Slashdot Mirror

Looking at the unused iTunes icons that shipped with your new version of 10.4, you'll notice icons for currently-not-supported ogg vorbis and Windows Media Audio (wma), as well as several others including a variety of video formats, too.

There are many journalists and media sources who do not give in to the profit first mentality, i.e. democracynow.org, freespeech.org, pbs.org. Granted some of the messages from these outlets can be just as hair brained and off base as the paid shills, but they are out there none the less.

I will agree that for profit journalists and media bring in more cash for themselves and have the resources to make more noise and be in more peoples faces. However, the attention they get is not due to demand for their product no more than rubber neckers at a train wreck create a demand for more train wrecks.

And in case you haven't noticed, those same for profit journalists, media, and their corporate backers with deep pockets are funding a massive attack on the linux community because the community threatens their for profit revenue streams. The level of education and susceptibility of the community have little to do with the unethical actions of those who would attack the community.

burnin

(doh, forgot to post anonymously, maybe next time)

The PBS Triumph of the Nerds specials have additional information on the early years of the Personal Computer.

Scientific American Frotntiers, the PBS science show hosted by Alan Alda, recently did a segment on this technology and how it worked for a man who was blinded as an adult. The other segment was on a deaf girl who received a cochlear implant.

Strangely, this all comes back to how organized fundamentalist religion is ruining this country.

...and it all goes up in a puff of smoke

Well, I did make a jump. All the steps were there, I just didn't feel like typing them. I think it was widely accepted that the "family values" vote was what helped Bush win. It's funny how he spouts on about "family values" considering his past and present. Yet he continues to push his religious agenda. While spending hundreds of billions of dollars for a war whose cause has still yet to be explained. That has been declared a victory, yet people are still dying every day, years later, because of it.

He is well known to have ties with evangelical religion. See this PBS story on it. It was just one that I found quite quickly via Google. He has implemented a "faith-based initiative". He wants to push his own religious beliefs on the rest of the country (gay marriage, abortion, censorship). Bush is ruining this country at an alarming pace, and we are going to be paying for it for many generations. His religious beliefs are by his own admission the force that is driving him. This is bigger than just the current clown that we have in the White House.

UWB has been the latest buzz for a while. Reminded me when I, Cringely was all over it making it out to be the next big thing. That was in 2002 though. Time will tell....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/

Furthermore, the two towers are located on a relatively 'soft' foundation -- they essentially 'float' on sea of soft land.

Interesting. There's some architectural info, Flash enabled, at PBS also on some of the new buildings (mainly the one at Shanghai), but not much detail.

But even that idea isn't relatively new, I believe it was one of the ideas proposed for the foundation of a nuclear power plant in Meehan's excellent book on this subject, The Atom and The Fault

Bridges? Like the Tacoma Narrows Galloping Gertie? I dunno...

It's about time Al Gore gets the recognition he deserves. After all Al Gore is known as the inspiration to American's who suffer from Dutch Elm disease. And he reminded us there was no controlling legal authority in the White House while he made calls asking for contributions. And if he'd won in 2000, we wouldn't be able to enjoy the Bush or chimp pictures.

At least in your truck you can reboot it easily, just pull over.

They're about to launch an airline with a plane that runs Windows for its control systems. How do you pull-over mid flight?

Guess who I'll never be flying with?

"IBM leaving the PC business seems sad"

This deal isn't exactly about IBM leaving the PC business. They are buying there way in to the Chinese marketplace on the coattails of China's largest PC manufacturer, by practicly giving away one of their crown jewels, though one that is not profitable and they don't really want. Cringley did a decent job of describing all the not so obvious angles to this deal last year.

Every greedy capitalist and multinational on the planet wants to get in to China's markets because they are poised for explosive growth and in fact already are exploding. This is IBM's roundabout way of doing just that.

China's government and business leaders figured out early on that rather than just letting big American and European companies just come in and loot their markets that it would be better to force them to partner with Chinese companies, move their manufacturing to China and transfer their capital and IP to China. It was a smart strategy because it gave them a huge jumpstart thanks to the infusion of capital and IP and its allowing them to rapidly surpass their American and European benefactors, and Asian competitors. China is growing a LOT faster, thanks to Western help, than it ever could of on its own. Many American companies are crating up whole factories, machine tools, etc and just shipping them to China, that is a massive migration of capital and aboon to China.

China can force this kind of deal because Chinese markets are NOT even remotely free, the government massively manipulates them and manipulates all the Western companies who want to do business there. Lenovo is heavily influenced by the Chinese government like most big Chinese companies.

It is long term a pretty raw deal for Americans and Europeans but it is short term very profitable for them and thats all most stock market obsessed western execs care about, short term profitability just long enough for them to make their killing on their stock. They dramaticly cut their labor costs by disposing of expensive western labor and they gain access to big, fast growing new markets, both things which are very good for your short term stock price. They choose to ignore that long term its unlikely their Chinese partners will need them and someday their Chinese partners will probably bury them.

Market growth is a also a big factor here, American, Japan and European markets are mature, saturated, tired, slow growth and obviously the labor is way overpriced in a newly globalized market place. Real wages aren't growing in those places so most people don't have any new money to spend buying products. The head of GE was on Charlie Rose a while ago and he spelled it out. All big multinationals are moving all their labor intensive jobs to the cheapest, friendliest(a.k.a oppressed) labor market and China is the leader by far in that arena. They are also completely fixated on tapping new markets with growth potential those are in places like China, India, Russia and Eastern Europe not the U.S., Western Europe and Japan.

There is a whole lot of basic Marxism/Capitalism going on here. Capitalism is always going to flow production to the cheapest labor and sales to the growing markets. When growth slows and stops in the developed nations they have to pump up new markets in the underdeveloped world by employing workers there, pumping money in to their economies and training them in rampant consumerism. If you don't brainwash people in these new markets that they must have cars, fast food and appliances capitalism would starve.

Unfortunately capitalism really isn't a sustainable economic model. Eventually the world is going to burst at the seams from the overpopulation of rampant consumers, pollution, resource exhaustion, etc. America got away with its extravagantly wasteful life style for half a century but when you introduce the same excess in places like China and India the world is going to run out finite

2. How much money can be made by knowing what the actual risk is. If you don't know the risk, you estimate high, and put lots of dollars in a reserve account. If you do know the risk accurately, you usually can greatly lower reserves to accurately meet even very bad case estimated losses, and use the rest of the money to fund interest-generating ventures.

This approach usually defines risk independently (typically as variance around a mean) for each individual item. The items are then observed (or just assumed) to have low enough correlations so that if one item fails, enough others are OK so that the reserves need only cover the probability of a small number of failures.

Hedge fund LTCM took this strategy to the limit by borrowing heavily -- in effect reducing reserves to a large negative number. LTCM essentially made money by noting when the cost differences of various instruments were out of line with their historic risk patterns. But even Nobel Prize Winners can't estimate all potentially significant risks correctly. Once in a great while, everything crashes together and reserves aren't enough, let alone negative reserves. When the Russian debt crisis happened in the fall of 1998, all of the instruments LTCM dealt in suddenly moved in lockstep as investors around the world fled to safer things like TBills. When LTCM died, they almost took the capital markets down with them because large international banks had loaned LTCM their play money based on those risk models.

To the evolutionist I ask: How did matter or energy come into existence?

Your point is flawed because of your presupposition that "Universal Intelligent Designer" is based in our space/time domain.

Mathmaticians are certian that they are more then just four dimensions. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/math-flash.ht ml (flash fun)

You should watch the PBS Special, Burden of Innocence. It has interviews with a lot of people who were wrongfully convicted for rape and other crimes, and then their story of how impossible it was to find jobs even when they were completely exonerated.
To quote the site directly:
Only 17 jurisdictions have laws providing monetary compensation to the wrongfully convicted. Of these, the amount of compensation varies widely, from a maximum of $5,000 under federal law, to an unlimited cap in New York and West Virginia.(from here) - That basically means if the Federal Govt fucks up and wrongfully convicts you, you can only sue for $5,000.

You should watch the PBS Special, Burden of Innocence. It has interviews with a lot of people who were wrongfully convicted for rape and other crimes, and then their story of how impossible it was to find jobs even when they were completely exonerated.
To quote the site directly:
Only 17 jurisdictions have laws providing monetary compensation to the wrongfully convicted. Of these, the amount of compensation varies widely, from a maximum of $5,000 under federal law, to an unlimited cap in New York and West Virginia.(from here) - That basically means if the Federal Govt fucks up and wrongfully convicts you, you can only sue for $5,000.

A bacterium cell that's become resistant isn't a mutation. Why do you think that people get a shot for the chicken pox? So that they will become resistant to it. That's not a mutation...it's resistance. It's like saying that our cells mutated after we got the shot from the dr.'s office for the chicken pox.

My goodness, if you think human resistance to disease and bacterium restistance to anti-biotics are the same, then you are truly need an education.

Bacteria becomes resistant to anti-biotics because of two independant, yet interrelated things. First, some bacteria, through random mutations, develop the trait that makes anti-biotics inneffective on them. Now, this trait, as long as it doesn't prevent the bacteria from reproducing, will remain dormant. The numbers of this bacteria will remain small, perhaps miniscule, because of the vast numbers of "normal" bacteria. The trait may or may not get passed on. Now, when anti-biotics are miss-used, those bacteria without the mutation are wiped out. Only those with the mutation, however small, survive and reproduce. With no other normal bacteria to compete with, this mutant reproduces at will and becomes dominant. Suddenly there are strains of bacteria for which anti-biotics are useless. And if this doesn't happen, the species goe extinct.

That, my friend, is the process of evolution. It works at the microscopic and macroscopic levels (otherwise you might be a homo erectus rather than a neanderthal). This example is somewhat simplistic but you see the elegance process. Random mutation+change in the environment will stir evolution - only those able to adapt to the new environment will survive to reproduce and thus propgate the mutant genes. After a few million years, you fit your environment so perfectly, you'd swear the environment was designed for you...;-)

It takes more faith to believe that we came from some dust and gravity than to believe that there is a God that made us. You seem to be denying God an awful lot...are you mad at God for something? Or are you just an atheist who doesn't believe in God so that you can do whatever you want without consequences?

I guess it would be easier for you to believe that, wouldn't it. I go where the evidence takes me. I don't need faith to believe "we came from dust and gravity" because that is where the evidence points. There is no evidence for God. I'm not "mad at God"...I can't be mad at something that, as far as I am concerned, doesn't exist. I am "one of those atheists" who doesn't believe in God because there is no evidence. I believe in cooperation, altruism and the ethics and philosophy that spring from them because it has been shown to provide an evolutionary advantage and is thus, the best survival strategy. Doing what I want want without regard fo the conse

Well, some people may remember that in 1998, a US pilot flew a jet into a ski gondola in the italian alps and killed 20 people. He was brought back to the US very fast (IIRC before notifying italian police). He was later acquited in an US court.

Not difficult to see why italians have difficulties to trust US army "judicial" system.

---

Excellent PBS video on race between government and Celera to crack the human genome:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/program.html

Mirrors please..

Municipalities have a valuable role to play in filing this gap. Municipalities have a long history of providing necessary services for citizens and stimulating local businesses. In the 20th century, municipalities built power plants and telephone lines when private services did not move fast enough. Our competitive power and telecoms industries today demonstrate that these services by municipalities complement private industry rather than compete with it. In addition, municipalities have a long history of spending money to benefit their citizens and encourage business development. They should have the same opportunity to offer public hot spots and broadband access.

From 2001- 2004 the United States dropped from 4th to 13th place in global rankings of broadband Internet usage. Today, most U.S. homes can access only 'basic' broadband, among the slowest, most expensive and least reliable in the developed world. Nearly all Japanese have access to 'high-speed' broadband, with an average connection time 16 times faster than in the United States - for only about $22 a month. South Korea, which has the world's greatest percentage of broadband users, and urban China, which last year surpassed the U.S. in the number of broadband users.

The solution is not to protect the baby bells and cable companies from competition; it is instead to encourage more competition. Communities across the country are experimenting with ways to supplement private service. And these experiments are producing unexpected economic returns. Some are discovering that free wireless access increases the value of public spaces just as street lamps do. And just as street lamps don't make other types of lighting obsolete, free wireless access in public spaces won't kill demand for access in private spaces. Yet we will never recognize these externalities unless municipalities are free to experiment.

Source: NY Times & http://www.pbs.org/now/

Cringely had a bit about this a while back as well, I haven't read enough of TFAs to know if they are really arguing on exactly the same point, but it seems similar...
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010802. html

From it:

According to these programmers, Microsoft wants to replace TCP/IP with a proprietary protocol -- a protocol owned by Microsoft -- that it will tout as being more secure. Actually, the new protocol would likely be TCP/IP with some of the reserved fields used as pointers to proprietary extensions, quite similar to Vines IP, if you remember that product from Banyan Systems. I'll call it TCP/MS.

How do you push for the acceptance of a new protocol? First, make the old one unworkable by placing millions of exploitable TCP/IP stacks out on the Net, ready-to-use by any teenage sociopath. When the Net slows or crashes, the blame would not be assigned to Microsoft. Then ship the new protocol with every new copy of Windows, and install it with every Windows Update over the Internet. Zero to 100 million copies could happen in less than a year, and that year could be prior to the new protocol even being announced. It could be shipping right now.

The problem currently stands that proof to Fermat's Last Theorem can only be given by some very complicated math that maybe 1% of the population could understand. It is my understanding that this proof would provide a more simple (read elegant) proof for the Theorem.

For those of you wondering, the reason why the Theorem was so important was due to Fermat himself. In the margin of a book he wrote that he had a proof for his theorem but it was too long to put in the margin. That was the only mention of a proof given by Fermat and for a couple hundred years mathemeticians have been trying to complete the proof. I am fairly certain that Wiles's proof is not the same as Fermat's as some of the concepts used to prove it were not around in Fermat's time. I do not, however, know if this proof could have been the one given by Fermat.

And if that hasn't show off my geekdom enough, the PBS show Nova has a great video on the subject of Fermat's Last Theorem (which I sadly own).

The Wal-mart opposition is quite varied. The opposition is on sexism grounds (men get paid more in every position - regional vice presidents make twice as much; also, the higher the rank, the fewer the women - regional vice presidents are only 9% female); on labor grounds (they're radically anti-union, to the point that they've closed entire stores to block unions); on pay/benefits grounds (the majority of its employees live below the poverty line); on political grounds (Wal-Mart gives heavily to Republicans, and actively supports right-wing political causes); and a host of other issues. Furthermore, not all big companies are despised; for example, CostCo is typically viewed as a socially responsible alternative - they pay their workers very generously by comparison.

The Wal-mart opposition is quite varied. The opposition is on sexism grounds (men get paid more in every position - regional vice presidents make twice as much; also, the higher the rank, the fewer the women - regional vice presidents are only 9% female); on labor grounds (they're radically anti-union, to the point that they've closed entire stores to block unions); on pay/benefits grounds (the majority of its employees live below the poverty line); on political grounds (Wal-Mart gives heavily to Republicans, and actively supports right-wing political causes); and a host of other issues. Furthermore, not all big companies are despised; for example, CostCo is typically viewed as a socially responsible alternative - they pay their workers very generously by comparison.

You may want to read a Jobs quote, in the transcripts of the "Triumph of the Nerds", part 3 Halfway through the page, Jobs talks about Picasso saying this.

It might have helped a novice like the author who isn't used to reading internal government documents but I don't think that was the real problem. Remember government reports are probably formatted and have been formatted in a certain way for specific purpose. Government officials are probably used to the format so it's not a matter of comprehension. I don't think it was a matter of threat assessment either.

Several government officials did recognize the threat. Members of the FBI anti-terrorism groups were alerted that an attack was imminent but due to poor communication between the intelligence agencies no one person had all the details of where, who, how, etc. The problem was, for whatever reason, those in charge at the highest levels did think an attack was imminent.

Frontline carried a story of former FBI agent John O'Neil a year after 9/11. "The Man Who Knew" chronicles his time at the FBI where he became the FBI's foremost expert on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Due to some personal problems and professional problems with his superiors, he left the FBI after his superiors stopped listening to his warnings. Ironically, he took a job as head of security of the WTC in the August 2001 and was among those killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11.

It might have helped a novice like the author who isn't used to reading internal government documents but I don't think that was the real problem. Remember government reports are probably formatted and have been formatted in a certain way for specific purpose. Government officials are probably used to the format so it's not a matter of comprehension. I don't think it was a matter of threat assessment either.

Several government officials did recognize the threat. Members of the FBI anti-terrorism groups were alerted that an attack was imminent but due to poor communication between the intelligence agencies no one person had all the details of where, who, how, etc. The problem was, for whatever reason, those in charge at the highest levels did think an attack was imminent.

Frontline carried a story of former FBI agent John O'Neil a year after 9/11. "The Man Who Knew" chronicles his time at the FBI where he became the FBI's foremost expert on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Due to some personal problems and professional problems with his superiors, he left the FBI after his superiors stopped listening to his warnings. Ironically, he took a job as head of security of the WTC in the August 2001 and was among those killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11.

cheers

PBS' Frontline (excellent program) aired a piece called The Persuaders. Luntz is featured in the 5th chapter.

This was actually discussed on the last episode of "Nova: Science Now". You can check out the segment on this link:
PBS Site

As soon as the company went public, it changed. "Don't be evil" immediately took a backseat to "make money" on the day that happened. It is inevitable. Look at the "innovations" that google had come out with in the past year or so since going public.

They have gmail, which sounds like a great idea, but they do scan the content of the emails to put ads there. They claim no humans see the messages, and we have no proof otherwise, but it is a dangerous idea.

So far, this is all fact. Now my fear is definately theory bordering on conspiracy and I admit that. The sad fact is that all of this is possible and it shouldn't be this close.

They have admitted to the New York Times back in November of 2002 that , "Searches are logged by time of day, originating I.P. address (information that can be used to link searches to a specific computer), and the sites on which the user clicked.". Combine that with gmail and you get a database full of privacy violation. But that is just the start.

In the same New York Times article, when asked if they have ever turned any of this information over to anyone, they denied comment and refused to answer. The fact is that if they didn't log all of this data, and make these intrusive privacy policies, they wouldn't be putting our privacy at risk like this.

What about blogger? Do you think they log that also? Of course they do. They log the people who visit and what they read. They log who says what in their blogs. Then there is Picasa, for pictures on your hard drive. Don't even THINK about what they could find out from that desktop search tool that scours your entire hard drive for all of your files. Maybe it doesn't report everything now, but how long before they do? It may just be flipping a switch in the software to "phone home" with the information on the next update. By the time anyone knows, it is too late. the thought police are coming!

Now many many sites track similar information. Google is by no means the only one guilty of this type of tracking. But because of the large number of their "innovations" they have to potential to tie it all together and create a file on each and every user they have by data mining that information. They most assuredly have profiles on all of us and that should scare you to death. What have you used google for?

Yes, I am playing the "what if" game. But the fact is that it is dangerously close. The same holds true for Microsoft. I just don't have the same level of trust for google that I once had. As soon as they sold out to stickholders, I immediately worried that it would only be a matter of time before this huge database of profiles would be sold to the highest bidder (if it is not already). It is just getting too close to my privacy for my comfort which is why I am very careful about how I use Google and all of their wonderful "innovations".

I think everyone should do the same.

source: "Postcards from planet Google" November 28, 2002.

source: NewsHour with Jim Lehrer November 29, 2002.

source: google-watch.org

source: Binary Revolution Radio episodes 87,86,70,43,42,41.

You mean like Cringely outlined back in November.

Some research on this was done before.

There was also this fellow, British I think, who did a documentary about early human migration using genetics, he was on TV (PBS?) a few years back. Nice work. He showed that there were two waves out of Africa. One hugged the coastline reaching India then all the way to Australia, and another going to central Asia, then staying there for a while, and then a branch going west to Europe, and another going east to Siberia, Beringia, and eventually to the Americans. Can't remember his name. Rats!

Some other resources:

Scientists trace human migration using DNA.

Wikipedia article on Human migration.

Stephen Oppenheimer did a genetic map.

Kurgan Genetics.

Neanderthaals and mtDNA

Here is a link to some information covered by a Nova documentary of Ramachandran's work. I saw the doco and found it really interesting. The case studies give summaries about what it covered. I was particularly interested in the one in which Ramachandran simply used a mirror in a box to get rid of the phantom limb pain a subject was experiencing. It gives an interesting insight into the connection between body and mind, because in this instance, it was just the visual image of the person's missing limb that somehow provided some neurological feedback that affected the physical sensation of that missing limb.

Here is a link to some information covered by a Nova documentary of Ramachandran's work. I saw the doco and found it really interesting. The case studies give summaries about what it covered. I was particularly interested in the one in which Ramachandran simply used a mirror in a box to get rid of the phantom limb pain a subject was experiencing. It gives an interesting insight into the connection between body and mind, because in this instance, it was just the visual image of the person's missing limb that somehow provided some neurological feedback that affected the physical sensation of that missing limb.

Here is a link to some information covered by a Nova documentary of Ramachandran's work. I saw the doco and found it really interesting. The case studies give summaries about what it covered. I was particularly interested in the one in which Ramachandran simply used a mirror in a box to get rid of the phantom limb pain a subject was experiencing. It gives an interesting insight into the connection between body and mind, because in this instance, it was just the visual image of the person's missing limb that somehow provided some neurological feedback that affected the physical sensation of that missing limb.

I'm impressed that so many cities seem to get the idea of blanketing the metro area with wireless, but it also concerns me because the technology changes so quickly.

If Cringely is to be trusted, all these cities are making a huge mistake. 802.11g absolutely sucks for what these cities are trying to do. When WiMax starts being deployed, the citizens of these WiFi cities are going to be mighty angry that these companies are providing a service that is far better than what their legislators are pushing through. In addition, they're polluting the 2.4 GHz spectrum for people who want their own WiFi networks. It's just a bad idea, and there are better solutions in the pipeline.

[Risky business]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/familyincome.html
[Income Volatility in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/incomevolatility.h tml
[Financial State of the Union]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/financialstate.htm l
[American's and debt]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bankruptcy.html
[Wage trends in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/newjobs.html
[Trade and Employment issues]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradeissues.html
[The social security debate]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/socialsecdebate.ht ml

[Risky business]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/familyincome.html
[Income Volatility in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/incomevolatility.h tml
[Financial State of the Union]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/financialstate.htm l
[American's and debt]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bankruptcy.html
[Wage trends in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/newjobs.html
[Trade and Employment issues]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradeissues.html
[The social security debate]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/socialsecdebate.ht ml

[Risky business]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/familyincome.html
[Income Volatility in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/incomevolatility.h tml
[Financial State of the Union]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/financialstate.htm l
[American's and debt]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bankruptcy.html
[Wage trends in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/newjobs.html
[Trade and Employment issues]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradeissues.html
[The social security debate]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/socialsecdebate.ht ml

[Risky business]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/familyincome.html
[Income Volatility in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/incomevolatility.h tml
[Financial State of the Union]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/financialstate.htm l
[American's and debt]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bankruptcy.html
[Wage trends in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/newjobs.html
[Trade and Employment issues]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradeissues.html
[The social security debate]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/socialsecdebate.ht ml

[Risky business]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/familyincome.html
[Income Volatility in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/incomevolatility.h tml
[Financial State of the Union]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/financialstate.htm l
[American's and debt]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bankruptcy.html
[Wage trends in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/newjobs.html
[Trade and Employment issues]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradeissues.html
[The social security debate]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/socialsecdebate.ht ml

[Risky business]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/familyincome.html
[Income Volatility in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/incomevolatility.h tml
[Financial State of the Union]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/financialstate.htm l
[American's and debt]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bankruptcy.html
[Wage trends in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/newjobs.html
[Trade and Employment issues]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradeissues.html
[The social security debate]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/socialsecdebate.ht ml

[Risky business]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/familyincome.html
[Income Volatility in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/incomevolatility.h tml
[Financial State of the Union]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/financialstate.htm l
[American's and debt]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bankruptcy.html
[Wage trends in America]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/newjobs.html
[Trade and Employment issues]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradeissues.html
[The social security debate]
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/socialsecdebate.ht ml

Some of their conclusions:
1) The industry experienced a huge boom during the early to mid 90s as CD players became inexpensive to buy.
2) A good portion of those buying CDs were not buying new albums but CD versions of existing music in their collections.

So the music industry was experiencing golden years due to a new emerging technology and the fact that people were replacing vinyl and cassettes with CDs to augment this new emerging technology. But that behavior only lasts so long. Eventually people would have replaced their collections. They would be buying new music but not at the rates as before.

Also, although the manufacturing costs of a CD have dropped dramatically, their prices were still higher than cassettes which cost more to make. This was done for years due to collusion by the music industry and retailers to keep the prices artificially high. This collusion has been documented as part of settlements of lawsuits.

What's more important is that the industry has expected the profits to be the same as that during the boom times even though times were changing. In most industies, the newest products and prototypes are always the most expensive. When economies of scale kick in and manufacturing becomes more efficient, prices start to drop. Take for example, CD and DVD players.

At the same time, the focus of the industry was changing. By now, most music companies had been bought by large conglomerates like Sony and Vivendi. They expected quick profits and the profits to remain high. The industry began to shift its focus from acts to albums. Before it was about the artists and maintaining them. Now it was about getting the CD out. Getting the music video out. It didn't matter if the music suffered as long as the sales were made. It became about the single, the first minute.

At the same time, the radio industry was experiencing the same kind of consolidation as the music industry. Fewer and fewer independents existed. Most were controlled by a few corporations like Clear Channel.

With the music industries controlled by a select few companies, and the predominant means of distribution tightly controlled (radio and retail), the industry had now a near monopoly on music distribution.

Enter P2P. P2P threatens the industry in two ways. Although there have been music sales lost due to piracy, P2P is more threatening in that artists now have an alternative method of distribution that bypasses their control. Unfortunately, P2P gives them a scapegoat for their sales. It doesn't matter that sales should have suffered years ago due lowering prices (manufacturing cost decreases) and lowering sales (people stop replacing older formats). I suggest you watch the Frontline episode online.

Some of their conclusions:
1) The industry experienced a huge boom during the early to mid 90s as CD players became inexpensive to buy.
2) A good portion of those buying CDs were not buying new albums but CD versions of existing music in their collections.

So the music industry was experiencing golden years due to a new emerging technology and the fact that people were replacing vinyl and cassettes with CDs to augment this new emerging technology. But that behavior only lasts so long. Eventually people would have replaced their collections. They would be buying new music but not at the rates as before.

Also, although the manufacturing costs of a CD have dropped dramatically, their prices were still higher than cassettes which cost more to make. This was done for years due to collusion by the music industry and retailers to keep the prices artificially high. This collusion has been documented as part of settlements of lawsuits.

What's more important is that the industry has expected the profits to be the same as that during the boom times even though times were changing. In most industies, the newest products and prototypes are always the most expensive. When economies of scale kick in and manufacturing becomes more efficient, prices start to drop. Take for example, CD and DVD players.

At the same time, the focus of the industry was changing. By now, most music companies had been bought by large conglomerates like Sony and Vivendi. They expected quick profits and the profits to remain high. The industry began to shift its focus from acts to albums. Before it was about the artists and maintaining them. Now it was about getting the CD out. Getting the music video out. It didn't matter if the music suffered as long as the sales were made. It became about the single, the first minute.

At the same time, the radio industry was experiencing the same kind of consolidation as the music industry. Fewer and fewer independents existed. Most were controlled by a few corporations like Clear Channel.

With the music industries controlled by a select few companies, and the predominant means of distribution tightly controlled (radio and retail), the industry had now a near monopoly on music distribution.

Enter P2P. P2P threatens the industry in two ways. Although there have been music sales lost due to piracy, P2P is more threatening in that artists now have an alternative method of distribution that bypasses their control. Unfortunately, P2P gives them a scapegoat for their sales. It doesn't matter that sales should have suffered years ago due lowering prices (manufacturing cost decreases) and lowering sales (people stop replacing older formats). I suggest you watch the Frontline episode online.

Some of their conclusions:
1) The industry experienced a huge boom during the early to mid 90s as CD players became inexpensive to buy.
2) A good portion of those buying CDs were not buying new albums but CD versions of existing music in their collections.

So the music industry was experiencing golden years due to a new emerging technology and the fact that people were replacing vinyl and cassettes with CDs to augment this new emerging technology. But that behavior only lasts so long. Eventually people would have replaced their collections. They would be buying new music but not at the rates as before.

Also, although the manufacturing costs of a CD have dropped dramatically, their prices were still higher than cassettes which cost more to make. This was done for years due to collusion by the music industry and retailers to keep the prices artificially high. This collusion has been documented as part of settlements of lawsuits.

What's more important is that the industry has expected the profits to be the same as that during the boom times even though times were changing. In most industies, the newest products and prototypes are always the most expensive. When economies of scale kick in and manufacturing becomes more efficient, prices start to drop. Take for example, CD and DVD players.

At the same time, the focus of the industry was changing. By now, most music companies had been bought by large conglomerates like Sony and Vivendi. They expected quick profits and the profits to remain high. The industry began to shift its focus from acts to albums. Before it was about the artists and maintaining them. Now it was about getting the CD out. Getting the music video out. It didn't matter if the music suffered as long as the sales were made. It became about the single, the first minute.

At the same time, the radio industry was experiencing the same kind of consolidation as the music industry. Fewer and fewer independents existed. Most were controlled by a few corporations like Clear Channel.

With the music industries controlled by a select few companies, and the predominant means of distribution tightly controlled (radio and retail), the industry had now a near monopoly on music distribution.

Enter P2P. P2P threatens the industry in two ways. Although there have been music sales lost due to piracy, P2P is more threatening in that artists now have an alternative method of distribution that bypasses their control. Unfortunately, P2P gives them a scapegoat for their sales. It doesn't matter that sales should have suffered years ago due lowering prices (manufacturing cost decreases) and lowering sales (people stop replacing older formats). I suggest you watch the Frontline episode online.

Some of their conclusions:
1) The industry experienced a huge boom during the early to mid 90s as CD players became inexpensive to buy.
2) A good portion of those buying CDs were not buying new albums but CD versions of existing music in their collections.

So the music industry was experiencing golden years due to a new emerging technology and the fact that people were replacing vinyl and cassettes with CDs to augment this new emerging technology. But that behavior only lasts so long. Eventually people would have replaced their collections. They would be buying new music but not at the rates as before.

Also, although the manufacturing costs of a CD have dropped dramatically, their prices were still higher than cassettes which cost more to make. This was done for years due to collusion by the music industry and retailers to keep the prices artificially high. This collusion has been documented as part of settlements of lawsuits.

What's more important is that the industry has expected the profits to be the same as that during the boom times even though times were changing. In most industies, the newest products and prototypes are always the most expensive. When economies of scale kick in and manufacturing becomes more efficient, prices start to drop. Take for example, CD and DVD players.

At the same time, the focus of the industry was changing. By now, most music companies had been bought by large conglomerates like Sony and Vivendi. They expected quick profits and the profits to remain high. The industry began to shift its focus from acts to albums. Before it was about the artists and maintaining them. Now it was about getting the CD out. Getting the music video out. It didn't matter if the music suffered as long as the sales were made. It became about the single, the first minute.

At the same time, the radio industry was experiencing the same kind of consolidation as the music industry. Fewer and fewer independents existed. Most were controlled by a few corporations like Clear Channel.

With the music industries controlled by a select few companies, and the predominant means of distribution tightly controlled (radio and retail), the industry had now a near monopoly on music distribution.

Enter P2P. P2P threatens the industry in two ways. Although there have been music sales lost due to piracy, P2P is more threatening in that artists now have an alternative method of distribution that bypasses their control. Unfortunately, P2P gives them a scapegoat for their sales. It doesn't matter that sales should have suffered years ago due lowering prices (manufacturing cost decreases) and lowering sales (people stop replacing older formats). I suggest you watch the Frontline episode online.

Very true. For a current example, look at the significant pressure (withdrawing advert) GM has exerted on the LA Times, for what seems to me stating the obvious: GM is in trouble. (Where else but LA would you get pulitzer prize winning articles on the auto industry?)

So rather than take the advice, make corrective action, they , having seem to failed in their efforts to muzzle the reporter, apply pressure by withdrawing their advert. Yes, I agree it's a fine line - why advertise in a paper that writes bad reviews - however the possible impact on the Time's objectivity, or any other newspaper, is important. GM to stop LA Times advertising

On Wednesday, the paper published a column by auto critic Dan Neil that called GM, which has struggled recently with sluggish sales, "a morass of a business case" and called for the "impeachment" of two executives. Among other criticisms, Neil said GM "utterly missed the boat on hybrid gas-electric technology" while speeding up production of SUVs.

Neil won the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for criticism, cited by the judges for "one-of-a-kind" reviews of automobiles blending technical expertise with "offbeat humor and astute cultural observations."

Bill Moyers, before retiring from NOW, said one of the most critical issues facing democracy was that increasing control of the media by just a few companies (Think Murdoch and the Fox Empire).