are, you may be just as biased as you say Fox is. I, personally, can see a lot of bias in almost every other network towards the left. I don't say they're stupid, or lying machines. The other stations and newspapers print just as many mess ups, they don't have as many networks 'focused' on publicizing it. And if you don't think the other stations have a bias as well, watch during election time. Those stations will invariably say that Romney lost to Obama in the debates, just like they said about bush and gore, bush and Kerry, Clinton and dole, bush and Clinton.... when it's time to vote they are the most vocal about their opinions. And if, for example, most news stations agree that Obama beat Romney in the debates, does that make it right? Why should I believe the majority of news stations? Is it because journalists are smarter than the average uneducated viewer? I doubt that. It's like saying I should vote the same way most mechanical engineers vote, or how most doctors vote. I see a common misconception about conservatives. Do the rich benefit from the Republican Party? Yes they do. Does that make it wrong? No. There are people who believe that rich people shouldn't have to pay any more taxes than the poor. Not because they're brainwashed, not because they're rich, because they happen to think it's right and fair. There are people who think the rich should pay more, because they think that's fair. Neither one has to be dumb, brainwashed, or evil to believe what they believe. They simply follow what they think is right. And for those who think its naive let the rich pay fewer taxes, because they have the means and we don't, even though we work just as hard if not harder and have just as great a need, there are a few examples of countries who have taken that idea and implemented it... and we have the benefit of studying it from afar. Search: a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I understand that too little or too much government is equally bad, but don't write off the principle that sometimes less is more. We need to defend both political parties to have the correct balance.
post #115 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post

So, there are people who believe differently than you. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Everyone who has criticized Fox News in this thread is likely a Democrat. I'm not saying that all democrats criticize Fox News, I'm just saying that if you're criticizing, you're quite possibly a democrat. And if you are, you may be just as biased as you say Fox is. I, personally, can see a lot of bias in almost every other network towards the left. I don't say they're stupid, or lying machines. The other stations and newspapers print just as many mess ups, they don't have as many networks 'focused' on publicizing it. 

 

Here's the biggest lie exposed: that one chooses the channel according to one's party affiliation.

No, I choose channels according to whether or not something is good journalism, and yes, there is something like standards of journalism, it's not all relativistic and just a matter of whether or not one agrees with the editorial page.

Good journalism separates the news from the commentary, Fox routinely mixes the two, presents conjectures as if it were fact, etc.

Fox has just about nothing to do with serious journalism at all. Period.

 

In Europe, conservatives tend to be doing good journalism, which is why I read there newspapers and journals that are considerably to the right of my own views, but I read them, because they do good journalism, and I can inform myself, even though I disagree with what they write in the editorial pages. e.g. The Economist or the Swiss NZZ are in many ways oriented differently than I am, but it's good journalism. In the US it tends to be centrist newspapers like the NYT that do good journalism, and again, that's not a matter of whether or not I agree with what they write (and no, the NYT isn't "liberal" by any stretch of the meaning, it's just to the "left" of right-wing extremists.

 

The same cannot be said about Fox.

 

As for other US news outlets being guilty of similar sins as Fox: yes, the "news-as-entertainment" thing, the punditry, etc. are now all over the place, but it's a vain attempt by these other channels to beat Fox in a race to the bottom.

As far as other channels having a left bias: Of course, if one's standing on the extreme right wing, everything else tends to be to the left, except maybe hard-core Nazism. But just because something is "to the left of something" doesn't means it's "left" in an absolute sense.

Reagan and Nixon both would be considerably to the left of the Tea Party and mainstream Republican partisans of today. Does that mean that Reagan and Nixon are lefties? Hardly.

 

So start learning to make a difference between "to the left of my own extreme views" and "on the left side of the political spectrum", because frankly, you're not the navel of the world who demarcates the true center.

post #116 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmansfield View Post

My mother told me to never to sit that close to the television.

 

This just in... Fox reporters demand coverage for eye doctors be added to their health care plan.

post #117 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Here's the biggest lie exposed: that one chooses the channel according to one's party affiliation.
No, I choose channels according to whether or not something is good journalism, and yes, there is something like standards of journalism, it's not all relativistic and just a matter of whether or not one agrees with the editorial page.
Good journalism separates the news from the commentary, Fox routinely mixes the two, presents conjectures as if it were fact, etc.
Fox has just about nothing to do with serious journalism at all. Period.

In Europe, conservatives tend to be doing good journalism, which is why I read there newspapers and journals that are considerably to the right of my own views, but I read them, because they do good journalism, and I can inform myself, even though I disagree with what they write in the editorial pages. e.g. The Economist or the Swiss NZZ are in many ways oriented differently than I am, but it's good journalism. In the US it tends to be centrist newspapers like the NYT that do good journalism, and again, that's not a matter of whether or not I agree with what they write (and no, the NYT isn't "liberal" by any stretch of the meaning, it's just to the "left" of right-wing extremists.

The same cannot be said about Fox.

As for other US news outlets being guilty of similar sins as Fox: yes, the "news-as-entertainment" thing, the punditry, etc. are now all over the place, but it's a vain attempt by these other channels to beat Fox in a race to the bottom.
As far as other channels having a left bias: Of course, if one's standing on the extreme right wing, everything else tends to be to the left, except maybe hard-core Nazism. But just because something is "to the left of something" doesn't means it's "left" in an absolute sense.
Reagan and Nixon both would be considerably to the left of the Tea Party and mainstream Republican partisans of today. Does that mean that Reagan and Nixon are lefties? Hardly.

So start learning to make a difference between "to the left of my own extreme views" and "on the left side of the political spectrum", because frankly, you're not the navel of the world who demarcates the true center.

In my post, I said those criticizing Fox News are 'quite possibly' democrat, so you wouldn't have to explain to me that centrists criticize Fox News as well. But doing a quick search through your posts, I see that you're a democrat. I'm simply trying to explain to some of the more extreme and vocal commenters against Fox News that the large percentage of Americans who disagree with you, and vote with their remote, aren't necessarily stupid or brainwashed, but see the station differently. And that those continually posting these excited comments may actually be more analytical of fox without realizing it. I personally think msnbc and cnn are worse in terms of the quality of stories reported. But I'm not going to publicly bash them like I'm seeing from these overly vocal, loud and critical people, who think that by continually repeating their labels of fox as stupid, mindless, and a mouthpiece of the rich that they may possibly have a bias much like the one they say fox has, a bias they may not realize, but if they check their political party as democrat, may realize that there is a possibility that they are more critical of fox than others.
post #118 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post
In my post, I said those criticizing Fox News are 'quite possibly' democrat, so you wouldn't have to explain to me that centrists criticize Fox News as well. But doing a quick search through your posts, I see that you're a democrat. 

 

Interesting how you know my political affiliations....

....and manage to be totally wrong.

Which means you probably decided based on truthiness, aka Bush's "gut feeling".

 

No, I'm not a Democrat (with capital D) although I'm a democrat (with lower-case d). The closest I come to being a Democrat is that I consider the Tea Party wing of the Republicans, which holds the entire party by its balls, to be a bunch of lunatics, meaning that the Republican party, as it exists today, is not electable, which leaves a rational person with the option to vote for the party that does the least possible damage given the realities on the ground, and that happens to be the Democratic party, thanks to a rather despicable two-party system that makes any democratically (lower case d) minded person cringe given how it dumbs down and limits political debate.

If anything, I'm a libertarian, but one who doesn't use it as a code word for laissez-faire, gone hog-wild capitalism, but one who recognizes that economic entities need laws and police just as much as natural persons, if the game is supposed to remain fair and civil, and one who recognize that allowing economic actors to externalize costs upon the shoulders of society at large is allowing unfair, distorted competition in the marketplace.

Even in a free society blackmail and murder must be outlawed, and even with free, libertarian markets, economic actors need to be subject to environmental laws and anti-trust laws, etc.

Quote:
I'm simply trying to explain to some of the more extreme and vocal commenters against Fox News that the large percentage of Americans who disagree with you, and vote with their remote, aren't necessarily stupid or brainwashed, but see the station differently.

 

They see the station differently because they are stupid and/or brainwashed, or because they are cynical and enjoy what Fox news does for their investments.

 

I would want to see a formal SEC inquiry into who with political connections benefitted from currency speculation in connection with the government shutdown. I'm sure there are some people who made millions by betting against the US$ well knowing that they will vote against a clean funding bill.

 

90%+ of Fox viewers or even their pundits either doesn't get or intentionally mixes up the difference between "debt" and "deficit"
 

Quote:

I personally think msnbc and cnn are worse in terms of the quality of stories reported.

 

 

That's a rubber statement. What's a "worse quality story"? One you're not interested in? One that's not important? One that goes counter your interests? One that's stylistically bad? Or one that's a lie? If the latter, it would be well worth pointing out the lies...

 

Quote:
But I'm not going to publicly bash them like I'm seeing from these overly vocal, loud and critical people, who think that by continually repeating their labels of fox as stupid, mindless, and a mouthpiece of the rich that they may possibly have a bias much like the one they say fox has, a bias they may not realize, but if they check their political party as democrat, may realize that there is a possibility that they are more critical of fox than others.

 

There's plenty of bad reporting and bias in certain parts of e.g. MSNBC, but it's on a totally different level than what's on Fox, and in particular, for the most part, there news and commentary are distinguishable.

post #119 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 
Actually, there’s no secret that Fox News was created by a rich Austrian to promote a conservative/right wing agenda. He said so. He bragged about it! It’s pretty pure propaganda for the Republican party, and particularly the billionaire-funded resurgence of the John Birch Society under the name Tea Party.

 

Austria != Australia ;)

 

No kangaroos in Austria.

post #120 of 139

Can we just move this thread to PO? :(

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Fox News' giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Fox News' giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad