Steve Jackson is a great guy (and my proofreader)
on
SJGames Layoffs
·
· Score: 5
How great a guy? I publish a science fiction critical zine called Nova Express. Despite having several professional SF writers contribute work, and despite having gotten a Hugo nomination in 1997, I've never printed more than 800 or so copies of any issue of Nova Express.
Steve Jackson (the same Steve Jackson) is my proofreader. Despite the fact that he's a giant in the gaming industry, and really busy, and about ten years or so older than I am, he takes the time twice a year to go over Nova Express proofs with a fine-tooth comb so I don't look like an idiot due to the dozens of typos and tiny details I can't see because I've read every article and review 14 times already. And like all the rest of my contributors, he doesn't get a dime for doing it. He does it just because he thinks Nova Express is a worthwhile zine and is happy to give back to the SF community, for which he has my Eternal Gratitude.
So dig deep, me brothers. If you have any teenage nephews and nieces you've been looking to introduce to role-playing games, now's the time to get them that GURPS or Illuminati set...
Good story, but they left out one thing...
on
Fortune on Rambus
·
· Score: 2
The fact that RDRAM loses to DDR in realworld benchmarking tests. Not only are you paying more money, you're getting less performance. (This was brought up on Slashdot several times over the past year. Yeah, I could go looking for a proper citation, but I thought I would leave that to the Karma Whores.;-))
That's why I don't expect Rambus to be in business three years from now.
"Top consultants and contractors once named their salaries in the valley. Now, even those who qualify for unemployment benefits soon discover the $40 to $230 weekly check will not cover an apartment here, where rent averages around $1,800 a month."
Which brings up the question:
1. Why didn't they put any money away for a rainy day? If they bought their own hype, expected to live off stock options, and didn't put any savings away, then they deserve to suffer for their own lack of foresight.
2. If it costs so much to live in the valley, why don't they move somewhere else? The saleries may be lower elsewhere, but the cost of living is generally MUCH cheaper. Here in Austin, decent aprtments can be had for $600 or less. And Texas, unlike California, has no state income tax. Nor does it have an artificially induced power-shortage brought about by short-sighted politicians who didn't understand economics and evidently didn't realize that prices can go up as well as down. (Or, like the poor yuppie victims mentioned in the article, that stocprices could go down as well as up.
3. Why aren't they staying with friends or family who are still employed? If they don't have any in the valley, why don't they move away? And this isn't some "if you only walked a mile in their shoes" BS. I spent four years living in someone's living room while I worked temp jobs and paid off credit card debt from my immediate post-college years, when I was making a hell of a lot less than $100,000 a year (try around $20,000 in 1991). Easy? Hell no. But I did it, and I'm currently debt-free. Unless your relations are really strained with friends and family (and there's another sign that something might be wrong with your outlook on life), they can support you during lean times, and expect you to do the same.
4. I've been to the valley twice this year, and I seem to remember a lot of "Help Wanted" signs in McDonalds, Burger Kings, etc. Why aren't they working there? There's nothing wrong with working a lower paying job until something better comes along, and to my mind it's far less injurous to your dignity than mooching off government handouts or the kindness of random strangers.
This story reminds me of that National Pravda Radio story on the woman who got a job with Dell, and then was let go before she ever started working. I felt empathy for her right up to the point where they mentioned she had spent $3000 on a purebreed dog to play in the yard of her custom-built house. Not only did she count her chickens before they were hatched, she spent the money she was going to get from the chickens in advance. If you're going to spend money like an idiot, don't expect any sympathy from those of us who put our money in the bank instead of spending $3000 on a dog. (Here's a tip: You can get a dog that's just as cute and friendly at the SPCA for under $100.)
Look folks, no one is guaranteed a ticket to easy street. No one should be saved from the consequences of their own poor decisions. Yeah, getting laid off sucks, but how you prepare for and respond to those situations is up to YOU. You shouldn't ask society and/or government to bail you out from your own shortsightedness. Thankfully, in a capitalist econonomy, you can generally get as many second or thirtd chances as you're willing to earn. In nature, making mistakes gets you killed.
"3.2 percent unemployment rate"? Poor frigging babies! Go over to France, where they have all sorts of welfare and unemployment benefits. And, directly related to same, unemployment around 15%. That's why high French officials warn other EC countries darkly not to engage in "tax competetion," because they know their creaking, failing socialist economy would inevitably lose jobs and industries to dynamic, nimble economies, like those of the United States. Yes, you're more likely to get laid off here than in Europe, but you're also much more likely to find a higher paying job afterword. The creative distruction and economic dynamism of capitalism offers far more opportunities to rise to the top than tired old socialist economies. That's why people write books with titles like "Thriving on Chaos." Yes, you're more likely to get laid off, but in the long run that's the only way that your children will be able to enjoy better lives than the ones you lead. That's a price worth a few layoffs.
This has to be among the LEAST enlightening articles Slashdot has ever linked to. (A target rich environment, I know. And I'm not counting Jon Katz articles, because they're not exactly linked. Besides, picking apart a Katz article would only be a suitable sport when my shotgun was in the shop and there were no fish in the barrel. But I digress...)
As far as I can tell, this article makes the following arguments:
______________
1. We all-knowing, all-wise economists have this magic tool known as the "Black-Scholes approach," which we tell you really, really works, without telling you how, or what assumptions it makes, or what previous market conditions were used to validate the methodologies, or what period was used to establish a baseline for the valuations it produces. We also tell you that this magic approach "is easy to compute with widely available programs," without telling you how to compute it or just what programs you can use. After all, we can't have you puny non-economists using our magic tools!
2. We presented an array of confusing, highly jargonized question options to people to see how they valued their stock options, but their numbers didn't match the numbers in the magic Black-Scholes approach.
3. Therefore, we economists are really smart, but you people with stock options are really stupid because you think differently from us. Puny non-economist humans!
4. Because you are stupid, you should conduct training programs to reeducate your employees to value their stock options exactly like we do with the magic Black-Scholes approach we haven't revealed to you. Where will you find people to teach such classes? Oddly enough, we have included our names and e-mail addresses at the bottom of this "article"! Remember: we are smarter than you, so instead of your company giving stock options to you, they should give consulting fees to us!
______________
Do people over-value their stock options? Could be, but we'll never know from this article, because they never tell us how their magic "Black-Scholes approach" works.
Economics can be a vitally useful financial tool, and as a way of understanding the world. But all this confusing, shallow, badly written article proves is that David F. Larcker and Richard A. Lambert (or possibly their minions) don't know how to write an article, don't know how to properly show their methodology, don't know how to conduct a test, don't know how to communicate with test subjects, and don't know how to communicate with non-economists.
"Big media corporations taking over the world and we'll all soon be in it's grip and yadda yadda yadda..."
This is the same old kneejerk, Katzian song-and-dance that Slashdot seems to throw up every three months or so. There's one universal cure for big media corporations you don't like: Don't consume their product. Don't watch their movies or TV shows. Don't subscriibe to their ISPs or cable systems or online services or magazines. If you don't like what they produce, buy elsewhere. Or start your own company. If enough people boycott them, the power of the marketplace will force them to change their ways.
What's that you say? Not enough people will boycott them? That they'll thrive despite your boycott? That people who don't share your views will continue to patronize their service? Well GOSH, how SHOCKING that those mindless lemmings would DARE to have opinions other than your own! How dare they use AOL and subscribe to Time-Warner Cable and eat at McDonalds and shop at WalMart despite all the times that you've told them how politically incorrect such actions are! How dare they put their own convienance and financial well-being above the superior opinions of the fashionable elite!
Why, if those all those little people don't use their choices wisely, we'll just have to take those choices away from them! We'll just have to pass laws to tax large media congolomerates so we take money away from them and give it to government subsidized art that we, the politically correct ruling elite, judge to be superior. (Oh, wait. We already do that with PBS and the NEA.) We'll have to raise the taxes and fees passed on to the customers of media giants to punish them for making the wrong choice--just like we do for people who use tobacco. We'll have to file lawsuits against big media companies to drive them out of business--just like we're doing with the firearms industry. And if people still aren't using their freedom properly, we'll just have to outlaw bad media and throw its consumers in jail--just like we do with users of marijuana and cocaine. If we don't like what people choose, we'll just have to take that freedom away.
(/sarcasm)
Remember: Freedom of the press is for those who own one. If you don't like the choices available, go out and create your own. And if you work hard and make it a success, and AOL Time Warner Microsoft Beatrice comes along and says "Hey, Mr. Independent Press Guy, we'll pay you ten times what the book value of your company is worth and you can stop working those 80 hour weeks to clear 20K a year in profit so we can add you to our giant synergy machine," why, I'm SURE you'll turn all that money down. Just like Netscape did when AOL came calling. Just like Bungie did when Microsoft came calling.
Look, all this bitching about the current round of media concentration is just short-sighted, ahistorical whining that ignores the huge diversification of media created by technology. Go back 30 years ago, and what did you have? Three major TV networks. Two major wire news services. (You had more newspapers, but by and large they got much of their national and international news from the same few sources.) One phone company. No cable TV. No internet. No Slashdot!
And since then, look at the vast, technology-fueled growth in various forms of media:
Cable TV, with thousands of possible channels to choose from, of which several dozen or more will be on any given cable system.
Two competeing satelite TV firms, with hundreds of additional choices, many from around the world
Three more broadcast networks
Foriegn language channels
For that matter, more foreign language newspapers available more places
Tens of thousands of small press magazines fueled by the desktop publishing boom
Thousands of independent record companies fueled by the CD boom
Untold millions of websites, all available at a mouse click, thanks to computers and the internet.
Thirty thousand newsgroups (even if half of them are for porn; and, for that matter:)
Multitudes upon multitudes of adult videos and and porn sites where before there were dirty theaters and a handfull of skin mags (a vast number of choices, albeit of a particular type)
E-mail
FTP, Napster, Gneutella, and a thousand other file sharing programs that keep popping up no matter how hard they tru to shut them down
Et. Frigging Cetera.
So, in short, stop whining. You have more media choices available to you than any other people at any point in the history of mankind.
I don't know if this particular story is true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. During their years in power, the Soviet Communist Party killed somewhere between 25 million (cf: The Black Book of Communism) and 68 million (cf: The Gulag Archipelago) of their own people. (These figures don't include the additional million or so Afghans they killed from 1979-1991.) Next to those mountains of skulls, what's three cosmonauts?
How about that matchhead sized server? You know, the one that was on Slashdot a year or so ago? Just imagine how hard it would be to track THAT puppy if you lost it!
"Oh no, I left it in my pocket and my wife washed it! Now all it will serve up is John Katz rants and the frigging G**ts*x page!"
...what are the limiting parameters on what you get in return? I mean, are they explicitly spelled out ("You can't wish for more wishes,")? Are they written down or given orally? And can you have your lawyer vet the contract? Likewise, are you indeed required to sign the contract in blood, or is a digital signature sufficient? And do you actually speak to the devil in person, or just to one of his minions?
Since media interpretations of the "unholy contract" vary so widely, it would be nice to get information from someone who's undergone the dark ritual.
Lets face it: a lot of Hanna-Barbera TV shows were crap. In fact, the sheer number of bad shows they produced far outweighs the good ones. Also, the fact that they weren't alone in producing crap (as the following list shows) doesn't mitigate the fact that they DID spew a lot of crap. And no, it's not just limited animation: Jay Ward was a genius, and the worst episode of Rocky & Bullwinkle was better than the best episode of anything Hanna-Barbera ever produced.
And now, a short but woefully incomplete list of real crap:
Alvin & the Chipmunks
All the cartoons on the Bannana Splits (Huck Finn, etc.--though all were better, I think, than Danger Island)
The Beatles (good music, lame show)
Clutch Cargo
Cubey (An animated Rubik's Cube. Hands down winner for dumbest animated show idea ever.)
Davey & Golaith (Heavy-handed moralizing R Us. I was amused when Mad TV finally made the same Son of Sam connection (named David, talking Dog, messages from God) I had years ago.)
Every animated version of a live action TV show EXCEPT the animated Star Trek
Grape Ape
The Harlem Globetrotters
He Man and the Masters of the Universe (right there with Clutch Cargo at rock bottom)
Hercules
Hong Kong Phooey
Huckelberry Hound
The Marvel Superhero show with The Hulk (Hey, The Jetson's theme was "Ode to Joy" compared to the Hulk theme), Submariner, etc.
Mighty Mouse (the old ones, not the new ones)
Mister T
Mr. Magoo
MUSH
My Favorite Martian
Pac Man (and all the other frigging video game shows)
Pebbles & Bam Bam
The Perils of Penelope Pitstop
Pinky and the Brain AFTER they added Elmyra (and whoever came up with THAT bright idea deserves hot pincers plucking out their eyes for all eternity)
Planet of the Apes
Scooby Do after the second or third season (at least once they started their "guest star" phase. And whoever came up with Scrappy Do deserves bamboo up his fingernails for, oh, say 1000 years (after all, he didn't ruin a classic))
The Smurfs ("And I said 'Shrink, I wanna kill'...")
Snuffy Smith (This bit hard. Was there ever a time the strip it's based on didn't suck?)
Space Ghost (original, not Space Ghost Coast-toCoast, which rules (to use a technical term;-))) & Frankenstein Jr.
Yogi Bear
(And these are just shows I've seen, or at least remember seeing commercials for. There's a pretty frightening list at:
http://www.coolstuffvideos.com/cartoons3.html.
Or do a Power Search at the IMDB. I've never seen The Three Robonic Stooges, but I can only imagine how mind-numbingly bad it must be...)
I'm leaving out things that Weren't Very Good (Josie and the Pussycats (in or out of Space), Popeye and even (urp) the D&D animated show) but which didn't seem as unremittingly awful as the above. In any case, even though I'm not a Jetson's fan, it was clearly superior to all the above...
This reminds me of Greg Egan's short story "Luminous." In it two mathamaticians deduce that there may be "bubbles" of alternate mathmatics left over from the initial chaotic state of the Big Bang, bits of an alternate, alien system of math incongruent with our own. The protagonists find such a flaw and figure out that it can be used to wrest short-term gains from economic markets. Unfortunately, the downside seems to be the possible destruction of the universe. And then it gets weird. Well worth checking out.
I present my new startup, cringingfacelesstoady.com!
"Yes, here at cringingfacelesstoadey.com, we offer you temps that will not only run errands for you, but also cringe when you hurls insults and large pieces of cookware at their head! Our faceless toadies go through an extensive 12-week course, where they learn to say things like "Yes, Your Magnificence!" and "I am unworthy of picking the scum between your most gangrenous toenails, Your Worship!" Think of the immense satisfaction you'll feel as your very own faceless toady scurries off to fulfill your every whim! And nothing beats the rush of screaming "Think! I don't PAY you to think!" at your very own temporary minion before emptying an entire pastry tray on their head! Our facless toadies have been employeed by some of the most dynamic chief executives in the U.S., including The Joker, The Penguin, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs!"
"So don't delay! Expand your ego by abusing those contractually powerless to strike back! Go to www.cringingfacelesstoady.com today to find the whining, cringing, sniveling faceless toady of your dreams!"
I can tell you from personal experience that the U.S. Mail form, though slow, does get results. A woman who sent me a hot check for an eBay refund coughed up a money order pronto after they contacted her.
And speaking of fraud, check out this to see why I'll never buy anything at NTB (National Tire & Battery) Ever Again...
The spammers harvested 50,000,000 e-mail addresses, but only 12,000 suckers fell for their scam. That means that only.024% of the targeted Internet population was stupid enough to take the bait. From reading Usenet, I would think the number of complete idiots would be much higher!
There's a lot of confusion in the articles (and replies here) to what is actually going on when you see a Used book listed on Amazon.com or barnesandnoble.com. Since I deal in used books (first edition SF/F/H), I'd like to make an important point:
Amazon and Barnes & Noble don't have that used book in stock! They just buy it from real used book dealer and add a hefty fee on top. This markeup can be as much as (I've seen it happen) 500%!
ABE Books is where I (and something like 6,000 other dealers) have our stock online. (There are a few others like it, by abebooks.com seems to be the biggest and (IMHO) best.) Those used books are scattered in bookstores and peoples homes across the world, not in any central location. Now, www.abebooks.com has "affiliate" programs with barnesandnoble.com and amazon.com. If a dealer signs up for this program, them their stock shows up on searchs Amazon and B&N do for used or out-of-print books. Then the end user (who generally doesn't know that www.abebooks.com exists) pays amazon.com $50 for a book that Joe Blow, Bookseller has listed on abebooks for $25. Amazon and barnesandnoble.com have virtual NONE of the used stock they list in any central location. I'm not signed up for any affiliate programs (there are others for Japan, Library Sales, etc.), but several dealers are.
Now, why don't you see this in any of the articles? Because neither Amazon nor the publishers want you to find out where you can get used books cheaper than you can now. The bottom line is, if you're looking for a used, rare, or out-of-print work, www.abebooks.com is almost always going to be cheaper than Amazon or B&N. Plus the money goes directly to independent booksellers.
He's the good movie reviewer on CNN.com, as opposed to Paul Clinton, the "if it moves, blurb it," critic. Quoth Tatara: "It's so poorly executed, you start to feel like you're watching the world's most expensive script run-through."
...at least on the MPEG test highlighted in the Tom's Hardware article. My guess is that since the OS isn't optimized for multiprocessing yet, it wouldn't do terribly well (though a plug-in for multiprocessor support for this particular ap/benchmark might already exist). However, once OS X is finalized, and the codecs are fully optimized for multiprocessor AND AltiVec support, I bet a dual G4 would smoke any x86 machine (or at the very least any x86 machine at the same price point). Pure speculation, but it would be an interesting comparison none the less...
We won't truly have optimum state-sponsored gambling until welfare recipients can receive their dole entirely in lottery tickets.
New Event: The Blue Screen of Death Challange
on
IT Olympics
·
· Score: 1
Competitors are given identical 1 GHz Athlon systems fully loaded with Windows ME, Outlook Express, and MS Office, and the first one to bring up the Blue Screen of Death wins.
Current IT Olympic Record: 38.12 seconds.
And, of course, there's the Outlook Virus Writing Challange...
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jackson (the same Steve Jackson) is my proofreader. Despite the fact that he's a giant in the gaming industry, and really busy, and about ten years or so older than I am, he takes the time twice a year to go over Nova Express proofs with a fine-tooth comb so I don't look like an idiot due to the dozens of typos and tiny details I can't see because I've read every article and review 14 times already. And like all the rest of my contributors, he doesn't get a dime for doing it. He does it just because he thinks Nova Express is a worthwhile zine and is happy to give back to the SF community, for which he has my Eternal Gratitude.
So dig deep, me brothers. If you have any teenage nephews and nieces you've been looking to introduce to role-playing games, now's the time to get them that GURPS or Illuminati set...
That's why I don't expect Rambus to be in business three years from now.
"Top consultants and contractors once named their salaries in the valley. Now, even those who qualify for unemployment benefits soon discover the $40 to $230 weekly check will not cover an apartment here, where rent averages around $1,800 a month."
Which brings up the question:
1. Why didn't they put any money away for a rainy day? If they bought their own hype, expected to live off stock options, and didn't put any savings away, then they deserve to suffer for their own lack of foresight.
2. If it costs so much to live in the valley, why don't they move somewhere else? The saleries may be lower elsewhere, but the cost of living is generally MUCH cheaper. Here in Austin, decent aprtments can be had for $600 or less. And Texas, unlike California, has no state income tax. Nor does it have an artificially induced power-shortage brought about by short-sighted politicians who didn't understand economics and evidently didn't realize that prices can go up as well as down. (Or, like the poor yuppie victims mentioned in the article, that stocprices could go down as well as up.
3. Why aren't they staying with friends or family who are still employed? If they don't have any in the valley, why don't they move away? And this isn't some "if you only walked a mile in their shoes" BS. I spent four years living in someone's living room while I worked temp jobs and paid off credit card debt from my immediate post-college years, when I was making a hell of a lot less than $100,000 a year (try around $20,000 in 1991). Easy? Hell no. But I did it, and I'm currently debt-free. Unless your relations are really strained with friends and family (and there's another sign that something might be wrong with your outlook on life), they can support you during lean times, and expect you to do the same.
4. I've been to the valley twice this year, and I seem to remember a lot of "Help Wanted" signs in McDonalds, Burger Kings, etc. Why aren't they working there? There's nothing wrong with working a lower paying job until something better comes along, and to my mind it's far less injurous to your dignity than mooching off government handouts or the kindness of random strangers.
This story reminds me of that National Pravda Radio story on the woman who got a job with Dell, and then was let go before she ever started working. I felt empathy for her right up to the point where they mentioned she had spent $3000 on a purebreed dog to play in the yard of her custom-built house. Not only did she count her chickens before they were hatched, she spent the money she was going to get from the chickens in advance. If you're going to spend money like an idiot, don't expect any sympathy from those of us who put our money in the bank instead of spending $3000 on a dog. (Here's a tip: You can get a dog that's just as cute and friendly at the SPCA for under $100.)
Look folks, no one is guaranteed a ticket to easy street. No one should be saved from the consequences of their own poor decisions. Yeah, getting laid off sucks, but how you prepare for and respond to those situations is up to YOU. You shouldn't ask society and/or government to bail you out from your own shortsightedness. Thankfully, in a capitalist econonomy, you can generally get as many second or thirtd chances as you're willing to earn. In nature, making mistakes gets you killed.
"3.2 percent unemployment rate"? Poor frigging babies! Go over to France, where they have all sorts of welfare and unemployment benefits. And, directly related to same, unemployment around 15%. That's why high French officials warn other EC countries darkly not to engage in "tax competetion," because they know their creaking, failing socialist economy would inevitably lose jobs and industries to dynamic, nimble economies, like those of the United States. Yes, you're more likely to get laid off here than in Europe, but you're also much more likely to find a higher paying job afterword. The creative distruction and economic dynamism of capitalism offers far more opportunities to rise to the top than tired old socialist economies. That's why people write books with titles like "Thriving on Chaos." Yes, you're more likely to get laid off, but in the long run that's the only way that your children will be able to enjoy better lives than the ones you lead. That's a price worth a few layoffs.
As far as I can tell, this article makes the following arguments:
______________
1. We all-knowing, all-wise economists have this magic tool known as the "Black-Scholes approach," which we tell you really, really works, without telling you how, or what assumptions it makes, or what previous market conditions were used to validate the methodologies, or what period was used to establish a baseline for the valuations it produces. We also tell you that this magic approach "is easy to compute with widely available programs," without telling you how to compute it or just what programs you can use. After all, we can't have you puny non-economists using our magic tools!
2. We presented an array of confusing, highly jargonized question options to people to see how they valued their stock options, but their numbers didn't match the numbers in the magic Black-Scholes approach.
3. Therefore, we economists are really smart, but you people with stock options are really stupid because you think differently from us. Puny non-economist humans!
4. Because you are stupid, you should conduct training programs to reeducate your employees to value their stock options exactly like we do with the magic Black-Scholes approach we haven't revealed to you. Where will you find people to teach such classes? Oddly enough, we have included our names and e-mail addresses at the bottom of this "article"! Remember: we are smarter than you, so instead of your company giving stock options to you, they should give consulting fees to us!
______________
Do people over-value their stock options? Could be, but we'll never know from this article, because they never tell us how their magic "Black-Scholes approach" works.
Economics can be a vitally useful financial tool, and as a way of understanding the world. But all this confusing, shallow, badly written article proves is that David F. Larcker and Richard A. Lambert (or possibly their minions) don't know how to write an article, don't know how to properly show their methodology, don't know how to conduct a test, don't know how to communicate with test subjects, and don't know how to communicate with non-economists.
Egan's homepage can be found at http://www.netspace.net.au/~gregegan/.
This is the same old kneejerk, Katzian song-and-dance that Slashdot seems to throw up every three months or so. There's one universal cure for big media corporations you don't like: Don't consume their product. Don't watch their movies or TV shows. Don't subscriibe to their ISPs or cable systems or online services or magazines. If you don't like what they produce, buy elsewhere. Or start your own company. If enough people boycott them, the power of the marketplace will force them to change their ways.
What's that you say? Not enough people will boycott them? That they'll thrive despite your boycott? That people who don't share your views will continue to patronize their service? Well GOSH, how SHOCKING that those mindless lemmings would DARE to have opinions other than your own! How dare they use AOL and subscribe to Time-Warner Cable and eat at McDonalds and shop at WalMart despite all the times that you've told them how politically incorrect such actions are! How dare they put their own convienance and financial well-being above the superior opinions of the fashionable elite!
Why, if those all those little people don't use their choices wisely, we'll just have to take those choices away from them! We'll just have to pass laws to tax large media congolomerates so we take money away from them and give it to government subsidized art that we, the politically correct ruling elite, judge to be superior. (Oh, wait. We already do that with PBS and the NEA.) We'll have to raise the taxes and fees passed on to the customers of media giants to punish them for making the wrong choice--just like we do for people who use tobacco. We'll have to file lawsuits against big media companies to drive them out of business--just like we're doing with the firearms industry. And if people still aren't using their freedom properly, we'll just have to outlaw bad media and throw its consumers in jail--just like we do with users of marijuana and cocaine. If we don't like what people choose, we'll just have to take that freedom away.
(/sarcasm)
Remember: Freedom of the press is for those who own one. If you don't like the choices available, go out and create your own. And if you work hard and make it a success, and AOL Time Warner Microsoft Beatrice comes along and says "Hey, Mr. Independent Press Guy, we'll pay you ten times what the book value of your company is worth and you can stop working those 80 hour weeks to clear 20K a year in profit so we can add you to our giant synergy machine," why, I'm SURE you'll turn all that money down. Just like Netscape did when AOL came calling. Just like Bungie did when Microsoft came calling.
Look, all this bitching about the current round of media concentration is just short-sighted, ahistorical whining that ignores the huge diversification of media created by technology. Go back 30 years ago, and what did you have? Three major TV networks. Two major wire news services. (You had more newspapers, but by and large they got much of their national and international news from the same few sources.) One phone company. No cable TV. No internet. No Slashdot!
And since then, look at the vast, technology-fueled growth in various forms of media:
Cable TV, with thousands of possible channels to choose from, of which several dozen or more will be on any given cable system.
Two competeing satelite TV firms, with hundreds of additional choices, many from around the world
Three more broadcast networks
Foriegn language channels
For that matter, more foreign language newspapers available more places
Tens of thousands of small press magazines fueled by the desktop publishing boom
Thousands of independent record companies fueled by the CD boom
Untold millions of websites, all available at a mouse click, thanks to computers and the internet.
Thirty thousand newsgroups (even if half of them are for porn; and, for that matter:)
Multitudes upon multitudes of adult videos and and porn sites where before there were dirty theaters and a handfull of skin mags (a vast number of choices, albeit of a particular type)
E-mail
FTP, Napster, Gneutella, and a thousand other file sharing programs that keep popping up no matter how hard they tru to shut them down
Et. Frigging Cetera.
So, in short, stop whining. You have more media choices available to you than any other people at any point in the history of mankind.
SetVal Mike = JoelVal/2
SetVal Crow = Good
SetVal Perl = Good
SetVal Pearl Forrester = Very Very Bad
Exe Skit
END
"Oh no, I left it in my pocket and my wife washed it! Now all it will serve up is John Katz rants and the frigging G**ts*x page!"
Since media interpretations of the "unholy contract" vary so widely, it would be nice to get information from someone who's undergone the dark ritual.
Lets face it: a lot of Hanna-Barbera TV shows were crap. In fact, the sheer number of bad shows they produced far outweighs the good ones. Also, the fact that they weren't alone in producing crap (as the following list shows) doesn't mitigate the fact that they DID spew a lot of crap. And no, it's not just limited animation: Jay Ward was a genius, and the worst episode of Rocky & Bullwinkle was better than the best episode of anything Hanna-Barbera ever produced.
;-))) & Frankenstein Jr.
And now, a short but woefully incomplete list of real crap:
Alvin & the Chipmunks
All the cartoons on the Bannana Splits (Huck Finn, etc.--though all were better, I think, than Danger Island)
The Beatles (good music, lame show)
Clutch Cargo
Cubey (An animated Rubik's Cube. Hands down winner for dumbest animated show idea ever.)
Davey & Golaith (Heavy-handed moralizing R Us. I was amused when Mad TV finally made the same Son of Sam connection (named David, talking Dog, messages from God) I had years ago.)
Every animated version of a live action TV show EXCEPT the animated Star Trek
Grape Ape
The Harlem Globetrotters
He Man and the Masters of the Universe (right there with Clutch Cargo at rock bottom)
Hercules
Hong Kong Phooey
Huckelberry Hound
The Marvel Superhero show with The Hulk (Hey, The Jetson's theme was "Ode to Joy" compared to the Hulk theme), Submariner, etc.
Mighty Mouse (the old ones, not the new ones)
Mister T
Mr. Magoo
MUSH
My Favorite Martian
Pac Man (and all the other frigging video game shows)
Pebbles & Bam Bam
The Perils of Penelope Pitstop
Pinky and the Brain AFTER they added Elmyra (and whoever came up with THAT bright idea deserves hot pincers plucking out their eyes for all eternity)
Planet of the Apes
Scooby Do after the second or third season (at least once they started their "guest star" phase. And whoever came up with Scrappy Do deserves bamboo up his fingernails for, oh, say 1000 years (after all, he didn't ruin a classic))
The Smurfs ("And I said 'Shrink, I wanna kill'...")
Snuffy Smith (This bit hard. Was there ever a time the strip it's based on didn't suck?)
Space Ghost (original, not Space Ghost Coast-toCoast, which rules (to use a technical term
Yogi Bear
(And these are just shows I've seen, or at least remember seeing commercials for. There's a pretty frightening list at:
http://www.coolstuffvideos.com/cartoons3.html.
Or do a Power Search at the IMDB. I've never seen The Three Robonic Stooges, but I can only imagine how mind-numbingly bad it must be...)
I'm leaving out things that Weren't Very Good (Josie and the Pussycats (in or out of Space), Popeye and even (urp) the D&D animated show) but which didn't seem as unremittingly awful as the above. In any case, even though I'm not a Jetson's fan, it was clearly superior to all the above...
Any other candidates?
Philistines...,p>
"Yes, here at cringingfacelesstoadey.com, we offer you temps that will not only run errands for you, but also cringe when you hurls insults and large pieces of cookware at their head! Our faceless toadies go through an extensive 12-week course, where they learn to say things like "Yes, Your Magnificence!" and "I am unworthy of picking the scum between your most gangrenous toenails, Your Worship!" Think of the immense satisfaction you'll feel as your very own faceless toady scurries off to fulfill your every whim! And nothing beats the rush of screaming "Think! I don't PAY you to think!" at your very own temporary minion before emptying an entire pastry tray on their head! Our facless toadies have been employeed by some of the most dynamic chief executives in the U.S., including The Joker, The Penguin, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs!"
"So don't delay! Expand your ego by abusing those contractually powerless to strike back! Go to www.cringingfacelesstoady.com today to find the whining, cringing, sniveling faceless toady of your dreams!"
FBI Internet Fraud Complaint Center: https://www.ifccfbi.gov/complaint/default.asp
U.S. Postal Inspection Service Internet Fraud Claim Form: http://www.framed.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/ MailFraudComplaint.htm
I can tell you from personal experience that the U.S. Mail form, though slow, does get results. A woman who sent me a hot check for an eBay refund coughed up a money order pronto after they contacted her.
And speaking of fraud, check out this to see why I'll never buy anything at NTB (National Tire & Battery) Ever Again...
Amazon and Barnes & Noble don't have that used book in stock! They just buy it from real used book dealer and add a hefty fee on top. This markeup can be as much as (I've seen it happen) 500%!
Here's how it works. Take a look at:
www.abebooks.com.
ABE Books is where I (and something like 6,000 other dealers) have our stock online. (There are a few others like it, by abebooks.com seems to be the biggest and (IMHO) best.) Those used books are scattered in bookstores and peoples homes across the world, not in any central location. Now, www.abebooks.com has "affiliate" programs with barnesandnoble.com and amazon.com. If a dealer signs up for this program, them their stock shows up on searchs Amazon and B&N do for used or out-of-print books. Then the end user (who generally doesn't know that www.abebooks.com exists) pays amazon.com $50 for a book that Joe Blow, Bookseller has listed on abebooks for $25. Amazon and barnesandnoble.com have virtual NONE of the used stock they list in any central location. I'm not signed up for any affiliate programs (there are others for Japan, Library Sales, etc.), but several dealers are.
Now, why don't you see this in any of the articles? Because neither Amazon nor the publishers want you to find out where you can get used books cheaper than you can now. The bottom line is, if you're looking for a used, rare, or out-of-print work, www.abebooks.com is almost always going to be cheaper than Amazon or B&N. Plus the money goes directly to independent booksellers.
Full review at: http://www.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/07/revie w.dungeons.dragons/index.html.
-----
Dear Voters in Tennesee and Arkansas:
Apology Accepted.
Try William S. Burroughs instead.
Current IT Olympic Record: 38.12 seconds.
And, of course, there's the Outlook Virus Writing Challange...