In The News

Started by DoomRulz, Nov 30, 2012, 03:53:46 AM

Author
In The News (Read 1,416,703 times)

Rick Grimes

Rick Grimes

#525
Seriously, I don't see anything "news worthy." Just a bunch of stupid outrageous dumb articles that are borderline Onion worthy. If this keeps up, might as move it to the Rec Board where you can post your "news not to be taken seriously" articles/headlines.

ShadowPred

ShadowPred

#526
Quote from: Rick Grimes on Feb 09, 2013, 12:54:14 AM
Just a bunch of stupid outrageous dumb articles that are borderline Onion worthy.


And the thing you fail to take away from all of that is that since these are not really Onion articles - there is a need to voice concern about the way that reality is doing the Onion's (and other satire sites) job for them.

Eva

Eva

#527
Sure, Fox News is an easy target and some puns at their expense are pretty cheap. They presumably just 'fired' Sarah Palin as 'political expert', so they can do some things right. I wonder if Murdoch & co will keep pouring money into it and shape their overall agenda in an America where the stations target audience seems to be slowly but surely dwindling in numbers.

Vertigo

Vertigo

#528
:edit: Ninja'd... we were talking about energy sources when I started this post.


On the subject of clean energy, Audi's teaming up with a genetic engineering firm to develop some very clean fuel.
http://www.buyyourcar.co.uk/news/article/audi-developing-synthetic-fuels/13010
http://www.leftlanenews.com/audi-to-begin-production-of-synthetic-e-fuels-in-2014.html
Plenty of other articles around the net, the CAR magazine article in which I heard about this was more informative than the above links.

The highlights: they're using genetically modified cyanobacteria to create fuel, I think as some form of ethanol. Basically, sunlight, water and CO2 goes in (the plan being to use waste CO2 from industry), the microbes get nom nomming, and they take their number 2s in the form of fuel (and the water, which is then separated for further use).
Initially they'd be distributing this as ethanol fuel - which most engines can be modified to use, and some are built that way (got a Koenigsegg CCXR down your driveway? You're sorted). But apparently it won't be difficult to implement it into a form of diesel, and eventually as petrol.

I'm not sure if the fuel itself will be any cleaner than the conventional gunk, but obviously the manufacturing process eats up CO2 rather than producing it or even being neutral, it's a renewable resource, and bypasses the various environmental, political and logistical issues of mining for oil. And unlike hydrogen or electrical charging, the infrastructure's already there.

The catch seems to be that it'll require large amounts of land in areas of extreme sunshine - ie. deserts. If I remember rightly, the magazine article stated that a region the size of Tunisia would produce enough fuel to run every Audi on the planet (the fuel isn't only for Audis, just to clarify). On the plus side, these are desolate and infertile regions, so construction of plants wouldn't destroy natural ecosystems or impinge on food production in the way that vile and evil bio-ethanol farming does. It could also bring fresh wealth into equatorial regions, some of which sorely need it.

They're currently on track to start producing the fuel at an Audi plant in 2014, after which I assume they'll take a view about large scale viability.

ShadowPred

ShadowPred

#529
Hopefully that all works out for the best and gets others to get their hands in on something similar.

Rick Grimes

Rick Grimes

#530
Quote from: Eva on Feb 09, 2013, 01:14:11 AM
I wonder if Murdoch & co will keep pouring money into it and shape their overall agenda in an America where the stations target audience seems to be slowly but surely dwindling in numbers.
You don't take notice that FNC is the most watched Cable News Netowrk on television.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/08/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-february-7-2013/168751/

Fox is always Number 1, second to CNN, and MSNBC (load of crap) comes in last.

ShadowPred

ShadowPred

#531
Quote from: Rick Grimes on Feb 09, 2013, 01:29:18 AM
Quote from: Eva on Feb 09, 2013, 01:14:11 AM
I wonder if Murdoch & co will keep pouring money into it and shape their overall agenda in an America where the stations target audience seems to be slowly but surely dwindling in numbers.
You don't take notice that FNC is the most watched Cable News Netowrk on television.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/08/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-february-7-2013/168751/

Fox is always Number 1, second to CNN, and MSNBC (load of crap) comes in last.


http://rt.com/usa/news/fox-credibility-percent-trust-679/


QuoteNo longer 'fair and balanced'? Americans have been losing faith in Fox News as the networks' credibility has been steadily dwindling, falling by 9 percent in three years.
Fox News' credibility rating has hit a four-year record-low, with the majority of Americans distrusting the conservative-leaning channel. New Public Policy Polling (PPP) results show that 46 percent of voters distrust the network, while only 41 percent of voters perceive its information as reliable.
Other networks included in the poll are MSNBC, CNN, PBS, Comedy Central, ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News. Polling data indicates that Democrats overwhelmingly trust every station except Fox News, while the majority of Republicans trust no other network except for Fox – thereby also causing the network to be highly "trusted".
But even though Fox remains one of the GOP's primary sources of news, its credibility has drastically declined. Even the network's monthly cable news ratings have been going south. Fox News in January suffered its worst prime time rating in the 25-54 year demographic since 2001 and its lowest total day ratings since 2008.


There's more if you click on the link.

Rick Grimes

Rick Grimes

#532
Hmmm...I wonder who they polled the most? Probably Democrats :P

We know that America is mostly Conservative and the country is split, Fox News gives it fair and balanced, they tell both sides of the news and never put a "spin" on their reports like MSNBC. CNN is bleak and bland, straight forward news telling, which I like to watch time from time. 

Eva

Eva

#533
Quote from: Rick Grimes on Feb 09, 2013, 01:29:18 AM
Quote from: Eva on Feb 09, 2013, 01:14:11 AM
I wonder if Murdoch & co will keep pouring money into it and shape their overall agenda in an America where the stations target audience seems to be slowly but surely dwindling in numbers.
You don't take notice that FNC is the most watched Cable News Netowrk on television.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/08/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-february-7-2013/168751/

Fox is always Number 1, second to CNN, and MSNBC (load of crap) comes in last.

Wasn't taking about ratings, but the change in US demographics. Fox News' core audience will primarily consist of a decreasing percentage of the overall populace over the next years. That's a mathematical certainty.

Rick Grimes

Rick Grimes

#534
Quote from: Eva on Feb 09, 2013, 01:42:40 AM
Quote from: Rick Grimes on Feb 09, 2013, 01:29:18 AM
Quote from: Eva on Feb 09, 2013, 01:14:11 AM
I wonder if Murdoch & co will keep pouring money into it and shape their overall agenda in an America where the stations target audience seems to be slowly but surely dwindling in numbers.
You don't take notice that FNC is the most watched Cable News Netowrk on television.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/08/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-february-7-2013/168751/

Fox is always Number 1, second to CNN, and MSNBC (load of crap) comes in last.

Wasn't taking about ratings, but the change in US demographics. Fox News' core audience will primarily consist of a decreasing percentage of the overall populace over the next years. That's a mathematical certainty.

The same can be said for other networks too mind you  ;)

ShadowPred

ShadowPred

#535
Regardless of the way things are, I don't care for any news network, all of them make mistakes, and all of them make points that are credible from time to time. Just look at the person who interviewed Adam Sessler on Fox News recently, I don't think I've ever seen an interviewer in a long time who didn't have their own agenda to push to get a forced response out of someone, that's just one example that I find to be fair, and that's pretty damn neat to me.

Eva

Eva

#536
Quote from: Rick Grimes on Feb 09, 2013, 01:44:23 AM
The same can be said for other networks too mind you  ;)

I'll try again - my point was, are the Fox News owners going to continue their modus operandi and editorial line, if the next Presidential election is also lost to the Dems (which I also consider close to a mathematical certainty if Hillary runs in 2016) and they lose the Congress as well over the next 2-4 years? What's the point of maintaining and funding a propaganda channel if the propaganda isn't working on a national level?

Can Fox News catch up with reality? I guess we'll find out.

Rick Grimes

Rick Grimes

#537
Quote from: Eva on Feb 09, 2013, 01:57:45 AM
Quote from: Rick Grimes on Feb 09, 2013, 01:44:23 AM
The same can be said for other networks too mind you  ;)

I'll try again - my point was, are the Fox News owners going to continue their modus operandi and editorial line, if the next Presidential election is also lost to the Dems (which I also consider close to a mathematical certainty if Hillary runs in 2016) and they lose the Congress as well over the next 2-4 years? What's the point of maintaining and funding a propaganda channel if the propaganda isn't working on a national level?

Can Fox News catch up with reality? I guess we'll find out.

I'm sorry, but I think you're watching the wrong network. I don't see anything broadcast on Fox News that is considered to be "propaganda, political agenda, brainwash."

If you want that, watch MSNBC, they're a bunch of Left Wing nuts who constantly praise and kiss ass to democrats all the time; much like Fox News does to republicans. How can you point out Fox News being pro-republican (which is no doubt they are) and yet completely ignore MSNBC?  Honestly, how much of an idiot are you to not mention them?

At least I'm not dumb enough to think that.  ::)

Eva

Eva

#538
From what I've seen, the other networks (even those biased towards the left), usually deal with facts. Their news coverage is based on factual information and actual journalism.

Fox News aren't afraid to make up their own facts whenever reality doesn't comform with their world view. We are talking about the 'news channel' that refused to acknowledge Obama's win when it was evident, even to their own bean counters. If a news channel over here pulled the same stunt, they'd be out of business. No one would take them seriously anymore.

Rick Grimes

Rick Grimes

#539
Quote from: Eva on Feb 09, 2013, 02:14:08 AM
From what I've seen, the other networks (even those biased towards the left), usually deal with facts. Their news coverage is based on factual information and actual journalism.

Fox News aren't afraid to make up their own facts whenever reality doesn't comform with their world view. We are talking about the 'news channel' that refused to acknowledge Obama's win when it was evident, even to their own bean counters. If a news channel over here pulled the same stunt, they'd be out of business. No one would take them seriously anymore.

I don't think they "refused to acknowledge" Obama won, they just couldn't believe how stupid Americans were to re-elect a dumb president much like they did with Bush. And not to mention, all throughout the 2012 campaign every news network projected Romney to win, so I'd be pretty flabbergasted too if and when he lost.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News