Slashdot Mirror
Al Gore Invents Internet TV
catdevnull writes "The SF Gate is reporting that former VP Al Gore is launching "Current" a new CableTV-Internet hybrid. From the article: "Current, the name of Gore's enterprise, hopes to do that by airing a shuffle of short news features, some produced by the network but many submitted online by viewers. Current will also air segments every half hour showing TV viewers what Google searchers are tapping into at that moment -- everything from current events to tourist destinations. It's all directed at a generation that thinks nothing of plugging into more than one media outlet at once." "
You mean like MSNBC? The channel both Microsoft and NBC want to dump?
And this man was almost president.
Current will also air segments every half hour showing TV viewers what Google searchers are tapping into at that moment
That's going to be kindof X-rated, don't you think? Experience has shown that at any given point, a good portion of people using the internet are searching for porn, or at least naked pictures of celebrities.
Still funny. All these years later. No it is, it's never gotten old. Not even when the NSF credited him with a major role in makeing the internet into something broadly useful.
First an irate and bogus article referring to "Communist San Fransisco", and now jokes from 5 years ago!
Waaazzzzzzzuuuuuuupppppppp Taco!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
So they're going to start monitoring Google and can see what people search for? I really hope I just read that wrong.
Do you have any quotes from people who are not dependent on Governmental contracts for their incomes?
Insulting elected officials is a good way to get funding/contracts killed. Ask Theo.
Look at the context of the quote though. It's obvious he's talking about a legislative accomplishment
People seem to be assuming that Gore wants to make a liberal counterpart to Fox News, but it appears that he's trying to do something quite different, making something that is far more interactive than traditional television. I have no idea if it will work (and I suspect that it won't), but critics might want to actually pay attention to what he's trying to do before criticizing something that has nothing to do with what he is trying.
Yeah, because Al Gore is giving out so many contract now a days huh?
Get your Unix fortune now!
And he did. Even the NSF acknowledged as much. Without the shift in government policy, we wouldn't have had the explosion of Entrepreneurship. The republicans post-Regan aren't pro Entrepreneurship, they're pro consolidation, pro-monopoly, and quite frankly, anti-american.
Please provide proof that the National Science Foundation acknowledged this.
As a /. reader/commenter, you are supposed to post without RTFA. So what's the point in posting links.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I for one wouldn't count out the possibility of this channel actually becoming popular. I mean, it seems to be feeding off the viral video phenomenon that the Internet has created. If it can really manage to get material that is as addictive as all these viral videos then it has a chance.
The only real concern I have is that it is selling itself as a news channel. There really isn't much viral news out there on the internet. But it will be nice to see them give it a try anyways. Could be the first _new_ approach to television in years.
Java has no friends.
It is crap for a couple of reasons.
First, there is something philosophically nice about the person who gets the most votes winning an election. The electoral college is an obstacle to that. I am a liberal, but I've been saying that ever since sixth grade or so when someone first explained to me what the electoral college was. I would still say it even if Kerry had won the electoral vote and Bush the popular vote. In fact, I was really rooting for that outcome. It will probably never be changed unless both parties get burned in quick succession.
Second, in most states (all but one or two), there's no provision for splitting up the electoral vote. For example, Georgia has 13 electoral votes. It doesn't matter whether 50.1% or 99.9% of Georgia votes for George Bush, he gets all 13 electoral votes. Why does he not get 7 with the loser in Georgia getting 6? Because it's a dumb idea.
The problem is that small states have too much power. There is already a provision to balance it out in Congress with each state having two senators. As for the presidency, I don't like the idea that someone's vote being worth more or less collectively than mine just because of our respective geographic locations.
And you're complaining that candidates would never visit small states? They hardly ever do now. How many trips did the candidates make to small states such as Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc. in 2004? And is it really better the way it is now, where candidates never visit non-battleground states?
I am a liberal, but I've been saying that ever since sixth grade or so when someone first explained to me what the electoral college was.
I'm a liberal but don't get all of us involved! If you haven't learned anything since the 6th grade, then I pity you.
The problem is that small states have too much power. There is already a provision to balance it out in Congress with each state having two senators. As for the presidency, I don't like the idea that someone's vote being worth more or less collectively than mine just because of our respective geographic locations.
Tough! All of these concerns were addressed hundreds of years ago. Everyone brought up these arguments but this way works best. The only thing that was total bullshit in the way the Constitution set things up was the 3/5ths of a person.
Plus, it has nothing to do with geography or the size of the states (a point you contradict in your own post). It's all about population, the thing that matters and the thing you want it to be based on.
in most states (all but one or two), there's no provision for splitting up the electoral vote. For example, Georgia has 13 electoral votes. It doesn't matter whether 50.1% or 99.9% of Georgia votes for George Bush, he gets all 13 electoral votes. Why does he not get 7 with the loser in Georgia getting 6? Because it's a dumb idea.
As there shouldn't be! I think that idea is un-Constitutional at best. If you split the electoral votes then you are back at the popular vote - duh.
And you're complaining that candidates would never visit small states? They hardly ever do now. How many trips did the candidates make to small states such as Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc. in 2004? And is it really better the way it is now, where candidates never visit non-battleground states?
I covered the election and that isn't true at all. Candidates hit every state, with Hawaii and Alaska getting visits from VP candidates (if anyone visits Alaska at all).
How about getting good candidates to run before you try to fix a non-broken system to elect them.
(I say Gore-Clinton in 2008!!!)
Get your Unix fortune now!
I suppose Americans would rather be entertained by a clown than having a good albeit dull president. TV. Gotta love it.
"Christ, they couldn't get enough young people out to vote for the heinous George Bush last year."
Just to set the reconrd straight, there was a huge turnout of "new voters" in the last election. But the other issue was the large turnout of Religious Right voters as well. Thus making the influcence of young voters far less noticable.
Just had to get my 2 cents in there...
That is aboslutely idiotic. You totally missed the point. Don't breed....please.
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
The internet was already around by the time Algore took the initiative in creating it.
Your statement is one of the least retarded in this thread, but it still misses the point by a dozen miles. All an internet is, is a group of connected networks, and yes the concept was invented decades ago. However, the Internet - note the capitalization - with its petabytes of deta, millions of hosts, educational and consumer access was the work of business, government and higher education. And considering you can't name a government official more involved in the creation of the Internet as it is today than Al Gore, his origional comment was entirely appropirate.
So, how do you feel about the last Republican to lose a presidential race? If I recall, he was on TV peddling Viagra in a matter of weeks.
Better question: What, in your mind, would be an appropriate activity for an ex-presidential candidate? And who the hell are you to judge?
Al Gore and Bob Dole have made, and will make, millions in their post-political careers. Meanwhile, every business G.W. Bush touched before becoming President turned to shit. The shocker here is not how the mighty have fallen, it's how the weak have risen.
Still a poor choice of words, but you are spouting the same falsehoods as you see on TV/Slashdot.
It's funny how such a liberal crowd as Slashdotters and TV writers keep repeating the Republican-created meme that Gore "invented" the Internet. Does this make you fools, tools, or both? You could at least give the Republican party credit for knowing how to play you.
Uhu, congratulations, you have just mixed together a lot of history in a few sentences. The Israel and Palestine conflict is much more complex and nobody can reduce it to "Terrorists killing Jews", a lot of innocent people on both sides are dying and all of them have the right to live on that soil.
The "Arab Nations"-Israel conflict is also very complicated and when it began, it had nothing to do with terrorism.
Every Al Quada expert they asked told the commision that there couldn't be a link between Al Quada and the Saddam because they had only one thing in common: the USA were their enemy. But Saddam had nothing to do with religion. He has used religion to manipulate his people (even leaders in democratic countries still do that) and he prosecuted religious groups in iraq, because he didn't want them to get influence.
After 9/11 the US government needed a real target and therefore they designed the 9/11 connection of Iraq.
BTW, what exactley has that to do with Internet TV?
...no matter how many times an urban legend has been put to rest.
The urban legend is about him saying he *invented* the internet. That's clearly untrue, and I never repeated this anywhere. However, he DID say he took the *initiative* *in* *creating* the internet. Even the famous Algore apologist, Barbara Mikkelson, affirms that he made this statement.
The problem seems to be over the definition of "internet." Those who want Algore to be the father will define it in such a way that he becomes the father. There are those of us, however, who distinctly remember using something remarkably similar to the internet before Gore "took initiative."
p.s. I call you guys "religous" because of the religious style indignation you exhibit over this possibility that he isn't infallible.
p.p.s. What what the fck are you doing bringing in Ruby Ridge? Let's just hijack the whole thread why don't we? Let's just make it a left versus right issue and damn the facts to hell! "Oo oo he doesn't like algore therefore he must be a rightwing nutbag because only rightwing nutbags don't like algore so let me drop in a reference to ruby ridge and that will show him who has the biggest yarbles yeah!"
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!