Slashdot Mirror

The extra added benefit of rural living is uber cheap land. I currently own and live on 200 acres with 80 acres being woodland. It's allowed my wife to fulfill her dream of owning a horse ranch. It's quiet, I can only see my neighbors house at night, if they leave the outside lights on. I have DSL, Cable TV, indoor plumbing and the works. Ten years ago I would have told you that I was going to move to a larger city. Now I plan on spending the rest of my life in a rural enviroment. It's pure bliss. YMMV

He also gave an interview on Minnesota Public Radio covering similar topics on September 29. Follow the link for a RealMedia archive.

Gasoline prices at the pump in the US are actually below all-time highs. You can read more about the details here.

In a nutshell, today's US gasoline pump price, in inflation-adjusted dollars, is as cheap as it was in 1986, and cheaper than it ever was before 1969. And when you consider that gasoline taxes have been raised continuously over the years (now to $0.43 per gallon), gasoline itself seems very cheap.

If you want to look at inflation-adjusted crude oil prices, look at this. More recent crude oil prices ($27-$30 / barrel) are up a bit above the hundred-year median price, but still below the highs of the late 70's/early 80's.

Crude oil cost makes up about 40% of gasoline prices, manufacturing and distribution makes up 37%, the rest is taxes.

Should oil prices ever rise, I would expect that plastics would be made with biotechnology, indeed there could be a carbohydrate economy using biotech enzymes to convert cellulose to sugar and then to ethanol.

Hearsay anecdote?

I'm almost offended.

Or maybe you've never heard of corporate welfare. That's understandable.

Let me clarify my statement about taxes that wealthy individuals pay.

So, again. Corporations and the wealthy pay a far lower percentage of their income in federal tax than you or I do. Look into the percentage of federal revenue that comes from corporate tax and income tax from the richest 1% of the population. Compare it to the percentage of revenue from the middle-class' income.

Never mind, I'll do it for you.

This one is purely informational.

How's that for hearsay?

I'm not so worried about NPR so much as I am worried about *Minnesota* Public Radio. Look at this organizational chart here. Among other things APM, the parent of MPR, which is a non-profit, runs a public radio station in California, a theater in Minnesota, for profit radio stations in Minnesota, all in addition to running public radio stations in Minnesota.

actually, if you click on over to the Prairie Home Companion web site while the real-time broadcast is happening, you'll find that yes, you can watch a radio program over the internet.

It's a real treat if you can't conveniently travel to wherever the show is occuring and purchase tickets, or if you'd simply like to see what the stage show is like.

You have a choice of seeing a visual image presented from either a single camera view, or get better coverage from a 3-camera view, if you've got the bandwidth.

Since it is a web site of the local affiliate and not NPR, I see no reason to think that the imagery (whatever it is, I see no player requirement specified) will disappear.

A Prairie Home Companion still does this (though it's more of a tongue-in-cheek thing) for products such as Power Milk Biscuits, and Raspberry Rhubarb Pie. Come to think of it though, isn't the Superbowl now just nothing but entertainment built around commercials?

The quoted article is tame in comparison to what happened in Rapid City, SD in 1972. Cloud seeding was also suspected. The following link describes the flood and the 238 deaths:
www.crh.noaa.gov/


This link tells a bit more on the cloud seeding:

news.mpr.org/


Another article

starryskies.com

The cloud seeding wasn't proven, as it wasn't in many other cases, but public pressured forced SDSM&T to stop doing the experiments all the same.

Oddly enough something similar occurred in Rapid City on June 9m 1972. Stories from the NWS and MPR.

Larry Rosen wrote:

"Just like in Garson Keillor's hometown of Lake Wobegon..."

This is a quasi-reference to the radio show A Prarie Home Companion (with Garrison Keillor), a regular segment of which is indeed titled "News from Lake Wobegon" (Keillor's hometown).

Boy do I feel like an NPR geek for knowning this. Listen it online, or catch it on your local NPR station if you can (in my view, the FM broadcasts sound better, and have much lower bandwidth costs :).

OK, fair enough. Here is MPR's 2001 financial audit. In case your PDF reader is acting up, I'll pull out the relevant numbers:

TOTAL SUPPORT FROM PUBLIC: $30,070k
TOTAL SUPPORT FROM GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES: $4,384k

Here are the top separate sources of funding:

Membership (individual contributions): $8,406k
National underwriting (e.g. PHC sponsorship): $4,999
Grants from endowments: $4,836k
Regional underwriting (local ads): $4,062k
Corporation for Public Broadcasting: $3,523k

Individual contributions are not as large as I remembered, but are still by far the largest. The top-ranking government source is fifth on the list.

a broadcast network pushing an editorial line which is pretty far out of touch with the majority of Americans.

Oh really? Ask any politician who's ever cut public broadcasting funding what kind of response they've received from their constituents.

Or just ask Land's End how much they pay for product placement on Prairie Home Companion. (Hint: you are not going to be a sponsor.)

Sure, you may personally not like NPR, and may have trouble finding people among your friends who do. If you had it your way, you'd cut their budget. Fair enough. If I had it my way, I'd cut the military's budget by about 70%, and eliminate farm subsidies entirely. But neither of us is going to get our way. Welcome to Democracy, kid!

MPR says: "Detroit Free Press technology writer Heather Newman has been testing satellite radio over the past several months, and has some advice. ...In the second part of our conversation, Newman explains the differences in programming on XM and Sirius."

MPR says: "Detroit Free Press technology writer Heather Newman has been testing satellite radio over the past several months, and has some advice. ...In the second part of our conversation, Newman explains the differences in programming on XM and Sirius."

MPR says: "Detroit Free Press technology writer Heather Newman has been testing satellite radio over the past several months, and has some advice. ...In the second part of our conversation, Newman explains the differences in programming on XM and Sirius."

MPR says: "Detroit Free Press technology writer Heather Newman has been testing satellite radio over the past several months, and has some advice. ...In the second part of our conversation, Newman explains the differences in programming on XM and Sirius."

Commercial radio: Covers its budget and makes profit by ensuring that x number of people are tuned in at any given point during the day. This way, discrete ad units can be sold on that assumption that those x number of people will be listening... and eventually buying. The best way to maintain that number is by providing content unlikely to offend the demographic -- something that a listener may not really love, but certainly doesn't dislike enough to turn off. As a result, any discernable flavor is slowly leeched from the on-air content and you're left with Farina Cream of Wheat.

Public radio: Covers its budget through corporate underwriting and getting a certain number of people to contribute during fund drives. As long as this happens, it's mostly irrelevant how many people are listening at any given time. Over the years, the stations have found that one of the best ways to do this is through niche marketing -- even if people only listen to one or two programs a week, they'll likely become contributors if they truly value those shows. (Same thing works on cable. Tons of my friends only have HBO for "Sopranos" and "Six Feet Under".) Hence, the proliferation of such niche programs as Car Talk, The Splendid Table, or (God help me) Satellite Sisters. These multiple viewppoints prove profitable, so they remain a part of public radio. But don't get me wrong, public radio is still capable of selling out just as much as the next station on the dial. (Just check out savewnyc.org for one example of how things can turn ugly.) It just tends to remain more interesting while doing so.

Public radio is the most biased medium in existence

Exaggerate much?

Since Duke of URL mentioned it in his Slashback, I just wanted to pause and note.

Listen to the full report at (Real Audio): http://news.mpr.org/programs/futuretense/daily_raf iles/20020506.ram

Very interesting opinion. I can definitely see where given recent media events this opinion could be formed.

Question: Can you point to one source that indicates the research is a direct result of pro-lifers?

Just because a lot of the attention has been on controversial research as of late. This in no way indicates that concurrent research was the direct result of this attention or moral disagreements.

Note: After further review I have found one supporter who specifically supports ethical research here

But in an article, located here, it is stated, "Even though Verfaillie is a leading research in adult stem cells, she steadfastly believes the government should also fund research on embryonic research". So even though a few supporters may have altruistic goals, this does not necessarily mean the research is founded on the same principles.

Actually, this a useful comparison. The Twins issue is all about coercsion: St. Paul voters (bless them) decided a few years ago not to fund a new stadium for the Twins with tax dollars. There was a lot of bucking and hawing, but the public's message consistently was, "We want the Twins, but we don't want our taxes to fund them." Here's a great feature from Minnesota Public Radio about the whole history of the issue.

A few days ago, the major league basball owners voted to eliminate two teams. It's front-page headlines here. Here's the catch: they've announced that they'll eliminate two, but not which ones. They're basically trying to whip up a lot of public sentiment, and daring the various cities with struggling teams to outdo each other in tax subsidies. It's a disgustingly coersive power play.

And I expect to see the same from Microsoft. If -- we could only wish! -- the court threatens a remedy that will actually have any effect, they'll start dangling their carrots and tying their heroines to the railroad tracks. They already do this in their rhetoric with these far-fetched missives about the economy, freedom, and Technological Progress.

But I expect to see some concretely coersive tactics from Microsoft aimed at the government and the public as a whole, similar to what the baseball owners just did. What will they be? I don't know. But I expect it -- Microsoft is the slyest bunch of bastards on the planet when it comes to business strategy. Any theories?

I used to work at Minnesota Public Radio, which was (and still is) a very fine place. They have the resources (people and money) to maintain a very nice web site -- but they're still public radio, and they're very cost-conscious.

In spite of that, they were very resistant for a long time to free software for exactly the reasons you mentioned. But my boss was a good listener, and when her technical people kept telling her that free was viable, she started to listen. Our sysadmin, in particular, was very persistent -- not rude, just persistent. One day I said to her, "This is the 90s. Half the best software is free." Later, I heard her quoting that to VPs.

And the ideas started to take effect. We switched from Netscape Enterprise Server to Apache, from Webtrends to analog, and my old co-workers tell me there may be some Linux boxes going into production. As the executives saw free software succeeding, they were willing to make the switch. There's a lot of inertia, sure, but execs are generally smart people. Stick with it. Little by little, if they're worth their salt, they'll listen.

It really helps to get a high-profile success with free software. If you're making the case in your company, look for an opportunity to base a project in free software, and make sure it succeeds. This is the most effective argument you can make.

David M. asked " The question then becomes, is free speech deserving of protection? Do governments have the obligation to protect our free speech?" which led Griff W. to ask how this [issues of free speech] differed from other countries (e.g., China) around the world.

Other countries do not have nearly as strong a committment to free speech as is given by the Constitution. Examples of reactionary responses to free-speech enhancing technologies abound, consider: the USSR ban on faxes and personal computers, Chinese efforts to control WWW access, French restrictions on fax paper ("don't want people to be subverted by facts" :-)). The reasons are many, but certainly one of the strongest underlying reasons is the fear that free speech leads to free people (liberation).

We assume (based primarily on our Euro-centric heritage) that free speech is a good thing (I know I certainly do). However, free speech can also lead to a dramatic shift of power from the rulers to the ruled. If a culture's leaders believe that the essence of their culture includes a respect for authority, an orderly transition of power from the elders to the next generation through ritual, attendance to custom and a general respect for tradition, then perhaps restricting free speech becomes part of the price of maintaining that culture.

I think that this is where the experience in other reactionary systems (China, Iran, Afghanistan, France) diverges from the situation on the reservation. The reservation leadership has the freedom to experiment with their own cultural system without having to be concerned that outside armies or internal (armed?) revolutionaries will overthrow their system. They have this freedom precisely because they have bought into letting the US provide protection against these large-scale upheavals.

I also think that the Nations have a unique opportunity to develop and maintain their culture IF they can convince their youth that their way of life is preferred to the "off-reservation" ways. The problem is how to keep the Native culture from becoming just a "hobby" that is practiced only on feast days and during re-enactments for visitors when you cannot close the borders and the lines of communications the way other larger countries have tried. I hate to say it, but this is just another "How 'ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree?" (1919) problem.

----

Some treasure films are now being transferred to DVD.

[1] I couldn't find a URL for it, but the if you sign up for the Prairie Home Companion catalog, you should get Signals as well. The URL for the PHC catalog request form is http://phc.mpr.org/catalog/order_cata log.html.

--
Sean Lamb