Slashdot Mirror

There's an NPR episode of Talk of the Nation entitled "Letters and Ham Radio Lessons". From the website: "...ham radio teacher Rick Stern joins Neal Conan with tips on teaching your kids about ham radio."

There is also this episode of TOTN that covers the topic, featuring the authors of the book Hello World: A Life in Ham Radio.

And in February of this year, All Things Considered ran a piece on the pending approval of a Morse code "at" symbol so that operators could tell others their email addresses. How's that for radio and the internet meeting in the middle?

There's an NPR episode of Talk of the Nation entitled "Letters and Ham Radio Lessons". From the website: "...ham radio teacher Rick Stern joins Neal Conan with tips on teaching your kids about ham radio."

There is also this episode of TOTN that covers the topic, featuring the authors of the book Hello World: A Life in Ham Radio.

And in February of this year, All Things Considered ran a piece on the pending approval of a Morse code "at" symbol so that operators could tell others their email addresses. How's that for radio and the internet meeting in the middle?

There's an NPR episode of Talk of the Nation entitled "Letters and Ham Radio Lessons". From the website: "...ham radio teacher Rick Stern joins Neal Conan with tips on teaching your kids about ham radio."

There is also this episode of TOTN that covers the topic, featuring the authors of the book Hello World: A Life in Ham Radio.

And in February of this year, All Things Considered ran a piece on the pending approval of a Morse code "at" symbol so that operators could tell others their email addresses. How's that for radio and the internet meeting in the middle?

I'm a little disappointed... I mean, I can understand CNN or NBC or someone like that getting a story before /., but NPR?

"But I worked on a school paper when I was a kid and I owned a CB radio when I lived in Texas. And what I saw in the blogosphere on Nov. 2 was more reminiscent of that school paper or a "Breaker, breaker 19" gabfest on CB than anything approaching journalism. "

That, I believe is as good a description of blog culture as we're likely to find.

The reason why publications like the New York Times or National Public Radio are considered authoritative is because they have a long established track record and are trusted to provide a factual and balanced report.*

Bloggers simply do not have that level of trust, They still represent one guy with a website, and are only as reliable as the person typing the blog entry. That does not mean that bloggers do not sometimes add to the coverage of stories, just that they tend to be reactive, and sometimes prone to gossip and rumour more than journalism.

* Except of course by the right wing twits who go on and on about liberal media bias.

"Privatization of Space"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=1280501

They're calling it "performance capture" for exactly one of the reasons (among others, I suppose, too) you say that simple motion capture is insufficient. In this movie, they actually are capturing facial expresions and such. I heard a feature about it on NPR last night. Tom Hanks (who apparently did the "performance" for both the conductor and the child protagonist) was talking about the suit and process he went through, including the 4 minutes spent each day having ihs face painted and prepared for the capture. They perform in a small area with wire mesh objects to represent the items with which their CG counterparts will be interacting. It does sound to some degree more complex than most previous capture endeavors, but also gives the sense that they did not put much priority into tweaking the performance after the recording.

I think a very large part of what made Gollum so successful is that they didn't accept the motion capture as the be-all end-all of the performance. It looks like the animators were most likely able to augment and change the character to achieve something that manages to bridge that uncanny valley. Though I guess his not-quite-human appearance softens the oddness, too.

Here's a link to a page with a link to the audio feature I talked about (the "Listen" button above the picture).

The economies of many central american villages have been greatly affected (in a positive way) by the trafficking of coke. There's an interesting three part story on this done by npr. Personally I see just as many negative effects produced by pot and alcohol as i do coke. I guess it's a matter of how the drugs affect a person living in a particular society. Natives used to chew coca leaves for extra energy during the hunt. It will be very interesting to see how the coca plants resistance to the herbicide will affect the chain.

As I'm typing this, you can listen to Kerry speak live over at NPR. They'll probably have a stream of the speech after it's finished, too.

Because the mainstream US media doesn't care about the rest of the world, either. I listen to the supposedly liberally-biased NPR all the time, and I never heard a single mention of it there. Like so much information that can put BushCo. in a bad light, the only US sources have been specifically Anti-Bush web sites and blogs.

Somehow I wish the wave of the future wasn't here now, but for me it is. My state (maryland) happens to be the only state to fully adopt Touchscreen Voting for this year.

... sorry to burst your bubble

HST feed

Electoral Vote feed

weird news

Distilled and actually interesting NPR

News from the world

1) Who said anything about Gay Sex?

2) "It's not like the Pentagon ordered people to be "tortured" in Abu Gharib". My experience differed.

3) I wasn't comparing Bush to bin Laden. I was comparing Bush's moral certainty to bin Laden's. Ever since I saw Bush when he returned to the White House on September 11th and said "this is a Crusade", I've believed that his moral certainty could be his undoing.

I was behind him though, until he invaded Iraq. I knew it was a mistake to 'go it alone' (which is what we, the UK, Australia and Poland did essentially -- don't say "You forgot Poland!") with Rumsfeld's War on the Cheap. Alone we open ourselves up to charges of "War for Oil", which, given the fact that the President and Vice President are both from the Oil Industry, is a reasonable charge. The growing violence in Iraq makes it clear that Muslim extremists think we're occupiers. Another charge that's hard to refute given our Firing of Jay Garner. In other words, if we had elections in late 2003, we'd be home by now.

4) You think I'm Michael Moore? Strange, I don't think you're Anne Coulter. Don't you think they're too busy bar-b-queuing babies to post on slashdot??

You might want to stop demonizing people and see that people who don't agree with you aren't 'hippies' or 'filmmakers'. They're just people who love their country and have different ideas. If we listen to each other, we both might learn something.

Not just one. From the article on NPR:

"The remains of at least two to three individuals were recovered from the excavation in 2003, and this number has expanded to five to seven with the results of the 2004 field season."

More here

NPR did a story on the most efficient way to search for extra-terrestrial life, where it would be more efficient (energy/economic) to send craft out to distant solar systems rather than beam signals there. Apparantly the loss in signal strength is so severe (inverse square law) that signals get lost in the cosmic background.

This NPR interview (audio) is much more interesting / in-depth:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=1606665

Don't listen to NPR much, do ya'?

listen here

The PBS/NPR crowd is quite aware of these shells.

Let me guess, you don't listen to NPR, but someone told you that they were part of the 'liberal media' and couldn't be trusted to report facts supporting both sides?

You are so ignorant...

Don't listen to NPR much, do ya'?

listen here

The PBS/NPR crowd is quite aware of these shells.

Let me guess, you don't listen to NPR, but someone told you that they were part of the 'liberal media' and couldn't be trusted to report facts supporting both sides?

You are so ignorant...

Enjoy.

NPR is keen to point out that it is only the federal funding of embrionic stem cell research on new lines that is banned.

I can't remember how many times I have had to tell ignorant 'liberal media' types about all of the stories on NPR.

listen to these

On the "Did Saddam Hussein recieve significant amounts of weaponry form the US?" question. I don't recall NPR ever telling me that he did, you got evidance to the contrary?

Remember not all liberals listen to NPR, and not all NPR listeners (though probably most) are liberal.

I am convinced that you can't actually listen to NPR and call it 'liberal media' unless you are such a rabid conservative that you think mentioning both sides is a liberal idea. Most people who bitch about NPR being too liberal, don't even know what is on NPR.

I will not comment on the NYT as I only occasionally read an article online...

NPR is keen to point out that it is only the federal funding of embrionic stem cell research on new lines that is banned.

I can't remember how many times I have had to tell ignorant 'liberal media' types about all of the stories on NPR.

listen to these

On the "Did Saddam Hussein recieve significant amounts of weaponry form the US?" question. I don't recall NPR ever telling me that he did, you got evidance to the contrary?

Remember not all liberals listen to NPR, and not all NPR listeners (though probably most) are liberal.

I am convinced that you can't actually listen to NPR and call it 'liberal media' unless you are such a rabid conservative that you think mentioning both sides is a liberal idea. Most people who bitch about NPR being too liberal, don't even know what is on NPR.

I will not comment on the NYT as I only occasionally read an article online...

NPR is keen to point out that it is only the federal funding of embrionic stem cell research on new lines that is banned.

I can't remember how many times I have had to tell ignorant 'liberal media' types about all of the stories on NPR.

listen to these

On the "Did Saddam Hussein recieve significant amounts of weaponry form the US?" question. I don't recall NPR ever telling me that he did, you got evidance to the contrary?

Remember not all liberals listen to NPR, and not all NPR listeners (though probably most) are liberal.

I am convinced that you can't actually listen to NPR and call it 'liberal media' unless you are such a rabid conservative that you think mentioning both sides is a liberal idea. Most people who bitch about NPR being too liberal, don't even know what is on NPR.

I will not comment on the NYT as I only occasionally read an article online...

NPR already covered it.

Check out this NPR radio segment where Peter Rojas of Engadget talks about hardware hacking the iPod and other stuff.

NPR's All Things Considered had a segment on this device yesterday.

Sorry, but I heard this story myself. It was a pretty thorough multi-part series on issues caused by the surge of middle eastern immigration to parts of Europe.

There are few people that would call NPR a "far-right idiot arsehole", in fact they tend to lean left IMHO, but they are generally considered a credible news source. There is no text on the rapes issue, but you can listen to the audio on NRP's web site

I scrolled through this topic and didn't see anyone mention it, so I thought I'd share. Here's a link to John Stewart being interviewed on Fresh Air on NPR. This interview took place after his book came out. He goes into more detail about what he thinks about the Media, politics etc... If you enjoyed Stewart on Cross-fire, check this out. It's at the top of the page.

http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?displayValue= day&todayDate=09/30/2004

He did do a good job considering the situation. But that just isn't that impressive. Or at least not as impressive as a lot of comments in this thread are suggesting the performance was. This performance does not show a mind at work. This performance didn't even stick it to crossfire really. Please listen to this link. It is jon stewart being very impressive forming interesting ideas and siting examples to back up the ideas. Much more impressive than his book. I am impressed by jon stewart. I am not all that impressed by jon stewart in this video.

First off I'm a big Jon Stewart fan. I've read his most recent book and used to listen to his stand up a lot. Did jon stewart catch Begowa and Carlson off guard. Absolutely. Of course the format of their show is that they attack and they ask the questions so of course they are off guard when their show and themselves became the topic of attack. Although Jon Stewart defended himself well against attacks from Carlson, Stewart did not form strong arguments himself against cross fire: at least not in this interview. Yes he called the show theatre over and over again but what did this mean? He started to have an interesting point about politicos using disingenuous arguments because the ends justified the means but he didn't develop this point and certainly didn't even hint why this was cross fires fault. In the end when he was asked if cross fire was "too easy" on its guests he said no that's not it and then sort of stared off and mumbled a bit. To be fair he wasn't given much opportunity to develop his points. A good interview where he does develop his points is here at freshair.

Really my big problem with the crossfire interview is that when you go on the show as a guest you are agreeing to be the topic of debate. If you want to attack the crossfire guys the venue to do that is to have the hosts interviewed on a different show. How much of a point are you making when you catch people off guard who aren't intending to be asked questions. Let them prepare to defend them selves and have them interviewed to see if crossfire can be defended.

NPR also offers Real streams, which tend to be more non-Windows friendly. Here's the one for this show:

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.html?prgCode=FA&showDat e=30-Sep-2004&segNum=1&NPRMediaPref=RM

The media isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't liberal... it's simply profitable.

My first reaction was "Yeah, that's the truth." But then I started thinking: I am a regular listener to NPR, and though their coverage of news is better (in my opinion) it's still not all that different. It could be because they still have to get corporate contributions, or is it more than that? One could also look at network news vs. the newshour on PBS to see the difference. Does that difference account for everything that's wrong with the news? I'm not sure it does.

Personally, I have a few peeves I'm not sure that other people share. One is that the media is not factual enough. Sure they will sometimes quote a statistic out of context, but they often don't have enough in depth covereage of the hard facts to give you a real idea of what they are. It's mostly a few statistics, press releases from political parties or corporations, and pundits, none of which give you much idea of the facts alone. Another issue is that they seem to believe that being unbiased means giving equal time to each viewpoint, rather than considering it on the basis of the facts that they're supposed to be reporting. If a polititian is wrong, they should say so, even if one is wrong more often than another. Finally, they need to challenge officials more in interviews, not so much in the O'reilly style of just barking their opinion (which is useless) but by assulting them with the hard facts to make it clear to everyone when they're lying. Those are my 2 cents, anyway.

For a very interesting and more serious interview with Jon Stewart, head to this NPR interview:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4054791

Great interview, plenty of laughs, but also a truly inspiring take on the media circus overall.

This is a fantastic interview that I heard both on the radio when it aired and then later on NPR. If you forward to around 11 minutes into the broadcast (IIRC) you'll hear a hilarious clip of Stewart making a complete ass out of a Republican trying to explain how they decided Kerry is the #1 most liberal in Congress. A classic!

I've read about a single case involving less than 100 Democrats' registrations being ripped up. Can you cite references to the thousands? Honest question, I just haven't read about that many.

Would it matter if I did? If you had a strong suspicion that the GOP were actively encouraging vote fraud, I expect that you would avert your gaze or seek to justify it. If there is one thing I have learned about modern conservatives it is that they have wholly abdicated any and all responsiblity and morality.

Nonetheless.

GOP fraud in Oregon, GOP fraud in Arizona, Nevada (another), and so forth and so on. Look for yourself, not that I expect you to actually meaningfully CRITICIZE the GOP.

For some other info, google "climatologist global warming" and see what you get.
I get "The IPCC claims that human activities are responsible for nearly all the earth's recorded warming during the past two centuries," said NCPA Adjunct Scholar David Legates, the report's author and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. "Yet the primary assessment they use as support appears to be more junk science than solid evidence."
And Christy is a respected climatologist, but he's also a maverick who argues that global warming isn't a problem worth worrying about.
Of course there's Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels says fears of catastrophic global warming are scientifically unfounded and "alarmist." Any climate change that does occur would not affect Earth or its inhabitants in any significant way, he said.

The problem with Arguing by Authority is that there are so many authorities. It becomes a clash of "My scientist is better than your scientist." You do not need to believe me instead of the scientists (which, of course, are one homogeneous group who believe exactly the same thing, viz. harmful and unprecendented global warming is going on right now). You may believe me *and* the scientists.

On what evidence/logic do you reach this conclusion. On the other hand, it's not like the debate is effective now. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4052162

As a previous poster commented, NPR has several very good programs. I suggest you check them out:

NPR Web Site

As far as music, hell no. I'd never use this for music. But I'd *definitely* use it to TiVo programs like "Car Talk" and "Prairie Home Companion."

p

Your favorite NPR shows are all at npr.org, almost immediately after broadcast. In fact I listen to NPR more online now than on the radio, partly because of timeshifing, and partly because my local stations don't carry all the shows I like.

National Public Radio has an audio link on this page http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3&pr gDate=8-Oct-2004 ("Campaign Security Screening Crowds for Doubters) in which citizens were denied entrance to appearances by President Bush. In several of the cases people wearing Kerry t-shirts were told they could not enter because the "secret service" had "flagged" them. One man, who tried to vouch for his companions, was removed because he had also been flagged simply because he was with them. One woman was refused entry to a venue because she had a t-shirt over her arm (not wearing it) advocating abortion rights. Several of the people were threatened with arrest by the Secret Service. There was at least one arrest at a location by local police who said they were acting at the behest of the "White House" while the Mayor claimed that they were acting on a request by the Secret Service.

The Secret Service denies arresting people simply because they are wearing Kerry t-shirts but admit that they would question anyone who was being removed from a venue by security people. While it is lawful for a private function to deny entry to people on whatever grounds they choose, for a Presidential appearance which has been paid for by the taxpayers, it is unlawful (and un-American) to deny any citizen entry for simply wearing a t-shirt that indicates opposition to that President.

NPR has a copy of the photo of the undercover Swiss police here

Only Americans that don't listen to NPR are under that misconception.

There was a transition in public thinking in America from the 1960's to the 1980's (Reagan was a big force in this movement) that government could do good for the public to a belief that anything the government does could only do things badly (inefficient, red tape, bureaucracy, fraud-infested).

As usual, the truth is never so simple: government is capable of doing good or evil just as much as the people that comprise it.

Read (er listen) up on it here.

It's true. The more ridiculous and comedic the show, the more you can learn from it. I got 6 out of 6 on the quiz. Where do I get my news?

A quiz show.

Er...that...and Morning Edition. I guess that might have something to do with it too.

WE WERE ATTACKED ON 9/11.

"Thank you England and Poland and the other nations in our coalition. Together, we will root out and wipe out terrorism anywhere, anytime, in any country that threatens us."

Which happened just in time to prevent anyone from noticing that the House Ethics Committee was a tad upset with Tom DeLay over his handling of the medicare vote last year.

Yup. I remember the painfully pretentious National Public Radio bit on Black and White. And it sounded like you'd get a Ph.D in philosophy by playing the game.

NPR reported about Diebold a few times. It's getting some coverage, but I agree, not enough.

If you like the Daily Show, you should take a listeng to this FreshAir interview with John Stewart that was broadcast on NPR today.

For the first part of the interview he is trademark Stewart, mixing wise cracks with straight lines just about evenly, but about 15 minutes into the interview it really changes. The interviewer starts talking about the reputation that The Daily Show, the self-described "fake news show" has developed as one of the most perceptive analysts of the current state of American politics. Stewart is quite modest, but displays a marvelous level of understanding of the role of the media in America, and the way that its has abrogated its responsibility to be a skeptical filter and not simply an uncritical platform for the political spin-meister of the moment.

The great irony, of course, is that very few of the talking heads in the "non-fake news" business seem to have this level of understanding of the responsibility they bear.

Correct. It was not a real debate. Check out the Top 10 things they don't want you to know about the debates.

(9.) "The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986." "The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot , and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn't like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986 ."