While it's true that reporters can sometimes get privileged access -- to crime scenes for example, if you've taken the time to get a press pass beforehand and if the police are feeling particularly generous that day -- courtroom access isn't always privileged, at least not here in California. If you want to report on courtroom proceedings in California, you have no more special access than any other citizen who happens to show up for a courtroom seat that day. Usually, your best bet to get one of a limited number of seats in the gallery for a popular trial is to simply arrive at the courthouse as early as you can, or take a bit of a risk by hiring someone to stand in line for you. As for free FOIAs, well... journalists receive the same benefits students and researchers receive, essentially no-charge records searches and the first 100 pages of the documents are free. I suppose you can count that as privileged access, but overall it's a fairly minor perk for a working journalist.
But these minor points aside, I totally agree with the main thrust of your argument; print journalists are an essential piece of the news-gathering process, not easily eclipsed or replaced by other types of journalists. Television news editors don't seem to have the patience for in-depth investigative work, television viewers don't seem to notice the lack thereof and from what I've seen with most bloggers, a great deal of the so-called news they generate is simply links to print articles and commentary on those same articles.
Sometimes, gathering news can be as easy as snapping a picture of a bridge collapse as it's happening, but much more often it gets deeper and more complex than simply being at the right place at the right time. For the foreseeable future, I can't imagine citizen journalists -- or television journalists -- replacing print journalists for news that requires a little digging and a few key sources in critical positions. Breaking stories like the warrant-less wiretapping scandal all too-often requires more time and effort than either television reporters or bloggers seem willing to devote to a single issue, and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.
OMG -- that is *so* fucking funny! This YouTube video though is just insane... it's like the fan is going to pounce on that guy in the graphic and, you know, KILL HIM DEAD! Run for the hills everyone -- the fans are gonna get us! Run, I tell you, run, RUN!
Actually, Pioneer 10 is likely still transmitting data. At last contact, the spacecraft was apparently still functional. The problem is that Pioneer 10 is now so far away, and the signal so week due to depletion of the RTG power source, that none of NASA's current Deep Space Network receivers can pick-up the transmission above the background noise. However, given a large enough receiver, and the appropriate gear to detect extremely week signals, who knows -- it may be that Pioneer 10 is still out there trying to call home.
If you're interested, this NASA page provides a few details on the last reported contact with Pioneer 10.
It isn't just science. The media screw up everything: Law, medicine, politics, sports of course since sportwriters all all nerds, you name it. We don't notice it in other fields because nobody is an expert in every field. As a lawyer, I notice how bad they screw up the law. I'm sure doctors, scientists - anyone who is an expert - notices it in their field. A degree in journalism doesn't teach you much about the real world.
You're absolutely right -- a degree in journalism doesn't teach you much about the real world. It's not designed to. A journalist's *sources* are supposed to teach readers about what's important in science, technology, medicine, politics, legal affairs, etc. Journalists' own thoughts on any given subject should never be apparent in the finished product, specifically because journalists often do not know the first thing about science, technology, medicine, politics, legal affairs, etc. A degree in journalism isn't supposed to educate on any of these subjects; the degree teaches you how to write well, how to interview sources and, most importantly, how to get out and find news that's interesting to the average reader.
I have an extremely low opinion of journalism, and when I hear the term "journalistic ethic" I cringe. In addition to the reporter's biases we also have to account for their stupidity and laziness.
Interestingly enough, many journalists I know also have an extremely low opinion of today's mainstream media too. Over the past couple of decades, most working journalists have witnessed a strong shift in their organizations, from a previous focus on high-quality news gathering and journalistic integrity towards a profit-centered business structure that leaves little room for in-depth and/or investigative reporting. While I won't argue the stupidity comment -- but do keep in mind that it takes time to educate yourself in a subject, and time is a commodity few working journalists have much of these days -- I think you're dead wrong that today's journalists are simply 'lazy' in their efforts to report the news. Most modern newsrooms I know of have sharply reduced the number of reporters on staff from what they enjoyed a few decades ago, yet these organizations continue to churn-out the same number of news stories in a given period of time. See this recent memo from a Bay Area news organization to get a first-hand look at newsroom consolidation in action. Consolidation certainly doesn't speak to lazy reporters; is speaks to journalists who are, in almost every case, overworked, poorly-paid and under constant stress to produce something on deadline, anything that will help fill the daily news-hole. If you want to point the finger and place blame for the increasingly piss-poor reporting in newspapers, magazines and on television these days, you might want to try aiming your mark a little higher in these news organizations. I guarantee you that the problem is a lot more complex than the shoddy work of a few 'stupid' or 'lazy' reporters.
Meanwhile, reporters run around and act like journalism is some sacred religion, exempt from the law, to be placed above God and country. Nonsense.
Sadly, the 'sacredness' of their religion is just about the only thing left to motivate modern news reporters, so don't knock their faith; they sure as hell aren't in it for the money, and they definitely aren't in it for the respect. At least in my area, starting salary for teachers is higher than the starting salary for reporters, and I don't see too many teachers threatened with legal action or bodily harm just for doing their jobs.
You may not like how today's reporters do their jobs, but keep in mind that their job is still an important one. I'm glad that someone is still willing to do that job. I don't think it's an easy one. But before you pop-off on the poor journalist, do yourself a
Interestingly, the estimated GDP of the entire Russian Federation in 2006 was $1.727 trillion using the purchasing parity power scale; nominal GDP is even less at $979 billion in 2006 [1]. Somehow, even if they win, I don't think the RIAA is going to be collecting on that bill anytime soon.
Does this mean your computer (and possibly your home) can be taken by government officials when you've pirated a few too many MP3s? Or written DVD-playback software for Linux?
Probably -- in my opinion, current asset forfiture laws amount to little more than state-sanctioned theft. Expanding asset forfiture to include intellectual property law just sweatens the pot for government abuse.
With asset forfiture laws, simply having a large amount of cash in your possession is sufficent evidence for law enforcement to seize property, as demonstrated in this recent case. Neither the police nor the government even needs to prove you are guilty of a crime for the cops to take your stuff; mere suspicion is grounds to grab your house, your car or anything else of value. In 80% of asset forfiture cases, no one is ever even charged with a crime [1]. Better yet -- at least from the government's point of view -- it's up to you to prove that seized assets were not actually obtained through illegal activity. And, as if this weren't enough, if you can't prove in court that your assets weren't used in connection with a crime, guess who gets to pay the bill for the government's attorney costs? Yeap, that's right chief -- that'd be you.
If I were in law enforcement, I suppose expanding the current asset forfiture plan to include intellectual property infractions would give me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. Hell -- considering how many people likely have a least a mix-tape or two, or simply can't provide a receipt for every piece of IP in their possession, law enforcement might as well have a license to print money if this becomes law.
Unfortunately, none of the referenced articles/links specifies which of the various Creative Commons licenses will be used to release the debates. Having just released a photo project under a CC license, it appears that there are at least four basickinds of CC licenses, and some varients on them:
i know how to handle this. tell your boss or manager AND/OR IBM to shove it. tell them you WILL NOT train the very person who is going to replace your job for the sheer means of satisfying the stockholders.
If you think you can tell your wife and your kids the same thing when they start wondering why dinner isn't on the table, well, then... more power to you mate. Me, I look at it differently...;-)
Actually, the smart thing to do in this situation is get your resume ready and make some phone calls while you're training the overseas folks. Even better, you might just let your current contacts know about the outsourcing move while dropping a few hints about how a bright, competant and LOCAL guy like you is going to be available in a few months... Other good points to pass on include how you don't have IBM's overhead, so you might still be the less expensive, more reliable option. Most people realize that 'Joe' in India isn't going to drop everything and fly in when the web server kicks it at 2:00 in the morning, and I'd be willing to bet that IBM's client services rates aren't going to drop in proportion to their savings from offshoring.
That guy named a site after a well-known person and attempted to hold it ransom for much more than it was worth. The guy didn't have a right to Obama's name. He also didn't have a right to force himself into the campaign as he attempted. Note that only the link - barack obama's name - got transferred, the idiot still has his page. He deserves what he got. If you don't want your site to be transferred, don't name it after a public figure. If this had been a registrar issue the result would have been no different.
I think you're missing a few key points:
The 'guy', Joe Anthony, didn't name his site after Barak Obama. Everyone seems to agree that he created the site in support of Obama, which is why this isn't even remotely like your standard cyper-squatting case.
In point of fact, Anthony never tried to force himself or his MySpace page on anyone -- the campaign came to him, first requesting, then demanding control of a site Anthony created on his own dime.
If public finger-pointing and accusations from your candidate's campaign staff are what you expect after providing two years of grassroots support on MySpace, than I suppose you're right; Joe Anthony got what he deserved.
I doubt we'll ever know exactly what went on behind closed doors in this situation, but one thing seems clear -- Barak Obama's campaign made a huge mistake in letting this affair become public. No matter how you shake it, Obama has lost some of the squeaky-clean public image he enjoyed before this debacle. Obama's requesting liberal copyright policies for future presidential debates isn't going to fix the public relations issue his campaign created this week, and I suspect he'll be spending a lot more than $50k on damage control over the whole Joe Anthony/MySpace issue.
Someone who can learn quickly is more desirable than someone who knows Java like the back of their hand.
Interestingly, having spent the past few weeks interviewing, I tend to think desirability of 'quick learners' vs. 'skilled experts' depends upon the size of the company. Small companies prefer quick learners because there are always many more tasks to do than skilled employees available to handle the tasks. In this situation, quick learners have the advantage because they can more easily grow in a company where the jobs aren't always well-defined. If it turns out that the Java guy you just hired can also manage the corporate web site, this is a real plus in a small firm. Having people who can do lots of things, and do them reasonably well, is absolutely necessary when your company is limited by the number of resources available.
At large companies though, the situation is reversed; hiring managers in large corporations are often distanced from the actual work getting done, so their 'win' is to hire the person with the best current skills. This way, hiring managers get the most 'bang' for their corporate hiring buck because the expert employee is immediately productive in the job. In addition, larger companies spend much more time managing a workforce that expands and contracts depending on the economy. Human resources are just that -- something you aquire when you need to increase production, and get rid of when you don't. Overall, it's far easier to manage a large corporate workforce when employees have very narrowly defined skill-sets that you can swap in and out depending on the needs of the company.
In a nutshell, small companies want people who can get things done, where large companies want someone who can do one job and only one job, but still do that job better than anyone else.
Unfortunately, the most frightening trend in the past seven years is the continuing public perception that we Americans are simply powerless to stop the abuses.
Consider -- Americans have known for years that Bush lied us into a war, yet that knowledge has made little difference in altering the course of the current occupation in Iraq. Right now, today, the evidence is clear that Bush and company broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans' telephone calls, yet the consequences were a lot of useless talk in the press and a handful of public hearings that ultimately went nowhere. Bush, it seems, is like teflon when it comes to facing the music for his actions. He is the one president who just can't be held accountable for anything, no matter how bad it may be.
Unlawful detentions, condoning torture, the PATROIT Act -- the list goes on and on. Yet the list of consequences for these acts is disturbingly short, if not completely non-existent. Sometimes, it all makes me feel like I'm living in a third-world dictatorship. Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if Bush sodomized children in the Oval Office, then broadcast the act on national television. I have to think that, given the current political climate, there would be a lot of talk about how the children were 'bad apples' and that the president's powers in wartime allowed him to do whatever he felt was needed in the name of 'national security'. Certainly, no one would seriously consider impeaching the guy. God knows Bush has been effectively sodomizing the public for years now with virtual impunity -- is there anything this man couldn't do and get away with it?
Forget investigative journalism. Most reporters certainly have. Investigative stories are just too risky and too expensive these these days for anyone but a handful of reporters to pursue. It takes time to dig-up facts -- sometimes as much as six months to a year or more for a good in-depth piece -- and these stories often don't pan-out anyway, sometimes because the facts aren't available, or because you can't get anyone to go on record to back up the facts. Combine that with the reality that investigative reporting almost always pisses-off someone in power, and you'll understand why business-oriented news organizations have largely left investigative journalism in the dustbin. When your industry is increasingly motivated by profit over public service, which is where we're at now in most newsrooms, it's easy to see why most of the major news outlets in print, radio and television have largly abandoned investigative reporting. Crime may not pay, but endless stories about the hot crime-of-the-moment certainly seems to be something you can stick in the bank.
Teachers and other academics often see themselves as the gatekeepers to knowledge; it should come as no surprise to anyone that when a new technology comes along which threatens this gatekeeper role, schools and educators start talking about banning the technology. Wikipedia is a disruptive technology when it comes to education, and the arguments against it amount to little more than smoke-screens and academic arm-waving. When you think about it, the arguments against Wikipedia always boil down to a lack of academic credentials for the people who create and edit Wikipedia articles, plus a propensity for young students to cut & paste Wikipedia articles into their own papers instead of doing real research. The first argument, lack of credentials, is the easiest to dismiss.
Through Wikipedia, unlike what you see in a typical school textbook, readers can always find out exactly who edited which articles, and in many cases, they can follow the discussion on the talk pages about why people think some information should be included in an article or, conversely, why some information should be excluded. Overall, those two features represent a massive boost to both the credibility and reliability of the factual knowledge contained in the Wikipedia. Edit pages and talk pages open the door for everyone to see how the knowledge in the Wikipedia is created and distilled. If Wikipedia editors held academic credentials, it might make it easier for us to accept that the facts contained in the articles are true, but credentials themselves don't have any direct bearing on the truth or falsehood of any given fact. Wikipedia, just like any other potential source of factual knowledge, should always be taken with a grain of salt. Academics can make mistakes just like anyone else and, on occasion, they've been known to distort or misrepresent facts based on a personal or a political agenda. Facts become facts when we have wide-spread agreement on the truth of certain statements. Wikipedia fosters this process of building consensus and agreement -- traditional textbooks sure as hell do not.
The second argument educators like to make against Wikipedia is that students find it easy to plagerize using Wikipedia, or that many students simply rip facts out of Wikipedia articles without doing any real research to check the validity of those facts. To this argument I'd just like to point out that the same kind of student laziness existed well before Wikipedia came on the scene, and Wikipedia is not to blame because some students prefer to game the system instead of learning what the schools are trying to teach. Hell -- I think a way to solve this problem would be to have students write original Wikipedia articles instead of useless, overly redundant term papers. At least then, student's work would actually amount to something useful, and their efforts might contribute to the overall scope of knowledge. As it is now, term papers are pretty much make-work, which may be one of the reasons why some students don't want to put forth do more than a minimum amount of effort in writing them. If students had to create original Wikipedia articles, I would image that they'd be forced to go and do some real fact-gathering and writing, which is exactly what the schools are trying to teach with term papers, right?
I'm seeing a number of comments along the lines of, "The American Dream is a fantasy; no one's entitled to a steady paycheck," and, to a certain extent, I agree with those sentiments. Expecting lifetime employment with a single company -- at least in the US -- is, I think, naive. In my experience, asking US businesses to supply permenant employment for everyone is like asking God to make a sunny day last forever. It's a nice dream, but no matter how hard you wish for it, it's just not going to happen, at least not today.
Still, the American Dream has never been about entitlement. Some home-grown Americans seem to think it is, but immagrants know better. Poor, huddled masses don't leave their homes by the millions and come to America because they know there's a job waiting for them. People come to the US because it is one of the few places left in the world where an average person can work hard and expect a reward for their labors. That part of the American Dream is critical, and when companies like Circuit City ignore it, we are all in for a heap of trouble somewhere down the line.
We don't like to admit it, but we all know that not everyone is capable of running their own business, or educating themselves up to the point where they can seek-out and snag a high-paying, high-tech job. Some people just don't have the brains, or they're unwilling to take the risks to move beyond retail work. For those folks, the American Dream is what's left. The idea that you can succeed through shear effort is a powerful one; the American economy is built upon that very notion, and you don't need a textbook to see just powerful an idea this is when put into practice.
There are reasons why America is still the largest single economy in the world. There are reasons why American workers, across the board, tend to be more productive than their counterparts elsewhere. I submit that the American Dream is a crucial part of the American business strategy; the American Dream is, if you will, the secret sauce in the American formula for economic success. The American Dream offers hope on a massive scale. The American Dream motivates workers. Even if they aren't the smartest, or the most skillful, American workers still believe that hard work will get them ahead. They believe that what they do matters, not only to themselves, but to their families as well. Hard work makes a difference, and you don't need to be an Einstein to do the math on that fact.
What's troubling about Circuit City's move today isn't any loss of entitlement; what's really worrisome is that Circuit City's management has so obviously failed to comprehand what is perhaps the most important lesson in America's business playbook. You can see this by taking a quick peak at their stock price today -- Wall Street can be pretty bone-headed on occasion, but they can smell stupidity and impending failure a mile away. Today, Circuit City may shave a few dollars off the balance sheet, but they've done with a move that is certain to utterly kill employee morale. Today, Circuit City just told each and every one of their workers that the reward for hard work isn't a raise; it's a pink slip at the end of the week, and a future opportunity to take your experience and start again from the bottom of the ladder in 10 weeks time. With an incentive package like that, only the truely incompetant, destitute and/or desperate need apply for work at Circuit City.
For those of us not working in retail, consider this -- without the American Dream, US workers are little better than ill-organized serfs. Without the American Dream, the Chinese can do it just as well, and cheeper too, as can dozens of other nations scattered about the globe. Without the American Dream, even those of us with high-pay, high tech jobs can expect to feel the pain. When the girl standing behind the counter has no incentive to do it quicker, cheeper or better, what do you honestly think is going to happen?
Humm, well, OK then -- Michael Crook says he's sorry. I'm just so thrilledto have this new information. I guess this is a victory for some website having to do with monkeys, and FOX News is somewhere in there too. Gee, well, huh. So there it is then. All right. Swell. Thanks.
On second thought, can I have back the five minutes of my life I just wasted watching this apology?
Also, talking to an actual physicist is far too scary for your typical J-school grad.
As it happens, I am a J-school graduate, and I work with a real-life physicist. We talk almost every day, and I don't find him scary at all. Granted, we don't talk about quantum physics on a daily basis, but we do talk about other highly-technical subjects. Still, perhaps I'm just not your typical J-school student -- my very first published story was on extra-solar planet detection, a subject I find fascinating.
During my time in school, I met a number of science writers who appeared to know their subject very well. In my own experience, it was most often my editors who were responsible for sensationalizing and distorting the science stories I wrote. Hell, before I left school, I was thankful simply to have an editor who could add two numbers together reliably, much less comprehend the mysteries of leading-edge science. Sadly, while reporters may spend weeks researching a story, their editors don't usually have that luxury, and they're working under a whole different set of guidelines. Typically, once I turned in my copy, my editors pretty much did whatever they wanted with it, with results that were sometimes strange, sometimes funny and sometimes completely maddening.
The moral of this story, as you may have guessed, is that not everyone in the media is as ignorant as you may think on science and technology issues. Science is hard work -- is it really surprising that interpreting scientific research, and translating results into layman's terms, is in some ways almost as hard? In any case, thanks for the summary. If more people in your profession could write in such concise and eloquent terms, I think the public would be much better informed.
Windows Vista Ultimate High Class List
on
High Tech High 2.0
·
· Score: 1
A few weeks ago, an anonymous person emailed me this list. They said it fell out of Bill Gates' briefcase:
High Tech Education Concept - Windows Vista Ultimate High Class Descriptions
Econ 105 - Renouncing Your American Citizenship (mandatory class)
Econ 106 - Obtaining Citizenship in India, China and Eastern Europe (mandatory class)
Econ 107 - Applying for an H1B Visa (mandatory class)
Econ 108 - Working at Microsoft (optional)
Lit 10A - Reading EULAs and Obeying Them
Civ 13 - Reporting Software Piracy - How To Turn in Your Family, Friends and Co-workers (mandatory class)
Ethics 1 - Crushing Google
Math 15 - Why Searching with Windows Live! Isn't So Hard (28-week class)
Money is irrelevant. Money is only relevant when you love 2 things more or less equally and there is a large difference in income between them.
Bzzt! Wrong answer. You go to the back of the line...;-)
Don't kid yourself on this subject -- money is *always* relevant in any business decision, most especially your choice of careers. As someone who's been on the other side of the tracks, I can tell you that poverty does indeed suck. The only people who think differently are usually the ones who've never known what it means to be poor. You might love janitorial work, but I guarentee you that your family isn't going to love the sacrifices they'd have to make if you changed careers.
After a few years, I've come to see that the real trick in life is to find a career that fits both your aptitude and your financial needs. Ignoring either factor, or choosing a career based only on money or only on aptitude, is the surest path to unhappiness. If you want true career satisfaction, find something you're good at, and make sure it pays!
Perhaps I'm simply ignorant or naive, but I fail to see why anyone has a problem with modern-day payola. A lot has changed since the early payola scandals of the 50s, and pay-for-play deals between radio stations and the music industry aren't what they used to be.
Back in the days when DJs controlled which songs played on the radio, and when radio itself was seen as a public service, it made a perverse kind of sense for record labels to ply DJs with drugs, booze, women and money in an attempt get certain songs played on the radio. More airplay equates to increased record sales for the labels, making pay-for-play payola a powerful and lucrative lure for both record companies and DJs. As long as radio is perceived as a public service, payola in any form ends up looking like a bribe, and a 'dirty' bribe at that.
Today though, a lot has changed in the radio industry. Tapes, CDs, iPods, satelite radio and, most importantly, the Internet have made the old public service arguement moot. In addition, DJs don't call the shots anymore at most radio stations, making modern payola much 'cleaner' than it once was. Nowadays, record labels don't need to offer the full battery of sinful inducements to get their songs played; cash is probably sufficent for most execs. And, when you think about it, why shouldn't it be? Pay-for-play payola is really nothing more than simple advertising, and what's wrong with that?
If you take the sordid elements out of payola, does it really make any difference if it's Record Label X paying for three minutes of airtime to play their song, vs. Joe's Hardware store hawking hammers with their three minutes? By definition, advertising is paying for th promotion of a product or service. If Record Label X pays thousands of dollars to buy a 30-second spot suggesting you buy a particular album, how is this different from the same record label paying money to simply play a song? Where does the public lose in this scenario? Who supposedly gets hurt? Keep in mind that the independant record label issue is a red herring. Small, independant labels suffer most when payola schemes are secret and hidden, as they are today. If payola is above-board and open, if we treat it like advertising, independant labels get the same opportunities to buy airtime as the major labels now have. Keeping payola underground just raises the bar to market entry as it forces smaller labels into playing the game the way the major labels play it, ensuring that only the big boys with large wads of cash have the means to strike secret deals to have their songs played on-air. Five decades ago, payola scandals hurt both radio stations and the record industry, largely due to the public's perception that payola cheated the public service aspect of radio. Today, it's our out-dated perception of radio as a public service that causes the most harm.
Payola has always been a problem for commercial radio, and today's settlement isn't suddenly going to change the economic conditions that create the payola problem in the first place. As long as airplay increases music sales, we'll always have payola. And, contrary to TFA, a $12 million settlement isn't going to do a single thing to improve the playlists of large commercial radio stations.
As an American, I can tell you that 'fuckwit', 'bastard', 'cunt', 'moron', 'dickhead' and 'shit for brains' are all in common use here in the States. If you really want to sound British, use 'wanker', 'tosser' or 'spanner'. Also, my limited experience with the BBC seems to indicate that 'Bloody Hell' is very popular in ye olde England.
We have been tempted to get Comcast bussines ( which makes me shiver a bit ) because I can get larger down pipes for general internet surfing.
Stop shivering. Take the plunge. Comcast's business offering is actually pretty good. I've been using it for the past four months, and I have nary a complaint. However, if they need to lay coax to reach you, you're kinda boned -- they do expect you to pay for it, and it can get very expensive. Otherwise, Comcast seems commited to providing high-quality, high-speed asymetric Internet service to business clients. On the residential side, I wouldn't touch them with an 11-foot pole, but it's a whole different world on the business side. It can't hurt to give it a try.
Maybe the Chinese government can start the 'purifying' job by eliminating all that SPAM comming out of China? Somehow, millions of email ads for Viagra flying through Chinese email servers just doesn't have that pure, fresh feeling I expect from a Communist dictatorship...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
While it's true that reporters can sometimes get privileged access -- to crime scenes for example, if you've taken the time to get a press pass beforehand and if the police are feeling particularly generous that day -- courtroom access isn't always privileged, at least not here in California. If you want to report on courtroom proceedings in California, you have no more special access than any other citizen who happens to show up for a courtroom seat that day. Usually, your best bet to get one of a limited number of seats in the gallery for a popular trial is to simply arrive at the courthouse as early as you can, or take a bit of a risk by hiring someone to stand in line for you. As for free FOIAs, well... journalists receive the same benefits students and researchers receive, essentially no-charge records searches and the first 100 pages of the documents are free. I suppose you can count that as privileged access, but overall it's a fairly minor perk for a working journalist.
But these minor points aside, I totally agree with the main thrust of your argument; print journalists are an essential piece of the news-gathering process, not easily eclipsed or replaced by other types of journalists. Television news editors don't seem to have the patience for in-depth investigative work, television viewers don't seem to notice the lack thereof and from what I've seen with most bloggers, a great deal of the so-called news they generate is simply links to print articles and commentary on those same articles.
Sometimes, gathering news can be as easy as snapping a picture of a bridge collapse as it's happening, but much more often it gets deeper and more complex than simply being at the right place at the right time. For the foreseeable future, I can't imagine citizen journalists -- or television journalists -- replacing print journalists for news that requires a little digging and a few key sources in critical positions. Breaking stories like the warrant-less wiretapping scandal all too-often requires more time and effort than either television reporters or bloggers seem willing to devote to a single issue, and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.
OMG -- that is *so* fucking funny! This YouTube video though is just insane... it's like the fan is going to pounce on that guy in the graphic and, you know, KILL HIM DEAD! Run for the hills everyone -- the fans are gonna get us! Run, I tell you, run, RUN!
Actually, Pioneer 10 is likely still transmitting data. At last contact, the spacecraft was apparently still functional. The problem is that Pioneer 10 is now so far away, and the signal so week due to depletion of the RTG power source, that none of NASA's current Deep Space Network receivers can pick-up the transmission above the background noise. However, given a large enough receiver, and the appropriate gear to detect extremely week signals, who knows -- it may be that Pioneer 10 is still out there trying to call home.
If you're interested, this NASA page provides a few details on the last reported contact with Pioneer 10.
You're absolutely right -- a degree in journalism doesn't teach you much about the real world. It's not designed to. A journalist's *sources* are supposed to teach readers about what's important in science, technology, medicine, politics, legal affairs, etc. Journalists' own thoughts on any given subject should never be apparent in the finished product, specifically because journalists often do not know the first thing about science, technology, medicine, politics, legal affairs, etc. A degree in journalism isn't supposed to educate on any of these subjects; the degree teaches you how to write well, how to interview sources and, most importantly, how to get out and find news that's interesting to the average reader.
Interestingly enough, many journalists I know also have an extremely low opinion of today's mainstream media too. Over the past couple of decades, most working journalists have witnessed a strong shift in their organizations, from a previous focus on high-quality news gathering and journalistic integrity towards a profit-centered business structure that leaves little room for in-depth and/or investigative reporting. While I won't argue the stupidity comment -- but do keep in mind that it takes time to educate yourself in a subject, and time is a commodity few working journalists have much of these days -- I think you're dead wrong that today's journalists are simply 'lazy' in their efforts to report the news. Most modern newsrooms I know of have sharply reduced the number of reporters on staff from what they enjoyed a few decades ago, yet these organizations continue to churn-out the same number of news stories in a given period of time. See this recent memo from a Bay Area news organization to get a first-hand look at newsroom consolidation in action. Consolidation certainly doesn't speak to lazy reporters; is speaks to journalists who are, in almost every case, overworked, poorly-paid and under constant stress to produce something on deadline, anything that will help fill the daily news-hole. If you want to point the finger and place blame for the increasingly piss-poor reporting in newspapers, magazines and on television these days, you might want to try aiming your mark a little higher in these news organizations. I guarantee you that the problem is a lot more complex than the shoddy work of a few 'stupid' or 'lazy' reporters.
Sadly, the 'sacredness' of their religion is just about the only thing left to motivate modern news reporters, so don't knock their faith; they sure as hell aren't in it for the money, and they definitely aren't in it for the respect. At least in my area, starting salary for teachers is higher than the starting salary for reporters, and I don't see too many teachers threatened with legal action or bodily harm just for doing their jobs.
You may not like how today's reporters do their jobs, but keep in mind that their job is still an important one. I'm glad that someone is still willing to do that job. I don't think it's an easy one. But before you pop-off on the poor journalist, do yourself a
Interestingly, the estimated GDP of the entire Russian Federation in 2006 was $1.727 trillion using the purchasing parity power scale; nominal GDP is even less at $979 billion in 2006 [1]. Somehow, even if they win, I don't think the RIAA is going to be collecting on that bill anytime soon.
Probably -- in my opinion, current asset forfiture laws amount to little more than state-sanctioned theft. Expanding asset forfiture to include intellectual property law just sweatens the pot for government abuse.
With asset forfiture laws, simply having a large amount of cash in your possession is sufficent evidence for law enforcement to seize property, as demonstrated in this recent case. Neither the police nor the government even needs to prove you are guilty of a crime for the cops to take your stuff; mere suspicion is grounds to grab your house, your car or anything else of value. In 80% of asset forfiture cases, no one is ever even charged with a crime [1]. Better yet -- at least from the government's point of view -- it's up to you to prove that seized assets were not actually obtained through illegal activity. And, as if this weren't enough, if you can't prove in court that your assets weren't used in connection with a crime, guess who gets to pay the bill for the government's attorney costs? Yeap, that's right chief -- that'd be you.
If I were in law enforcement, I suppose expanding the current asset forfiture plan to include intellectual property infractions would give me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. Hell -- considering how many people likely have a least a mix-tape or two, or simply can't provide a receipt for every piece of IP in their possession, law enforcement might as well have a license to print money if this becomes law.
Unfortunately, none of the referenced articles/links specifies which of the various Creative Commons licenses will be used to release the debates. Having just released a photo project under a CC license, it appears that there are at least four basickinds of CC licenses, and some varients on them:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
The no-derivitives license in particular could have a big impact, especially for people looking to throw up stuff on YouTube and whatnot.
If you think you can tell your wife and your kids the same thing when they start wondering why dinner isn't on the table, well, then... more power to you mate. Me, I look at it differently... ;-)
Actually, the smart thing to do in this situation is get your resume ready and make some phone calls while you're training the overseas folks. Even better, you might just let your current contacts know about the outsourcing move while dropping a few hints about how a bright, competant and LOCAL guy like you is going to be available in a few months... Other good points to pass on include how you don't have IBM's overhead, so you might still be the less expensive, more reliable option. Most people realize that 'Joe' in India isn't going to drop everything and fly in when the web server kicks it at 2:00 in the morning, and I'd be willing to bet that IBM's client services rates aren't going to drop in proportion to their savings from offshoring.
I think you're missing a few key points:
I doubt we'll ever know exactly what went on behind closed doors in this situation, but one thing seems clear -- Barak Obama's campaign made a huge mistake in letting this affair become public. No matter how you shake it, Obama has lost some of the squeaky-clean public image he enjoyed before this debacle. Obama's requesting liberal copyright policies for future presidential debates isn't going to fix the public relations issue his campaign created this week, and I suspect he'll be spending a lot more than $50k on damage control over the whole Joe Anthony/MySpace issue.
Interestingly, having spent the past few weeks interviewing, I tend to think desirability of 'quick learners' vs. 'skilled experts' depends upon the size of the company. Small companies prefer quick learners because there are always many more tasks to do than skilled employees available to handle the tasks. In this situation, quick learners have the advantage because they can more easily grow in a company where the jobs aren't always well-defined. If it turns out that the Java guy you just hired can also manage the corporate web site, this is a real plus in a small firm. Having people who can do lots of things, and do them reasonably well, is absolutely necessary when your company is limited by the number of resources available.
At large companies though, the situation is reversed; hiring managers in large corporations are often distanced from the actual work getting done, so their 'win' is to hire the person with the best current skills. This way, hiring managers get the most 'bang' for their corporate hiring buck because the expert employee is immediately productive in the job. In addition, larger companies spend much more time managing a workforce that expands and contracts depending on the economy. Human resources are just that -- something you aquire when you need to increase production, and get rid of when you don't. Overall, it's far easier to manage a large corporate workforce when employees have very narrowly defined skill-sets that you can swap in and out depending on the needs of the company.
In a nutshell, small companies want people who can get things done, where large companies want someone who can do one job and only one job, but still do that job better than anyone else.
Unfortunately, the most frightening trend in the past seven years is the continuing public perception that we Americans are simply powerless to stop the abuses.
Consider -- Americans have known for years that Bush lied us into a war, yet that knowledge has made little difference in altering the course of the current occupation in Iraq. Right now, today, the evidence is clear that Bush and company broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans' telephone calls, yet the consequences were a lot of useless talk in the press and a handful of public hearings that ultimately went nowhere. Bush, it seems, is like teflon when it comes to facing the music for his actions. He is the one president who just can't be held accountable for anything, no matter how bad it may be.
Unlawful detentions, condoning torture, the PATROIT Act -- the list goes on and on. Yet the list of consequences for these acts is disturbingly short, if not completely non-existent. Sometimes, it all makes me feel like I'm living in a third-world dictatorship. Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if Bush sodomized children in the Oval Office, then broadcast the act on national television. I have to think that, given the current political climate, there would be a lot of talk about how the children were 'bad apples' and that the president's powers in wartime allowed him to do whatever he felt was needed in the name of 'national security'. Certainly, no one would seriously consider impeaching the guy. God knows Bush has been effectively sodomizing the public for years now with virtual impunity -- is there anything this man couldn't do and get away with it?
Forget investigative journalism. Most reporters certainly have. Investigative stories are just too risky and too expensive these these days for anyone but a handful of reporters to pursue. It takes time to dig-up facts -- sometimes as much as six months to a year or more for a good in-depth piece -- and these stories often don't pan-out anyway, sometimes because the facts aren't available, or because you can't get anyone to go on record to back up the facts. Combine that with the reality that investigative reporting almost always pisses-off someone in power, and you'll understand why business-oriented news organizations have largely left investigative journalism in the dustbin. When your industry is increasingly motivated by profit over public service, which is where we're at now in most newsrooms, it's easy to see why most of the major news outlets in print, radio and television have largly abandoned investigative reporting. Crime may not pay, but endless stories about the hot crime-of-the-moment certainly seems to be something you can stick in the bank.
Am I the only one who remembers seeing this same bit 'o news last month:
Researchers Scheming to Rebuild Internet From ScratchTeachers and other academics often see themselves as the gatekeepers to knowledge; it should come as no surprise to anyone that when a new technology comes along which threatens this gatekeeper role, schools and educators start talking about banning the technology. Wikipedia is a disruptive technology when it comes to education, and the arguments against it amount to little more than smoke-screens and academic arm-waving. When you think about it, the arguments against Wikipedia always boil down to a lack of academic credentials for the people who create and edit Wikipedia articles, plus a propensity for young students to cut & paste Wikipedia articles into their own papers instead of doing real research. The first argument, lack of credentials, is the easiest to dismiss.
Through Wikipedia, unlike what you see in a typical school textbook, readers can always find out exactly who edited which articles, and in many cases, they can follow the discussion on the talk pages about why people think some information should be included in an article or, conversely, why some information should be excluded. Overall, those two features represent a massive boost to both the credibility and reliability of the factual knowledge contained in the Wikipedia. Edit pages and talk pages open the door for everyone to see how the knowledge in the Wikipedia is created and distilled. If Wikipedia editors held academic credentials, it might make it easier for us to accept that the facts contained in the articles are true, but credentials themselves don't have any direct bearing on the truth or falsehood of any given fact. Wikipedia, just like any other potential source of factual knowledge, should always be taken with a grain of salt. Academics can make mistakes just like anyone else and, on occasion, they've been known to distort or misrepresent facts based on a personal or a political agenda. Facts become facts when we have wide-spread agreement on the truth of certain statements. Wikipedia fosters this process of building consensus and agreement -- traditional textbooks sure as hell do not.
The second argument educators like to make against Wikipedia is that students find it easy to plagerize using Wikipedia, or that many students simply rip facts out of Wikipedia articles without doing any real research to check the validity of those facts. To this argument I'd just like to point out that the same kind of student laziness existed well before Wikipedia came on the scene, and Wikipedia is not to blame because some students prefer to game the system instead of learning what the schools are trying to teach. Hell -- I think a way to solve this problem would be to have students write original Wikipedia articles instead of useless, overly redundant term papers. At least then, student's work would actually amount to something useful, and their efforts might contribute to the overall scope of knowledge. As it is now, term papers are pretty much make-work, which may be one of the reasons why some students don't want to put forth do more than a minimum amount of effort in writing them. If students had to create original Wikipedia articles, I would image that they'd be forced to go and do some real fact-gathering and writing, which is exactly what the schools are trying to teach with term papers, right?
I'm seeing a number of comments along the lines of, "The American Dream is a fantasy; no one's entitled to a steady paycheck," and, to a certain extent, I agree with those sentiments. Expecting lifetime employment with a single company -- at least in the US -- is, I think, naive. In my experience, asking US businesses to supply permenant employment for everyone is like asking God to make a sunny day last forever. It's a nice dream, but no matter how hard you wish for it, it's just not going to happen, at least not today.
Still, the American Dream has never been about entitlement. Some home-grown Americans seem to think it is, but immagrants know better. Poor, huddled masses don't leave their homes by the millions and come to America because they know there's a job waiting for them. People come to the US because it is one of the few places left in the world where an average person can work hard and expect a reward for their labors. That part of the American Dream is critical, and when companies like Circuit City ignore it, we are all in for a heap of trouble somewhere down the line.
We don't like to admit it, but we all know that not everyone is capable of running their own business, or educating themselves up to the point where they can seek-out and snag a high-paying, high-tech job. Some people just don't have the brains, or they're unwilling to take the risks to move beyond retail work. For those folks, the American Dream is what's left. The idea that you can succeed through shear effort is a powerful one; the American economy is built upon that very notion, and you don't need a textbook to see just powerful an idea this is when put into practice.
There are reasons why America is still the largest single economy in the world. There are reasons why American workers, across the board, tend to be more productive than their counterparts elsewhere. I submit that the American Dream is a crucial part of the American business strategy; the American Dream is, if you will, the secret sauce in the American formula for economic success. The American Dream offers hope on a massive scale. The American Dream motivates workers. Even if they aren't the smartest, or the most skillful, American workers still believe that hard work will get them ahead. They believe that what they do matters, not only to themselves, but to their families as well. Hard work makes a difference, and you don't need to be an Einstein to do the math on that fact.
What's troubling about Circuit City's move today isn't any loss of entitlement; what's really worrisome is that Circuit City's management has so obviously failed to comprehand what is perhaps the most important lesson in America's business playbook. You can see this by taking a quick peak at their stock price today -- Wall Street can be pretty bone-headed on occasion, but they can smell stupidity and impending failure a mile away. Today, Circuit City may shave a few dollars off the balance sheet, but they've done with a move that is certain to utterly kill employee morale. Today, Circuit City just told each and every one of their workers that the reward for hard work isn't a raise; it's a pink slip at the end of the week, and a future opportunity to take your experience and start again from the bottom of the ladder in 10 weeks time. With an incentive package like that, only the truely incompetant, destitute and/or desperate need apply for work at Circuit City.
For those of us not working in retail, consider this -- without the American Dream, US workers are little better than ill-organized serfs. Without the American Dream, the Chinese can do it just as well, and cheeper too, as can dozens of other nations scattered about the globe. Without the American Dream, even those of us with high-pay, high tech jobs can expect to feel the pain. When the girl standing behind the counter has no incentive to do it quicker, cheeper or better, what do you honestly think is going to happen?
Thank you Commodore, for putting out a new system actually capable of running Vista right out of the box!
Humm, well, OK then -- Michael Crook says he's sorry. I'm just so thrilledto have this new information. I guess this is a victory for some website having to do with monkeys, and FOX News is somewhere in there too. Gee, well, huh. So there it is then. All right. Swell. Thanks.
On second thought, can I have back the five minutes of my life I just wasted watching this apology?
As it happens, I am a J-school graduate, and I work with a real-life physicist. We talk almost every day, and I don't find him scary at all. Granted, we don't talk about quantum physics on a daily basis, but we do talk about other highly-technical subjects. Still, perhaps I'm just not your typical J-school student -- my very first published story was on extra-solar planet detection, a subject I find fascinating.
During my time in school, I met a number of science writers who appeared to know their subject very well. In my own experience, it was most often my editors who were responsible for sensationalizing and distorting the science stories I wrote. Hell, before I left school, I was thankful simply to have an editor who could add two numbers together reliably, much less comprehend the mysteries of leading-edge science. Sadly, while reporters may spend weeks researching a story, their editors don't usually have that luxury, and they're working under a whole different set of guidelines. Typically, once I turned in my copy, my editors pretty much did whatever they wanted with it, with results that were sometimes strange, sometimes funny and sometimes completely maddening.
The moral of this story, as you may have guessed, is that not everyone in the media is as ignorant as you may think on science and technology issues. Science is hard work -- is it really surprising that interpreting scientific research, and translating results into layman's terms, is in some ways almost as hard? In any case, thanks for the summary. If more people in your profession could write in such concise and eloquent terms, I think the public would be much better informed.
A few weeks ago, an anonymous person emailed me this list. They said it fell out of Bill Gates' briefcase:
High Tech Education Concept - Windows Vista Ultimate High Class Descriptions
Bzzt! Wrong answer. You go to the back of the line... ;-)
Don't kid yourself on this subject -- money is *always* relevant in any business decision, most especially your choice of careers. As someone who's been on the other side of the tracks, I can tell you that poverty does indeed suck. The only people who think differently are usually the ones who've never known what it means to be poor. You might love janitorial work, but I guarentee you that your family isn't going to love the sacrifices they'd have to make if you changed careers.
After a few years, I've come to see that the real trick in life is to find a career that fits both your aptitude and your financial needs. Ignoring either factor, or choosing a career based only on money or only on aptitude, is the surest path to unhappiness. If you want true career satisfaction, find something you're good at, and make sure it pays!
Perhaps I'm simply ignorant or naive, but I fail to see why anyone has a problem with modern-day payola. A lot has changed since the early payola scandals of the 50s, and pay-for-play deals between radio stations and the music industry aren't what they used to be.
Back in the days when DJs controlled which songs played on the radio, and when radio itself was seen as a public service, it made a perverse kind of sense for record labels to ply DJs with drugs, booze, women and money in an attempt get certain songs played on the radio. More airplay equates to increased record sales for the labels, making pay-for-play payola a powerful and lucrative lure for both record companies and DJs. As long as radio is perceived as a public service, payola in any form ends up looking like a bribe, and a 'dirty' bribe at that.
Today though, a lot has changed in the radio industry. Tapes, CDs, iPods, satelite radio and, most importantly, the Internet have made the old public service arguement moot. In addition, DJs don't call the shots anymore at most radio stations, making modern payola much 'cleaner' than it once was. Nowadays, record labels don't need to offer the full battery of sinful inducements to get their songs played; cash is probably sufficent for most execs. And, when you think about it, why shouldn't it be? Pay-for-play payola is really nothing more than simple advertising, and what's wrong with that?
If you take the sordid elements out of payola, does it really make any difference if it's Record Label X paying for three minutes of airtime to play their song, vs. Joe's Hardware store hawking hammers with their three minutes? By definition, advertising is paying for th promotion of a product or service. If Record Label X pays thousands of dollars to buy a 30-second spot suggesting you buy a particular album, how is this different from the same record label paying money to simply play a song? Where does the public lose in this scenario? Who supposedly gets hurt? Keep in mind that the independant record label issue is a red herring. Small, independant labels suffer most when payola schemes are secret and hidden, as they are today. If payola is above-board and open, if we treat it like advertising, independant labels get the same opportunities to buy airtime as the major labels now have. Keeping payola underground just raises the bar to market entry as it forces smaller labels into playing the game the way the major labels play it, ensuring that only the big boys with large wads of cash have the means to strike secret deals to have their songs played on-air. Five decades ago, payola scandals hurt both radio stations and the record industry, largely due to the public's perception that payola cheated the public service aspect of radio. Today, it's our out-dated perception of radio as a public service that causes the most harm.
Payola has always been a problem for commercial radio, and today's settlement isn't suddenly going to change the economic conditions that create the payola problem in the first place. As long as airplay increases music sales, we'll always have payola. And, contrary to TFA, a $12 million settlement isn't going to do a single thing to improve the playlists of large commercial radio stations.
As an American, I can tell you that 'fuckwit', 'bastard', 'cunt', 'moron', 'dickhead' and 'shit for brains' are all in common use here in the States. If you really want to sound British, use 'wanker', 'tosser' or 'spanner'. Also, my limited experience with the BBC seems to indicate that 'Bloody Hell' is very popular in ye olde England.
Stop shivering. Take the plunge. Comcast's business offering is actually pretty good. I've been using it for the past four months, and I have nary a complaint. However, if they need to lay coax to reach you, you're kinda boned -- they do expect you to pay for it, and it can get very expensive. Otherwise, Comcast seems commited to providing high-quality, high-speed asymetric Internet service to business clients. On the residential side, I wouldn't touch them with an 11-foot pole, but it's a whole different world on the business side. It can't hurt to give it a try.
Obligatory Star Trek quote:
"The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
--Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott, Star Trak III
Maybe the Chinese government can start the 'purifying' job by eliminating all that SPAM comming out of China? Somehow, millions of email ads for Viagra flying through Chinese email servers just doesn't have that pure, fresh feeling I expect from a Communist dictatorship... ;-)