I am nto suggesting he be banned. I am suggesting that his show being broadcast on the public airwaves doesnt serve the public interest.
The airwaves used to be considered a public resource that ought to serve everyone. Right now, if you are uninterested in potty jokes, sex, vulgarity, or the like you are not served by radio. The radio stations compete very heavily for the 18 to 35 year old white male audience. If you are not in that market segment , you are very likely not being served by the public airwaves.
Howard Stern, and most of all commerical radio, does not belong on the public airwaves.
Would you approve of him doing a show in the middle of Yellowstone National Park, or on the grounds of the US Capitol building? Of course not. Those are national treasures. Likewise for the airwaves.
On private channel communications, whatever sells rules. On the public airwaves, society must benefit.
And since when did you become the final arbiter of what has public value, "regardless of how popular Stern is"?
I am not. The FCC is. And then Congress.
Excuse me, but if 70-80% of the public at large finds it patently offensive, why is he #1 in most or all of the markets he's broadcast in?
That means nothing. 100% of people is everyone who listens to a radio. Howard often picks up a between a 4% and 20% share. That is not a majority. In markets where there is a lot of competition, that means he may in fact be number 1, with a 10% share.
My argument does not fail. Most of what is one the radio is not in the public interest. There are few communities in the country that would find by majority howard stern to be in the public interest. A "#1" rating usually does not amount to more than low double digits in the ratings - maybe in one or two markets 30%.
But it's totally fine to show violence as much as you like.
That's not true. It's a fallacy. You can show whatever you want on non-broadcast outlets. Swear, full-frontal nudity, whatever.
On broadcast mediums you cannot depict endless violence, just as you cannot do other indecent things.
Also, this isn't about the childen. This about the public interest. There was a time in this country where the airwaves were devoted to serving the public interest. Exposing people to things they'd never see elsewise. Things along that line. Thats the intent of the public airwaves. The airwaves a natural national resource, one that, like other national resources, should be used to serve all and benefit the public interest.
Selective enforcement of vague rules gives regulators too much power.
I agree completely. This is a good reason to revamp the system. However, it never excuses a specific instance of rule-breaking.
And I don't see how most current music is of any more public value than Stern or Janet's breast
It's not. I believe the public airwaves should be used from 100% non-commerical broadcasts. Comedy, cultural events, local news reporting, emergency broadcats, theater, dramatic presentations, national public radio, political events, governmetn functions, and the like. The airwaves ought to server everyone. The commerical stuff can be done over satelitte or on other mediums.
about 75% of the other garbage on the airwaves is not of value. & Broadcasting something that 70-80% of the public at large finds patently offensive does not serve the public interest.
75% number is my opinion, most of what is broadcast over the airwaves is either purely commerical, or propaganda, (or both). The public airwaves belong to everyone, yet the networks advertise mostly to 18-35 year olds, therefore, they get the content directed towards them. This is okay for cable, but for broadcast, it is wrong.
As far as the other number goes, it's not a big leap. Look at this article on CNN about his ratings.
In Chicago, for example, he went from 15th to 9th place. 9th place is like essentially 10% of people listening to the radio listened to him. I've tried before to find what percentage of people tune into Howard Stern, and then tune out because he's offensive (and not just because they disagree with what he says), and I can't find it.
I am not saying you shouldn't be able to listen to Howard Stern. Him being on sat. radio is perfect. Him being on the public airwaves in his current format, well, that's not serving the public interest. That's not yours, or mines, or anyone in specifics.
Ask yourself. What purpose does National Public Radio serve? Despite their somewhat obvious leanings, they are fact based programming. They interview real people, do real in-depth new stories, and provide a lot of cultural programming. They are a public resource. That belongs on the public airwaves. Ask yourself: what does Limbaugh, Stern, Imus, etc bring to the table? Anything? Are they serving the public interest? Are they serving society at large? Making you laugh - a comedy show - is a noble goal. But there are comedians out there that can make the larger number of people laugh without being patently offensive to others.
This is a sticky problem, because community guidelines on what is offenseive changes so drastically. I would never dream of referring to women the way Stern does. Ever. Yet, in some parts of the country this is normal. Is this serving the public interest, society at large? Hard to say.
The easiest solution is to get this stuff off the public airwaves completely, and instead reserve this national natural resouce for public affairs progamming, emergency communications, and not-for-profit programming. Everyone else can get out to the internet, sat radio, or other medium.
You call it "anti-bush garbage", but where do you think all the infringement of the US's free speech (wrapped under the guise of "decency") is stemming from in your country?
I have news for you, since the US started regulating the public airwaves many many many decades ago the things Stern wants to say have never been allowed. Ever. It's not like a new vendetta against him. This is old hat.
The airwaves are public property. Their use is not a right of companies. The use of the public airwaves must be, by its very nature, of benefit or substantial value to the public.
Potty humor, vulgarity, and crudeness is of now public value. Likewise, about 75% of the other garbage on the airwaves is not of value.
Regardless of how popular Stern is, the public is not well-served by his language or on-air antics. His proper place is on a non-broadcast medium, where I will happily laugh at his fart jokes.
Everyone needs to remember that the purpose of the airwaves is to serve society and the public at large. Broadcasting something that 70-80% of the public at large finds patently offensive does not serve the public interest.
Just curious, when you move people from MSSQL to MySQL, what do you do about stored procedures, views, mutli-database transactions, and point-in-time rollbacks?
I'd love to move some projects off of SQL-server and into a MySQL environment, but these really are sticking points for me!
Most often those types of situations the product fails for other reasons, not because of hegemonic monopolies..
For example, a great word processor exisited a while back for an extant platform, and everyone bitched about it being shut down.
It was great because of its speed and cleaness. But yet, despite that, there was not support for footnotes and/or endnotes. That instantly ruled out the most likely target customer base: the legal/business world.
When that product wents tits to the sky, whose fault was it supposedely? Microsoft.
If the authored pretended to be objective - put on that face - and wrote essentially the same article only with more objective-sounding wording, would that be better?
Personally, I think we should reward the people who helped the world the most as opposed
That's fine. You can send your money to the various engineers working at large firms who designed and built water purification systems.
Meanwhile everyone else will keep playing on their Xbox and sending their money to Microsoft.
This is a policy decision, not a law that was passed. Contrary to what hundreds of people here think, there is and never was any ban on this type of research. None. Perfectly legal.
It means, though, that there will not be any federal funding on research of lines of cells created before a certain date.
If people by and large want this, they are free to fund it. However, this type of research is disturbing to much of the population - a sold 1/3 do not want anything to do with it - so the government does not endorse it or ban it.
What are you talking about? Of course businesses drop suppliers. Wal-Mart expects price reductions every quarter from suppliers. They aren't the first or the last to try such a shocking tactic.
I work in the printing business. We demand that our vendors do better and better every single month. When they fail, we get a new vendor.
There are always new vendors. It's not personal. Just business.
WalMart could purchase the entire music industry lock stock and barrel.
It's an amazingly well run company.
WalMart is the type of place that would calculate the benefit of exploiting workers against the potential costs in liability, reputation, and damages, and then hold a meeting to discuss each side.
Don't ever assume that anything that happens at Wal-Mart is on accident.
The thing about Wal-Mart's pricing that you mention is interesting. They expect price decreases from suppliers every quarter of every year on every product. If you don't meet that goal, you get dropped and a new supplier is picked up for the same product.
It's a pretty good way to put pressure on suppliers and to remain very very very pricing proactive.
Because ignorant fuckers - usually religious fanatic ignorant fuckers
Right, because a person who uses "fuckers" twice in one fragment of a sentence clearly has a grasp of all the issues involved and can form a cogent opinion based solidly in fact and ethics.
Well you should go ahead and cram your insuations up your you know what, since it certainly looks the FBI here was obeying it's legally binding treaties at the behest of the Swedes and Italians.
Doesn't change a bit of what I said. If Bush comes out and says the whole Iraq thing was a lie and mistake, then what? You have massive troop defections in Iraq, and the country falls apart even more. Plus to boot the US military is completely hamstrung by troop loyalty problems. Great.
That's my point. He cant just come out and say obvious/relevant things on this type of question.
The problem is, let's say Bush does admit a mistake. Let's say he says appointing person X to post Y was a big mistake.
That person has to live with that! And he/she has to still attempt to a job when given a hugely public vote-of-no-confidence by the most powerful man in the world!
Talk about pressure.
Admitting a mistake is a worthless execise in this context. I am sure when you get Bush out of office he'll talk it up like Clinton et all have done: things that went right, wrong, and all over the place.
The bottom line is that him not detailing mistakes is not proof of "points to a fundamental dogmatic belief that their decisions are right and correct", but rather, a realization that anything he says affects policy, and affects real people.
There is a time and place for this business about admitting mistakes, but this isn't it.
Besides, depriving someone of profit is not illegal at all in itself.
Of course it's not. But deprevation of profits via another illegal act, aka copyright infringement, is the very defintion of theft in many states. Look it up.
If you were going to buy something, but instead found an illegal way to get the thing you were going to buy, then you have comitted theft.
The terms are simple. You can read what I wrote, I can read what you wrote. I can quote your content according to fair use. This is also a public forum, so anyone else can as well.
I only recognize the original limitations of the Constitution that only people over 21 can vote, that blacks are only worth 3/5 of a white vote, that women are not allowed to vote and that States select Senators, not the citizens directly.
In the cases where a person wasn't going to consume that media in the first place, infringing copying is not theft. It's infringement. There was no loss, no deprevation of value to the owner of the work.
In some cases though a person stops and has a moment of pause: I can drive to the store buy the CD and listen to it, or I can fire up the p2p app, download it, and burn it to CD or copy it to my Rio. What shall I do?
In this case, the person is attracted to the utility of the media, and feels it is worth the purchase price. The money is available. It is not a question of value or a lack of it.
In this case a theft, or a deprevation of profits, is experienced by the owner of the work.
Slashdot Mirror
I am nto suggesting he be banned. I am suggesting that his show being broadcast on the public airwaves doesnt serve the public interest.
The airwaves used to be considered a public resource that ought to serve everyone. Right now, if you are uninterested in potty jokes, sex, vulgarity, or the like you are not served by radio. The radio stations compete very heavily for the 18 to 35 year old white male audience. If you are not in that market segment , you are very likely not being served by the public airwaves.
Howard Stern, and most of all commerical radio, does not belong on the public airwaves.
Would you approve of him doing a show in the middle of Yellowstone National Park, or on the grounds of the US Capitol building? Of course not. Those are national treasures. Likewise for the airwaves.
On private channel communications, whatever sells rules. On the public airwaves, society must benefit.
And since when did you become the final arbiter of what has public value, "regardless of how popular Stern is"?
I am not. The FCC is. And then Congress.
Excuse me, but if 70-80% of the public at large finds it patently offensive, why is he #1 in most or all of the markets he's broadcast in?
That means nothing. 100% of people is everyone who listens to a radio. Howard often picks up a between a 4% and 20% share. That is not a majority. In markets where there is a lot of competition, that means he may in fact be number 1, with a 10% share.
My argument does not fail. Most of what is one the radio is not in the public interest. There are few communities in the country that would find by majority howard stern to be in the public interest. A "#1" rating usually does not amount to more than low double digits in the ratings - maybe in one or two markets 30%.
But it's totally fine to show violence as much as you like.
That's not true. It's a fallacy. You can show whatever you want on non-broadcast outlets. Swear, full-frontal nudity, whatever.
On broadcast mediums you cannot depict endless violence, just as you cannot do other indecent things.
Also, this isn't about the childen. This about the public interest. There was a time in this country where the airwaves were devoted to serving the public interest. Exposing people to things they'd never see elsewise. Things along that line. Thats the intent of the public airwaves. The airwaves a natural national resource, one that, like other national resources, should be used to serve all and benefit the public interest.
Selective enforcement of vague rules gives regulators too much power.
I agree completely. This is a good reason to revamp the system. However, it never excuses a specific instance of rule-breaking.
And I don't see how most current music is of any more public value than Stern or Janet's breast
It's not. I believe the public airwaves should be used from 100% non-commerical broadcasts. Comedy, cultural events, local news reporting, emergency broadcats, theater, dramatic presentations, national public radio, political events, governmetn functions, and the like. The airwaves ought to server everyone. The commerical stuff can be done over satelitte or on other mediums.
about 75% of the other garbage on the airwaves is not of value. & Broadcasting something that 70-80% of the public at large finds patently offensive does not serve the public interest.
75% number is my opinion, most of what is broadcast over the airwaves is either purely commerical, or propaganda, (or both). The public airwaves belong to everyone, yet the networks advertise mostly to 18-35 year olds, therefore, they get the content directed towards them. This is okay for cable, but for broadcast, it is wrong.
As far as the other number goes, it's not a big leap. Look at this article on CNN about his ratings.
Link
In Chicago, for example, he went from 15th to 9th place. 9th place is like essentially 10% of people listening to the radio listened to him. I've tried before to find what percentage of people tune into Howard Stern, and then tune out because he's offensive (and not just because they disagree with what he says), and I can't find it.
I am not saying you shouldn't be able to listen to Howard Stern. Him being on sat. radio is perfect. Him being on the public airwaves in his current format, well, that's not serving the public interest. That's not yours, or mines, or anyone in specifics.
Ask yourself. What purpose does National Public Radio serve? Despite their somewhat obvious leanings, they are fact based programming. They interview real people, do real in-depth new stories, and provide a lot of cultural programming. They are a public resource. That belongs on the public airwaves. Ask yourself: what does Limbaugh, Stern, Imus, etc bring to the table? Anything? Are they serving the public interest? Are they serving society at large? Making you laugh - a comedy show - is a noble goal. But there are comedians out there that can make the larger number of people laugh without being patently offensive to others.
This is a sticky problem, because community guidelines on what is offenseive changes so drastically. I would never dream of referring to women the way Stern does. Ever. Yet, in some parts of the country this is normal. Is this serving the public interest, society at large? Hard to say.
The easiest solution is to get this stuff off the public airwaves completely, and instead reserve this national natural resouce for public affairs progamming, emergency communications, and not-for-profit programming. Everyone else can get out to the internet, sat radio, or other medium.
You call it "anti-bush garbage", but where do you think all the infringement of the US's free speech (wrapped under the guise of "decency") is stemming from in your country?
I have news for you, since the US started regulating the public airwaves many many many decades ago the things Stern wants to say have never been allowed. Ever. It's not like a new vendetta against him. This is old hat.
The airwaves are public property. Their use is not a right of companies. The use of the public airwaves must be, by its very nature, of benefit or substantial value to the public.
Potty humor, vulgarity, and crudeness is of now public value. Likewise, about 75% of the other garbage on the airwaves is not of value.
Regardless of how popular Stern is, the public is not well-served by his language or on-air antics. His proper place is on a non-broadcast medium, where I will happily laugh at his fart jokes.
Everyone needs to remember that the purpose of the airwaves is to serve society and the public at large. Broadcasting something that 70-80% of the public at large finds patently offensive does not serve the public interest.
Just curious, when you move people from MSSQL to MySQL, what do you do about stored procedures, views, mutli-database transactions, and point-in-time rollbacks?
I'd love to move some projects off of SQL-server and into a MySQL environment, but these really are sticking points for me!
(and like 50 zillon others)
Most often those types of situations the product fails for other reasons, not because of hegemonic monopolies..
For example, a great word processor exisited a while back for an extant platform, and everyone bitched about it being shut down.
It was great because of its speed and cleaness. But yet, despite that, there was not support for footnotes and/or endnotes. That instantly ruled out the most likely target customer base: the legal/business world.
When that product wents tits to the sky, whose fault was it supposedely? Microsoft.
Bah.
If the authored pretended to be objective - put on that face - and wrote essentially the same article only with more objective-sounding wording, would that be better?
Personally, I think we should reward the people who helped the world the most as opposed
That's fine. You can send your money to the various engineers working at large firms who designed and built water purification systems.
Meanwhile everyone else will keep playing on their Xbox and sending their money to Microsoft.
Or slashdot for that matter?
Right.
EULAs are proving to be very hard to enforce in front a judge. Somehow an automated snarky juvenille auto-license is going to pass muster?
Right. Well, I am going to fill you.
This is a policy decision, not a law that was passed. Contrary to what hundreds of people here think, there is and never was any ban on this type of research. None. Perfectly legal.
It means, though, that there will not be any federal funding on research of lines of cells created before a certain date.
If people by and large want this, they are free to fund it. However, this type of research is disturbing to much of the population - a sold 1/3 do not want anything to do with it - so the government does not endorse it or ban it.
This is hardly a big deal.
Find me the legislation. Have a section number, or the resolution that was passed?
What are you talking about? Of course businesses drop suppliers. Wal-Mart expects price reductions every quarter from suppliers. They aren't the first or the last to try such a shocking tactic.
I work in the printing business. We demand that our vendors do better and better every single month. When they fail, we get a new vendor.
There are always new vendors. It's not personal. Just business.
WalMart could purchase the entire music industry lock stock and barrel.
It's an amazingly well run company.
WalMart is the type of place that would calculate the benefit of exploiting workers against the potential costs in liability, reputation, and damages, and then hold a meeting to discuss each side.
Don't ever assume that anything that happens at Wal-Mart is on accident.
The thing about Wal-Mart's pricing that you mention is interesting. They expect price decreases from suppliers every quarter of every year on every product. If you don't meet that goal, you get dropped and a new supplier is picked up for the same product.
It's a pretty good way to put pressure on suppliers and to remain very very very pricing proactive.
Because ignorant fuckers - usually religious fanatic ignorant fuckers
Right, because a person who uses "fuckers" twice in one fragment of a sentence clearly has a grasp of all the issues involved and can form a cogent opinion based solidly in fact and ethics.
Just so you know, there is not a ban on this type of research. What legislation specifically are you referring to?
Well you should go ahead and cram your insuations up your you know what, since it certainly looks the FBI here was obeying it's legally binding treaties at the behest of the Swedes and Italians.
Okay, well, that's great. A nice rant, really.
Doesn't change a bit of what I said. If Bush comes out and says the whole Iraq thing was a lie and mistake, then what? You have massive troop defections in Iraq, and the country falls apart even more. Plus to boot the US military is completely hamstrung by troop loyalty problems. Great.
That's my point. He cant just come out and say obvious/relevant things on this type of question.
The problem is, let's say Bush does admit a mistake. Let's say he says appointing person X to post Y was a big mistake.
That person has to live with that! And he/she has to still attempt to a job when given a hugely public vote-of-no-confidence by the most powerful man in the world!
Talk about pressure.
Admitting a mistake is a worthless execise in this context. I am sure when you get Bush out of office he'll talk it up like Clinton et all have done: things that went right, wrong, and all over the place.
The bottom line is that him not detailing mistakes is not proof of "points to a fundamental dogmatic belief that their decisions are right and correct", but rather, a realization that anything he says affects policy, and affects real people.
There is a time and place for this business about admitting mistakes, but this isn't it.
Besides, depriving someone of profit is not illegal at all in itself.
Of course it's not. But deprevation of profits via another illegal act, aka copyright infringement, is the very defintion of theft in many states. Look it up.
If you were going to buy something, but instead found an illegal way to get the thing you were going to buy, then you have comitted theft.
The terms are simple. You can read what I wrote, I can read what you wrote. I can quote your content according to fair use. This is also a public forum, so anyone else can as well.
I only recognize the original limitations of the Constitution that only people over 21 can vote, that blacks are only worth 3/5 of a white vote, that women are not allowed to vote and that States select Senators, not the citizens directly.
And fuck you and anyone else who says otherwise!
In some cases, it really is stealing.
In the cases where a person wasn't going to consume that media in the first place, infringing copying is not theft. It's infringement. There was no loss, no deprevation of value to the owner of the work.
In some cases though a person stops and has a moment of pause: I can drive to the store buy the CD and listen to it, or I can fire up the p2p app, download it, and burn it to CD or copy it to my Rio. What shall I do?
In this case, the person is attracted to the utility of the media, and feels it is worth the purchase price. The money is available. It is not a question of value or a lack of it.
In this case a theft, or a deprevation of profits, is experienced by the owner of the work.