In fact, the article looks like hype and might actually piss the hospitals off. Are they all really jumping in with both feet when most of them don't even want to go to Vista? I doubt it. You obviously know nothing about the IT infrastructure of most hospitals.
Are they jumping at Vista? No. They aren't really jumping at XP either. 2000 Pro is what I see a lot of.
Hell, do you know how many nursing stations, in 200-300 bed hospitals, pass med orders to the pharmacy? FAX. As in they fax the order down to the Pharmacy and the Pharmacists/tech prints it out and puts it in an INBOX. I've seen pneumatic tube systems for Christ's sake, and not just in rural LTACs.
Hospitals don't jump on new technology EVER. Never ever. Never ever ever.
OK, not exactly true. Big hospitals jump on tested technology all the time. The rest don't have the funding, nor the legal support, to do so.
In the US Healthcare services consumption is rising in proportion to the aging of the Baby Boomer generation. Add to this the fact that there is a severe shortage of Quality staff, and you have a MAJOR problem. Since most hospitals run in the red due to Insurance companies woefully inadequate rates for payments on procedures, retroactive denials, and games played with payment timing - and you have Hospitals who are effectively working as banks.
Let's not even add to the issue by introducing patients WHO CANNOT ACTUALLY PAY for services that cannot be legally denied.
So is Microsoft going to piss off Hospitals? HELL NO. Hospitals want this type of thing, FROM ANYONE THEY CAN AFFORD, even if only to save on labor costs for the manual tasks they execute now in order to emulate this functionality. Hospitals are being legislated into implementing EMR. What makes you think the existing McKesson, Cerner, or any other big Healthcare software company for that matter is making this same functionality available for a reasonable price.
They aren't. In fact, you should be more pissed off at the fact that these big HC software companies want to charge $50,000 for their HL7 connectors to put data INTO their systems. That's called a API in techland, and its usually much cheaper than that.
A tool that my mom used for controlling video game time for my younger sister was controlling the power cord. Hand it out when it is game time, remove it when it is time to do homework. I was a latchkey kid and my Mom tried that with me. Unfortunately the answering machine ran on the same voltage.
hey are immersive. They compel the gamer to become better, more effective, at completing the game's objectives. If those objectives are relentlessly violent, they what you have on your hands is a simulator that's explicitly designed to strengthen violent antisocial tendencies in the playing audience. To be a simulator you have to actually simulate an activity. I shoot handguns competitively and can tell you with much certainty that games will not make people better shooters. Ever. Never ever. The behavior rewarded in videogames is tactically unsound and will get you killed if you tried to apply those theories in a real firefight. Factor in adrenalin in real life and you have some pretty bad shooting.
AS far as physical violence goes, you have to quit believing what you see in video games and movies and on TV is even plausible. Martial training is a long and painful process that ultimately only gives you an edge, not infallible physical superiority. Its funny how it is really easy and really hard at the same time to severely injure someone. Hitting someone in the face is pretty hard when they're moving.
Now, if were talking about a general overall simulator to make you more aggressive and violent, I think any high school environment can do that.
There is no such thing as obscenity. In order for that to exist it would be absolute and universal. It doesn't exist. It's an opinion. It's not philosophy.
Its amazing that that mob rule is legitimate in one case, in this instance the definition of taste, but in another it is decried as woefully inadequate. It doesn't work both ways. To assume that people would turn into sick fucks without some sort of regulation is asinine. The spectrum of people already exist. Society didn't destroy predatory behavior amongst people. It just defined what the punishment would be for those activities.
This is such an empty circular argument. What is this definition of acceptable that society has formed? What is the boundary of this society?
See, you want to make your opinion a fact when in reality there isn't one factual element of your opinion. "Society" is a moving target. People love to use it as a legitimizing tool, they just forget to quantify it.
You stated that we must rate games responsibly. The problem is AO is it is so obtuse. You want to accurately measure content, fine. Get a better tool. Tell me when a game is violent. Tell me if a game has sexual content.
Why are the open sex minigames in both Gods of War less offensive than the hidden one in GTA?
See, heres the problem. Being offended isn't a legitimate reason to do anything other than walk away or close your eyes ect...
Being Offended != Being Oppressed Being Offended != Being Abused Being Offended != Being Manipulated Being Offended != Injustice being done to you
See the difference? Being offended is a one off, a personal matter. I find it amusing that someone can be so ignorant to think that it is acceptable behavior for people to try and prevent the distribution of content that THEY find offensive. As if they were the defacto standard for class and taste. People should self regulate and leave it at that.
Google doesn't advertise? Are you serious? Ever heard of product placement? You can't just go and put a screenshot of a Google search into a movie without consent, well you could and then get sued.
Google does advertise, just not to searchers. See, they sell the searcher to advertisers.
On a side note, what is with everyone hating on Marketing. I understand how intrusive marketing is annoying - but the people here love to beat on it like it was the devil. Come on, do you guys have jobs? Do you like your paychecks? Well, then I bet you wouldn't want the company you work for to quit selling their product or service now would you?
Dude, I get that you're really, really, really anti copyright. OK. But ranting about hypothetical situations that are completely nonsensical in their origin is not going to help the cause.
Calm down, construct a reasonable argument for fair use/anti copyright - and help yourself out. Copy mechanism doesn't matter. Its a moot point.
Also, your thought that its amazing that copiers don't require a thumbprint or some such shit is ridiculous. Think of it this way, the copyright holder has the right to EXERCISE their right, not a mandate forcing them to. If a creator of a work wants to copyright it and then allow anyone on the planet to do what they want with it willy nilly, thats their right as it stands now. Such a structure as you describe would do more to destroy copyrights than all of us becoming rampant pirates by forcing an action, that as it stands now, is completely optional to exercise.
True, if you don't protect your copyright, then you don't get to keep it. But if you let everyone copy your work anyway, you probably didn't want the copyright in the first place. Or you can create a general free use distribution license for everyone and keep your useless copyright intact.
If you want to fight it, you need to understand it a little better. If you understand it just fine, please approach it in a manner that lays some credibility to your argument.
But ROI has always been unmeasurable and unreliable. WTF are you talking about? I pay google $100 to place my ad up for some search terms. I see which search terms people click on. Then I also see which search terms result in a user filling out a form, clicking a deeper link, ect...
Money spent / number of actions = cost per action.
Now take cost per action and divide it by the number of financial transactions resulting from the action vector.
Number of actions / financial transactions = number of actions needed per sale
Now compare the margin of each financial transaction against the cost of a the required number of actions needed
financial transaction(margin of transaction):: cost per action(actions required to secure financial transaction)
There's your ROI. And in E-commerce its easily trackable. If a transaction occurred as a residual effect of an ad, even better. If the ratio of money in to money gained is favorable - the company is happy.
If I were a content provider with advertisers, I'd be wary of those who use codes to track ROI. Such advertisers are too flighty. And as a consumer, I don't like them either. Reminds me too much of spam with unique strings of garbage attached to the URLs (especially on embedded img tags) to verify your e-mail address as valid. You don't need that. All you need is a unique key to target on the backend. Referral logs work too. You wouldn't even know until it was too late.
As for too flighty? What are you talking about? Advertisers who track ROI are the ones you want. If it works, they stay. The incompetent ones are flighty - changing plans to see if something might work.
Would it have been legal if they bought enough physical newspapers with the stories in them and clipped them for each packet? Yes.
What if they clipped them, made a single copy of each for better presentation in the packet, and retained the original clipping as a backup, having one secured original for every copy (i.e. fair-use copying for archival purpose)? Still Legal.
Would each copy truly have to be made from a unique albeit identical original, or is that just an artificial restriction to make copying more onerous, and if so, why not require all copies be made by re-typesetting them in an original Gutenburg printing press? Copyright was lazily written because it originally had the benefit of the delivery vehicles limitations setting the boundaries for the definitions of fair use. It the above example you could make legitimate arguments for this not being fair use, that only one copy was used to make other copies. Even though you did purchase enough copies to cover an original for each packet, you didn't make true backups of each one - you shifted to an equivalent number of backups assuming it was the same - when to the letter of the law it isn't.
Now, you could also legitimately argue that the number of copies bought does lend itself to the spirit of the law, in which case you purchased each original with the purpose of covering your ass on only copying one original X times (X = numbers of originals). This was done to save redundant labor for (ironically) making copies of each original.
As for resetting them in the Gutenburg press, illegal.
What stereo type am I refering to when I talk about it on a genetic level? Are you stating that males in general don't have these hangups? This isn't "manly man" vs. "effeminate men" in the war of the definition of "true man", this is genetic predisposition to certain traits. Its not all encompassing, thats why I said most.
Look at many mating structures in nature. Alpha dominate specimens get to choose their mates. Dominate females can and will deny suitors even if that male is the "alpha". Subordinate males often employ harrasing tactics to alpha females in attempts to get them to consent to mating.
Oh, you don't like my double use of the word MEN instead of MALES. OK, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. You can attack me, but you have yet to state anything that makes my argument any less valid.
I also never said stereotyping was bad. I stated, in a round about manner, that the subtle assumptions that men make are the real slights.
I would argue that you can make MORE money because you have just offloaded your distribution costs to the consumer. Sure you would have to pay bandwidth and such, but thats nothing compared to actually having to ship physical media.
I like the true competition middlemen idea. You could also do it on a creative level. Say DJ whomever does some song remixes of popular released material. Its public domain, you can do it. Then they start to commission remixes. Popular authors can take well fleshed out worlds and characters and do what they want with them. I'd like to see competing "universes" for established SciFi franchises. Something like Star Wars timeline A against Star Wars timeline B. Some universes have Boba Fett as a good guy, other as a bad guy, others as magically getting Jedi powers. The contents quality determines its merit. Creativity is rewarded by those who appreciate it and free market forces are the framework for the vote.
I take it one step further and state that it is my responsibility to ensure my activity.
The addition of the government as a protection method just bothers me. They haven't been looking out for my constitutional interests for quite some time. So why would they protect me, as an individual, from being oppressed by someone else? Police don't help me in the matter at hand, they come into play after the fact.
I really take the inalienable rights concept to heart. While you stated:
you can always do whatever you want as long as there is nobody around that is capable of stopping you from doing it and you have the necessary resources available
I say you can do anything you want as long as you are willing to pay the consequences of your actions, whatever those may be and however fair they are.
Please feel free to use this if you like econ guys, just cite me as a source;)
Why don't bands, or movie producers, or whatever media types just state how much money they want to make before hand?
Seriously. Lets say I'm in a band and we record an album. Now, on my website me and my bandmates say we will release the materials digitally and DRM free and you can distribute it willy nilly all over the place and use it for any damn thing you want. But not until we raise X amount of dollars prerelease.
So after a few weeks of having this website up we hit our mark and then BOOM the media hits the scene. Everyone who donated gets to download the material initially and then distro it however they want. The materials are still available for a small fee for those who don't want to use a P2P technology or who don't want to fish around for it or whatever reason they desire.
In fact, the P2P scene does self regulate. Finding a torrent for some materials is pretty hard, and sometimes the download times outweigh the consumers desire to "have it now". They may go directly to the source and pay for the materials, even though they are available for free. Shit is more expensive at the convenience store than it is at the grocery store - yet people still buy beer there......hrm.
This really isn't any different than what many studios do now. They invest in a movie, and then hope it makes it at the box office and in DVD sales. Most movies and albums lose money anyway, so whats the difference?
No, but you do have to have someone willing and able to uphold those rights. They're called the military and/or police, and taxes pay for those organizations. While certain individuals may not pay, someone does. Neither of those organizations upholds rights. They, as you said, exert force to either A) in the case of the military protect them from compromise or ) in the case of police enforce restrictions placed on them by your government.
You uphold you rights every time you exercise them.
Hate to break it to you, but those Sports, Religious, and Shopping channels are supporting the other channels.
If offered in an A la carte manner, most specialized stations don't generate enough revenue to function. In order to offer specialized content and stay financially viable, companies started offering packages and having the individual stations pay into a pool to help fund the other stations.
TV Channels like the Food network, E!, MTV, and ESPN have higher production values because their advertising revenue is much larger than the "fee". Channels like the History Channel, some Discovery brands, and other more "intellectual" specialties just don't draw the crowd - and in turn don't rake in the dough.
So you call it rape, but it would be a lot worse if you were only offered things you didn't want.
One example assumes that a woman is a homemaker who should be cooking dinner for her man; two assumes that a woman should be wearing makeup; three assumes that women should, again, be cooking. That this is framed in the context of something which supposes to emancipate women from underachieving in math, science and engineering is what creates the irony. ]
Wait, you mean this book is targeted at girls who read fashion magazines? So the context is predefined? Namely the context of talking to girls who like this sort of thing? Oh...well I guess we should just assume shes being condescending, or ignorant, instead of realizing that she is a girlie girl hottie with a frigginErds-Bacon number who might have some personal experience and investment in getting more girls like her to become feminine intellectuals!
This book doesn't make the assumption that it emancipates anyone. It tries to use a damn effective vehicle for communicating material that is often not desirable to consume. If you think I'm wrong, how do you explain the high number of women who purchase fashion magazines who at the same time blame the media for the false image they have to live up to. Thats a magic trick in and of itself, getting people to pay to hate themselves, to be fed tailored insecurities.
Maybe Danica McKellar put some of her UCLA brains to work and found a vehicle that she could co opt to educate and empower these girls.
You know, you may not like it, but there is a class of women out there who are effectively super women. Beautiful, intellectual, empowered, employed in high paying and influential positions, and raising kids. Its just that most MEN, and I use that term referring to genetic makeup, can't handle the realities of being with them. Their pathetic mirror to female insecurity creates this never ending fountain of emasculated feelings. Or, even worse, the hubris laden egos of most technically proficient males can't cope with the fact that their mate can equal, or best them, in an aspect he uses to define himself in.
Thats why you people come up with terms like this:] Myself, I wouldn't say that being feminine in this highly traditional sense is an innately bad thing, but that other role options should be presented and accepted by people at a young age so they can decide for themselves how to identify.
You NEED to feel at some point in a female's life cycle that they are vulnerable for no other reason than they are female. That a female couldn't possible see the forest for the trees and separate content from context. The worst part is, your closet superiority complex is what is giving you the biggest problem relating to people.
The reality of the matter is its called Marketing 101. Get someone to PURCHASE the book for their daughter, thinking its a good idea. I don't know about you, but many young people don't go out and purchase any raw math text books when they weren't required or directed to. I think someone with a Degree in Mathematics from UCLA could figure this out and perhaps work around it.
Just a thought. Or you can continue on with the asinine idea that every demographic variant needs to be presented with every option represented in every light for every possible socio-economic combination of factors in order to validate itself.
Slashdot Mirror
NO shit. Actually, the first thing I said when I read the headline was:
"Fuck, Fuck, FUCK! NOOOOO! God damn it! First the NFL license then this shit."
That statement assumes you know you are incompetent. Which, if you are incompetent, you don't have the skills to accurately judge your incompetence.
Those who don't know what they don't know aren't rip off artists. A rip off artist knows what they are doing.
I have to ask the question, is this type of behavior exhibited by ripoff artists, or inexperienced "technical" people trying to be entrepreneurial?
The end result may manifest itself in the same form, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's malicious. Incompetent? Yes. Scam? Maybe not.
Are they jumping at Vista? No. They aren't really jumping at XP either. 2000 Pro is what I see a lot of.
Hell, do you know how many nursing stations, in 200-300 bed hospitals, pass med orders to the pharmacy?
FAX. As in they fax the order down to the Pharmacy and the Pharmacists/tech prints it out and puts it in an INBOX. I've seen pneumatic tube systems for Christ's sake, and not just in rural LTACs.
Hospitals don't jump on new technology EVER. Never ever. Never ever ever.
OK, not exactly true. Big hospitals jump on tested technology all the time. The rest don't have the funding, nor the legal support, to do so.
In the US Healthcare services consumption is rising in proportion to the aging of the Baby Boomer generation. Add to this the fact that there is a severe shortage of Quality staff, and you have a MAJOR problem. Since most hospitals run in the red due to Insurance companies woefully inadequate rates for payments on procedures, retroactive denials, and games played with payment timing - and you have Hospitals who are effectively working as banks.
Let's not even add to the issue by introducing patients WHO CANNOT ACTUALLY PAY for services that cannot be legally denied.
So is Microsoft going to piss off Hospitals? HELL NO. Hospitals want this type of thing, FROM ANYONE THEY CAN AFFORD, even if only to save on labor costs for the manual tasks they execute now in order to emulate this functionality. Hospitals are being legislated into implementing EMR. What makes you think the existing McKesson, Cerner, or any other big Healthcare software company for that matter is making this same functionality available for a reasonable price.
They aren't. In fact, you should be more pissed off at the fact that these big HC software companies want to charge $50,000 for their HL7 connectors to put data INTO their systems. That's called a API in techland, and its usually much cheaper than that.
Whats google doing with their darknet purchases again?
AS far as physical violence goes, you have to quit believing what you see in video games and movies and on TV is even plausible. Martial training is a long and painful process that ultimately only gives you an edge, not infallible physical superiority. Its funny how it is really easy and really hard at the same time to severely injure someone. Hitting someone in the face is pretty hard when they're moving.
Now, if were talking about a general overall simulator to make you more aggressive and violent, I think any high school environment can do that.
bullshit.
There is no such thing as obscenity. In order for that to exist it would be absolute and universal. It doesn't exist. It's an opinion. It's not philosophy.
Its amazing that that mob rule is legitimate in one case, in this instance the definition of taste, but in another it is decried as woefully inadequate. It doesn't work both ways. To assume that people would turn into sick fucks without some sort of regulation is asinine. The spectrum of people already exist. Society didn't destroy predatory behavior amongst people. It just defined what the punishment would be for those activities.
This is such an empty circular argument. What is this definition of acceptable that society has formed? What is the boundary of this society?
See, you want to make your opinion a fact when in reality there isn't one factual element of your opinion. "Society" is a moving target. People love to use it as a legitimizing tool, they just forget to quantify it.
You stated that we must rate games responsibly. The problem is AO is it is so obtuse. You want to accurately measure content, fine. Get a better tool. Tell me when a game is violent. Tell me if a game has sexual content.
Why are the open sex minigames in both Gods of War less offensive than the hidden one in GTA?
See the problem yet?
See, heres the problem. Being offended isn't a legitimate reason to do anything other than walk away or close your eyes ect...
Being Offended != Being Oppressed
Being Offended != Being Abused
Being Offended != Being Manipulated
Being Offended != Injustice being done to you
See the difference? Being offended is a one off, a personal matter. I find it amusing that someone can be so ignorant to think that it is acceptable behavior for people to try and prevent the distribution of content that THEY find offensive. As if they were the defacto standard for class and taste. People should self regulate and leave it at that.
Google doesn't advertise? Are you serious? Ever heard of product placement? You can't just go and put a screenshot of a Google search into a movie without consent, well you could and then get sued.
Google does advertise, just not to searchers. See, they sell the searcher to advertisers.
On a side note, what is with everyone hating on Marketing. I understand how intrusive marketing is annoying - but the people here love to beat on it like it was the devil. Come on, do you guys have jobs? Do you like your paychecks? Well, then I bet you wouldn't want the company you work for to quit selling their product or service now would you?
Dude, I get that you're really, really, really anti copyright. OK. But ranting about hypothetical situations that are completely nonsensical in their origin is not going to help the cause.
Calm down, construct a reasonable argument for fair use/anti copyright - and help yourself out. Copy mechanism doesn't matter. Its a moot point.
Also, your thought that its amazing that copiers don't require a thumbprint or some such shit is ridiculous. Think of it this way, the copyright holder has the right to EXERCISE their right, not a mandate forcing them to. If a creator of a work wants to copyright it and then allow anyone on the planet to do what they want with it willy nilly, thats their right as it stands now. Such a structure as you describe would do more to destroy copyrights than all of us becoming rampant pirates by forcing an action, that as it stands now, is completely optional to exercise.
True, if you don't protect your copyright, then you don't get to keep it. But if you let everyone copy your work anyway, you probably didn't want the copyright in the first place. Or you can create a general free use distribution license for everyone and keep your useless copyright intact.
If you want to fight it, you need to understand it a little better. If you understand it just fine, please approach it in a manner that lays some credibility to your argument.
Money spent / number of actions = cost per action.
Now take cost per action and divide it by the number of financial transactions resulting from the action vector.
Number of actions / financial transactions = number of actions needed per sale
Now compare the margin of each financial transaction against the cost of a the required number of actions needed
financial transaction(margin of transaction):: cost per action(actions required to secure financial transaction)
There's your ROI. And in E-commerce its easily trackable. If a transaction occurred as a residual effect of an ad, even better. If the ratio of money in to money gained is favorable - the company is happy. If I were a content provider with advertisers, I'd be wary of those who use codes to track ROI. Such advertisers are too flighty. And as a consumer, I don't like them either. Reminds me too much of spam with unique strings of garbage attached to the URLs (especially on embedded img tags) to verify your e-mail address as valid. You don't need that. All you need is a unique key to target on the backend. Referral logs work too. You wouldn't even know until it was too late.
As for too flighty? What are you talking about? Advertisers who track ROI are the ones you want. If it works, they stay. The incompetent ones are flighty - changing plans to see if something might work.
Now, you could also legitimately argue that the number of copies bought does lend itself to the spirit of the law, in which case you purchased each original with the purpose of covering your ass on only copying one original X times (X = numbers of originals). This was done to save redundant labor for (ironically) making copies of each original.
As for resetting them in the Gutenburg press, illegal.
I thought you just did this.
2 4515
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=
Strategic and tactical placement of resources to maximize effect without resorting to profiling or harassing citizens is a good thing.
suggest that next time you try to explain you position in a way that people don't need to guess at the tone that you are taking.
Fair enough. I probably should have used WE, or Male dominated societies, or anything else besides the term YOU.
Its called observation, check it out.
What stereo type am I refering to when I talk about it on a genetic level? Are you stating that males in general don't have these hangups? This isn't "manly man" vs. "effeminate men" in the war of the definition of "true man", this is genetic predisposition to certain traits. Its not all encompassing, thats why I said most.
Look at many mating structures in nature. Alpha dominate specimens get to choose their mates. Dominate females can and will deny suitors even if that male is the "alpha". Subordinate males often employ harrasing tactics to alpha females in attempts to get them to consent to mating.
Oh, you don't like my double use of the word MEN instead of MALES. OK, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. You can attack me, but you have yet to state anything that makes my argument any less valid.
I also never said stereotyping was bad. I stated, in a round about manner, that the subtle assumptions that men make are the real slights.
I'm not trying to appear balanced and enlightened at all.
I have an opinion, and I state it.
I would argue that you can make MORE money because you have just offloaded your distribution costs to the consumer. Sure you would have to pay bandwidth and such, but thats nothing compared to actually having to ship physical media.
I like the true competition middlemen idea. You could also do it on a creative level. Say DJ whomever does some song remixes of popular released material. Its public domain, you can do it. Then they start to commission remixes. Popular authors can take well fleshed out worlds and characters and do what they want with them. I'd like to see competing "universes" for established SciFi franchises. Something like Star Wars timeline A against Star Wars timeline B. Some universes have Boba Fett as a good guy, other as a bad guy, others as magically getting Jedi powers. The contents quality determines its merit. Creativity is rewarded by those who appreciate it and free market forces are the framework for the vote.
I take it one step further and state that it is my responsibility to ensure my activity.
The addition of the government as a protection method just bothers me. They haven't been looking out for my constitutional interests for quite some time. So why would they protect me, as an individual, from being oppressed by someone else? Police don't help me in the matter at hand, they come into play after the fact.
I really take the inalienable rights concept to heart. While you stated:
you can always do whatever you want as long as there is nobody around that is capable of stopping you from doing it and you have the necessary resources available
I say you can do anything you want as long as you are willing to pay the consequences of your actions, whatever those may be and however fair they are.
Please feel free to use this if you like econ guys, just cite me as a source ;)
Why don't bands, or movie producers, or whatever media types just state how much money they want to make before hand?
Seriously. Lets say I'm in a band and we record an album. Now, on my website me and my bandmates say we will release the materials digitally and DRM free and you can distribute it willy nilly all over the place and use it for any damn thing you want. But not until we raise X amount of dollars prerelease.
So after a few weeks of having this website up we hit our mark and then BOOM the media hits the scene. Everyone who donated gets to download the material initially and then distro it however they want. The materials are still available for a small fee for those who don't want to use a P2P technology or who don't want to fish around for it or whatever reason they desire.
In fact, the P2P scene does self regulate. Finding a torrent for some materials is pretty hard, and sometimes the download times outweigh the consumers desire to "have it now". They may go directly to the source and pay for the materials, even though they are available for free. Shit is more expensive at the convenience store than it is at the grocery store - yet people still buy beer there......hrm.
This really isn't any different than what many studios do now. They invest in a movie, and then hope it makes it at the box office and in DVD sales. Most movies and albums lose money anyway, so whats the difference?
You uphold you rights every time you exercise them.
Hate to break it to you, but those Sports, Religious, and Shopping channels are supporting the other channels.
If offered in an A la carte manner, most specialized stations don't generate enough revenue to function. In order to offer specialized content and stay financially viable, companies started offering packages and having the individual stations pay into a pool to help fund the other stations.
TV Channels like the Food network, E!, MTV, and ESPN have higher production values because their advertising revenue is much larger than the "fee". Channels like the History Channel, some Discovery brands, and other more "intellectual" specialties just don't draw the crowd - and in turn don't rake in the dough.
So you call it rape, but it would be a lot worse if you were only offered things you didn't want.
Wait, you mean this book is targeted at girls who read fashion magazines? So the context is predefined? Namely the context of talking to girls who like this sort of thing? Oh...well I guess we should just assume shes being condescending, or ignorant, instead of realizing that she is a girlie girl hottie with a frigginErds-Bacon number who might have some personal experience and investment in getting more girls like her to become feminine intellectuals!
This book doesn't make the assumption that it emancipates anyone. It tries to use a damn effective vehicle for communicating material that is often not desirable to consume. If you think I'm wrong, how do you explain the high number of women who purchase fashion magazines who at the same time blame the media for the false image they have to live up to. Thats a magic trick in and of itself, getting people to pay to hate themselves, to be fed tailored insecurities.
Maybe Danica McKellar put some of her UCLA brains to work and found a vehicle that she could co opt to educate and empower these girls.
You know, you may not like it, but there is a class of women out there who are effectively super women. Beautiful, intellectual, empowered, employed in high paying and influential positions, and raising kids. Its just that most MEN, and I use that term referring to genetic makeup, can't handle the realities of being with them. Their pathetic mirror to female insecurity creates this never ending fountain of emasculated feelings. Or, even worse, the hubris laden egos of most technically proficient males can't cope with the fact that their mate can equal, or best them, in an aspect he uses to define himself in.
Thats why you people come up with terms like this:]
Myself, I wouldn't say that being feminine in this highly traditional sense is an innately bad thing, but that other role options should be presented and accepted by people at a young age so they can decide for themselves how to identify.
You NEED to feel at some point in a female's life cycle that they are vulnerable for no other reason than they are female. That a female couldn't possible see the forest for the trees and separate content from context. The worst part is, your closet superiority complex is what is giving you the biggest problem relating to people.
The reality of the matter is its called Marketing 101. Get someone to PURCHASE the book for their daughter, thinking its a good idea. I don't know about you, but many young people don't go out and purchase any raw math text books when they weren't required or directed to. I think someone with a Degree in Mathematics from UCLA could figure this out and perhaps work around it.
Just a thought. Or you can continue on with the asinine idea that every demographic variant needs to be presented with every option represented in every light for every possible socio-economic combination of factors in order to validate itself.