He's not pissed that there's a Fox News, he's not pissed that there is an ABC or MSNBC or whatever. His whole point is that you are losing out because the way the markets have changed.
These giant companies are stifling innovation, they are making it damn near impossible for anyone to get a start in that area. In order for a station to show anything they force the people who made it to sell it to them. Otherwise it won't get shown. You don't like it, go fart in the wind.
One of my favorite quotes: the corporate emphasis instantly shifts from taking risks to taking profits. When that happens, quality suffers, localism suffers, and democracy itself suffers.
You can see that now. Look at all the "Reality shows" everyone hates them. But after the first one came along it became a 'me too' thing. There's no innovation there. He also mentions this. (I'm reading as I'm typing this up, so I was a little ahead there.)
The Nielsen ratings are dangerous in a similar way--because they scare companies away from good shows that don't produce immediate blockbuster ratings. Emphasis mine.
As far as media goes, we now only have a few options to go to. CNN has a slant, Fox has a slant, they all have their own political agendas. So where can I really go to get 'fair and balanced news' or more to the point factual news and not some BS?
I really liked this quote from Viacom: "In this duopoly, we should be able to control the news in the marketplace."
Naturally, corporations say they would never suppress speech.
Sure they would never do that... But when they control the news, well there goes speech. How many programs or news items have not been aired because it was critical of the parent company?
Turner was also pointing out that the people really don't want this consolidation, but the lobbying power and the way these companies are going about it (not broadcasting the news and making it known) there's no way to go about and change it.
As an aside, how many people have you talked to that have given up watching TV because of the poor programming? My wife and I have.
Sorry, I was thinking about methane. But there are also nitifying bacteria in some anaerobic lagoons. These bacteria are common in soils here. Maybe there's a carbon source below the surface on Mars that is providing these little anaerobic bacteria with something to munch on.
Fire? While fire is usually a good solution to many things (like the ugly towels my wife and I got for our wedding and can't return anywhere), in this case there is a better solution. One that has practical science applications.
I had a question as to how this might relate to the RIAA/MPAA. They've been doing a lot of lawsuit slinging and some of it seems much like extortion to me. How would this case effect them?
They've been doing the 'prove your innocence' gambit for a while. To me this sounds quite a bit alike.
How many copies do you get to make of your original CD? I know I can make a ton of copies of the original. This is good for me because I find that a lot of my burned CDs get scratched, gummed up, etc, to the point where they just aren't good to listen to anymore. At this point I can burn another copy and throw that in my car to listen to, or take it to work, or do whatever.
Since I bought the music I should be able to listen to it. (I don't p2p, I don't share my music.) So, music cartel piss off. I'm sick of you calling me a criminal. !@#$$ing bastards.
Well, he's a felon for doing fake money orders, and then he gets involved in identity theft. He gets caught on both accounts. Not a smart spammer.
Not only that but he lost a suit to Earthlink for $16 million.
I'm glad they're starting to do something about spammers (although this is starting off with the identity theft). Does anybody know about the other case versus earthlink?
I hope this is a start to shutting these people down. Yeah I know wishful thinking, but I hate to see such a useful tool get shut down because a few greedy assholes.
If you read a little further he gives an update due to a couple more substitutions. Variations of how to spell Viagra are now up in the sextillions (kind of titillating isn't it?):
1,300,925,111,156,286,160,896 ways to spell Viagra
The problem with extrapolating outside of your data range is that you may get erroneous data (error prone data). As is the case of extrapolating backwards in time to see how close the moon was. There are a lot of factors that we just don't have data for that would explain what was going on at that point in time.
Some others have done work on this. Here is what they say:
...our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure.
My friend was driving on this road and he noticed there was a winnebago out in the middle of this field with a confused elderly couple kinda disheveled. As he got closer he saw that the road had made a little jog to the left, and the tire tracks from the winnebago went straight off the road, through the fence and into the middle of the field.
He got out of his truck to see if they were alright. As he was talking to them, the elderly gentle man sat confused. "I put the thing on Auto-Pilot, went back to get a soda, and next thing I know we're out in the middle of this field!"
I think that's why most people call it cruise control now, instead of auto-pilot.
Actually the moon is slowly expanding its orbit. It is moving farther and farther from the earth and one day the earth will no longer have a moon. Check it out here. A brief explanation on our falling moon!
But by the time we don't have a moon, we'll have a giant space station up there that will take its place. And then everyone will be quoting "That's no moon, that's a space station."
(OK off-topic I know, but ahhh childhood memories)
I know, tons of people have told you the right answer. But reading your post reminded me of 'The Secret of NIMH'. I loved that cartoon! Still do as a matter of fact. Kind of a dark cartoon for a kid.
I'm not exactly sure what happened, but I know that Chelyabinsk was much worse and since it was in the middle of the soviet union and the technology to detect radiation was not as advanced, they were able to keep it hidden from the outside world.
Chernobyl http://www.chernobyl.info
I can't find any links on the net to the Chelyabinsk, but one of my friends has a book about it. I can't remember if it's in Russian or English, though.
Anyway, I hope that helps. Sorry about the late post, but you don't have an available email. ( I could track you down through other means --slashdot stuff, but I'm lazy and tired.)
Ummmm, Chernobyl was tiny compared to other nuclear accidents that happened in the Soviet Union. The only reason it is so well, known is its location. It is very close to other European borders. When it went off, other national communities saw a huge spike in radiation levels coming from that region. The Soviet Union denied anything happened, but after repeated requests to know what happened they finally caved in and said what happened.
I've lived in areas in the former Soviet Union that had worse nuclear accidents. With Chernobyl, they had a crack that formed over the waste plant, and from that it started to spew waste from it. They flew a chopper over it and dropped some cement over it to stop the process.
Chelyabinsk Sorok (40 kilometers from the city) had much worse problems. In the '50's and the '60's it had a couple accidents. It blew the top off the waste plant completely. There was no stopping the waste from coming out. They had to bring people from outside the region to clean it up, because the residents in the area knew what it was and would not clean it up. (Normally the Soviet Union would have only those who were in the area clean it up, so rumors wouldn't spread.) This happened again in the '60's. And another time they decided that because there are so many lakes in the area, why not take and dump some of the nuclear waste and dump it in one of those?
Another city that a huge nuclear accident happened at was Novosibirsk. Although I am less familiar with the details. I just know that some days were "warmer" than others depending on how the wind blew.
(Please note that I actually lived there and conversed with many people in Chelyabinsk -- who openly scoffed at Chernobyl. I've even conversed with a person who cleaned it up. He was so cancer-ridden that he could barely move.)
Unfortunately, Universities do not have this option. This is where MS is getting it's revenue. (Several hundred to thousands of liscences.)
One of the controls that they use is to say "You can only upgrade or sell the latest version of Windows/Office/whatever. So each time a new computer is purchased and MS products are supposed to be used, they have to get the latest 'greatest' MS product.
This tactic is like what publishers do. Buy the latest edition of this book (we only fixed two grammar errors, changed the picture, but hey...) make your students use it, or the next time you try and buy from us it will cost you major $$$$.
Well, in all honesty this is much like the '60's. The people wanted freedom, no more war, free love baby. So they finally brought about change and yadda yadda, etc.
But look at what happened to those people. Those are the people that are now in charge of the country, controlling the cash flow. (Yeah, yeah I know conspiracy theorist..)
They've been through that, and they've got an idea about how to attack the opposition. With money. They have it, college students don't. How do you stop anything in today's society? Litigate, sue, etc. One good example is Environmentalist movements in California. They've made it so they can't build any power plants anywhere. California is only dependent on other states for two things, water and electricity. They could solve the latter problem by building power plants, but every time they have a design some environmental group steps in with some obscure item that halts the whole process and makes them go through the courts. As far as water goes, they've got nothing to really complain about. They've got miles of waterfront property. (I live in a desert so they have no real right to complain there!)
Anyway, back to the point. They know where to hit and who to hit. If they were to go after people with money, then they'd have to spend more money to prove that they were wrong, because these people would fight back and would use their power (money) to get things changed. Why do that when you can settle with the poor and defenseless? This will scare other poor, defenseless people and thus solidify their "reign".
The only problem with this strategy is that sooner or later it will backfire and they will lose all support and be ousted. I'm praying that it is sooner.
I came out into the IT field a couple years ago. Just after the dot com crash.
The job market sucked. Not only that, but the hours that were expected were not something that I really wanted to do. 80 hours a week? Making $60k - $80k? Sounds great until you really look at it. Outside of IT the average work week is 40 hours. So what that really means is that someone working 80 hr/week making (let's be generous) $80k is in all reality making $40k.
Why would I want to do that? I want to have a life outside of work. Sure I enjoy programming, sure I love developing databases. But you know what, that's not enough to keep me in the field. Not with what is demanded from me. (Cost:Benefit ratio)
I've switched over to environmental engineering. And you know what? I've had the time of my life. I get to look at all the sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, and so on) and apply them to solve problems that we are facing now. And now I can get into a job that isn't demanding 80 hour weeks for a $50k salary. And I know that when I'm done getting my degree, I will be able to find a job.
Slashdot Mirror
Boy, you didn't RTFA.
He's not pissed that there's a Fox News, he's not pissed that there is an ABC or MSNBC or whatever. His whole point is that you are losing out because the way the markets have changed.
These giant companies are stifling innovation, they are making it damn near impossible for anyone to get a start in that area. In order for a station to show anything they force the people who made it to sell it to them. Otherwise it won't get shown. You don't like it, go fart in the wind.
One of my favorite quotes:
the corporate emphasis instantly shifts from taking risks to taking profits. When that happens, quality suffers, localism suffers, and democracy itself suffers.
You can see that now. Look at all the "Reality shows" everyone hates them. But after the first one came along it became a 'me too' thing. There's no innovation there. He also mentions this. (I'm reading as I'm typing this up, so I was a little ahead there.)
The Nielsen ratings are dangerous in a similar way--because they scare companies away from good shows that don't produce immediate blockbuster ratings. Emphasis mine.
As far as media goes, we now only have a few options to go to. CNN has a slant, Fox has a slant, they all have their own political agendas. So where can I really go to get 'fair and balanced news' or more to the point factual news and not some BS?
I really liked this quote from Viacom:
"In this duopoly, we should be able to control the news in the marketplace."
Naturally, corporations say they would never suppress speech.
Sure they would never do that... But when they control the news, well there goes speech. How many programs or news items have not been aired because it was critical of the parent company?
Turner was also pointing out that the people really don't want this consolidation, but the lobbying power and the way these companies are going about it (not broadcasting the news and making it known) there's no way to go about and change it.
As an aside, how many people have you talked to that have given up watching TV because of the poor programming? My wife and I have.
Sorry, I was thinking about methane. But there are also nitifying bacteria in some anaerobic lagoons. These bacteria are common in soils here. Maybe there's a carbon source below the surface on Mars that is providing these little anaerobic bacteria with something to munch on.
You don't even have to go as far as the bacteria living near the volcanic fissures. Just go to your local wastewater municpal plant.
Some of them use anaerobic digesters to treat their sludge. One of the by-products is methane, which they can then use to help power the plant.
I'm an environmental engineer. I work with sludge from wastewater treatment plants.
An outstanding joke is that 'someone elses shit is our gold'.
Does this mean that if I ever get sued for something, hell anything, that I can compensate them by dumping a pile of shit on their door?
Fire? While fire is usually a good solution to many things (like the ugly towels my wife and I got for our wedding and can't return anywhere), in this case there is a better solution. One that has practical science applications.
Microwave!
I had a question as to how this might relate to the RIAA/MPAA. They've been doing a lot of lawsuit slinging and some of it seems much like extortion to me. How would this case effect them?
They've been doing the 'prove your innocence' gambit for a while. To me this sounds quite a bit alike.
Any comments?
But here's a problem.
How many copies do you get to make of your original CD? I know I can make a ton of copies of the original. This is good for me because I find that a lot of my burned CDs get scratched, gummed up, etc, to the point where they just aren't good to listen to anymore. At this point I can burn another copy and throw that in my car to listen to, or take it to work, or do whatever.
Since I bought the music I should be able to listen to it. (I don't p2p, I don't share my music.) So, music cartel piss off. I'm sick of you calling me a criminal. !@#$$ing bastards.
hmmm. What an asshole!
"He was accused of assuming the identities of his own family members and innocent third-parties to obscure his own identity."
When you really don't want any friends....
Well, he's a felon for doing fake money orders, and then he gets involved in identity theft. He gets caught on both accounts. Not a smart spammer.
Not only that but he lost a suit to Earthlink for $16 million.
I'm glad they're starting to do something about spammers (although this is starting off with the identity theft). Does anybody know about the other case versus earthlink?
I hope this is a start to shutting these people down. Yeah I know wishful thinking, but I hate to see such a useful tool get shut down because a few greedy assholes.
If you read a little further he gives an update due to a couple more substitutions. Variations of how to spell Viagra are now up in the sextillions (kind of titillating isn't it?):
1,300,925,111,156,286,160,896 ways to spell Viagra
The problem with extrapolating outside of your data range is that you may get erroneous data (error prone data). As is the case of extrapolating backwards in time to see how close the moon was. There are a lot of factors that we just don't have data for that would explain what was going on at that point in time.
Some others have done work on this. Here is what they say:
...our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure.
Reminds me of a little story.
My friend was driving on this road and he noticed there was a winnebago out in the middle of this field with a confused elderly couple kinda disheveled. As he got closer he saw that the road had made a little jog to the left, and the tire tracks from the winnebago went straight off the road, through the fence and into the middle of the field.
He got out of his truck to see if they were alright. As he was talking to them, the elderly gentle man sat confused. "I put the thing on Auto-Pilot, went back to get a soda, and next thing I know we're out in the middle of this field!"
I think that's why most people call it cruise control now, instead of auto-pilot.
Actually the moon is slowly expanding its orbit. It is moving farther and farther from the earth and one day the earth will no longer have a moon. Check it out here. A brief explanation on our falling moon!
But by the time we don't have a moon, we'll have a giant space station up there that will take its place. And then everyone will be quoting "That's no moon, that's a space station."
Yeah, I know what you mean.
When's History of the World: Part 2 coming out?
(OK off-topic I know, but ahhh childhood memories)
I know, tons of people have told you the right answer. But reading your post reminded me of 'The Secret of NIMH'. I loved that cartoon! Still do as a matter of fact. Kind of a dark cartoon for a kid.
It was based on 'Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH' by Robert C. O'Brien.
Late, I know. But maybe you'll see this link.
I'm not exactly sure what happened, but I know that Chelyabinsk was much worse and since it was in the middle of the soviet union and the technology to detect radiation was not as advanced, they were able to keep it hidden from the outside world.
Chernobyl
http://www.chernobyl.info
I can't find any links on the net to the Chelyabinsk, but one of my friends has a book about it. I can't remember if it's in Russian or English, though.
Anyway, I hope that helps. Sorry about the late post, but you don't have an available email. ( I could track you down through other means --slashdot stuff, but I'm lazy and tired.)
This reminded me of a Futurama Quote:
"Hey! Nice Seats! We're close enough to when you knock a player down with a beer bottle, he's stay down!"
Ummmm, Chernobyl was tiny compared to other nuclear accidents that happened in the Soviet Union. The only reason it is so well, known is its location. It is very close to other European borders. When it went off, other national communities saw a huge spike in radiation levels coming from that region. The Soviet Union denied anything happened, but after repeated requests to know what happened they finally caved in and said what happened.
I've lived in areas in the former Soviet Union that had worse nuclear accidents. With Chernobyl, they had a crack that formed over the waste plant, and from that it started to spew waste from it. They flew a chopper over it and dropped some cement over it to stop the process.
Chelyabinsk Sorok (40 kilometers from the city) had much worse problems. In the '50's and the '60's it had a couple accidents. It blew the top off the waste plant completely. There was no stopping the waste from coming out. They had to bring people from outside the region to clean it up, because the residents in the area knew what it was and would not clean it up. (Normally the Soviet Union would have only those who were in the area clean it up, so rumors wouldn't spread.) This happened again in the '60's. And another time they decided that because there are so many lakes in the area, why not take and dump some of the nuclear waste and dump it in one of those?
Another city that a huge nuclear accident happened at was Novosibirsk. Although I am less familiar with the details. I just know that some days were "warmer" than others depending on how the wind blew.
(Please note that I actually lived there and conversed with many people in Chelyabinsk -- who openly scoffed at Chernobyl. I've even conversed with a person who cleaned it up. He was so cancer-ridden that he could barely move.)
Damn, I must need more sleep, or caffeine. I read the line
- in the course of GATS negotiations...
as
- in the course of GOATSe.cx negotiations
Gaaah!!!
Unfortunately, Universities do not have this option. This is where MS is getting it's revenue. (Several hundred to thousands of liscences.)
One of the controls that they use is to say "You can only upgrade or sell the latest version of Windows/Office/whatever. So each time a new computer is purchased and MS products are supposed to be used, they have to get the latest 'greatest' MS product.
This tactic is like what publishers do. Buy the latest edition of this book (we only fixed two grammar errors, changed the picture, but hey...) make your students use it, or the next time you try and buy from us it will cost you major $$$$.
No wonder my university is aching for money.
Actually, the RIAA has taken a chapter out of "How to make a buck!" by these people
I hear it's a best seller. And NYTimes claims that it will be the new business model to follow for years to come.
...and his name is Peter Parker, and boy are his spidey senses tingling!
Well, in all honesty this is much like the '60's. The people wanted freedom, no more war, free love baby. So they finally brought about change and yadda yadda, etc.
But look at what happened to those people. Those are the people that are now in charge of the country, controlling the cash flow. (Yeah, yeah I know conspiracy theorist..)
They've been through that, and they've got an idea about how to attack the opposition. With money. They have it, college students don't. How do you stop anything in today's society? Litigate, sue, etc. One good example is Environmentalist movements in California. They've made it so they can't build any power plants anywhere. California is only dependent on other states for two things, water and electricity. They could solve the latter problem by building power plants, but every time they have a design some environmental group steps in with some obscure item that halts the whole process and makes them go through the courts. As far as water goes, they've got nothing to really complain about. They've got miles of waterfront property. (I live in a desert so they have no real right to complain there!)
Anyway, back to the point. They know where to hit and who to hit. If they were to go after people with money, then they'd have to spend more money to prove that they were wrong, because these people would fight back and would use their power (money) to get things changed. Why do that when you can settle with the poor and defenseless? This will scare other poor, defenseless people and thus solidify their "reign".
The only problem with this strategy is that sooner or later it will backfire and they will lose all support and be ousted. I'm praying that it is sooner.
Flying is getting to be such a pain in the ass!!
Wish I'd never fed Tinkerbell to that frog.
--Peter
I came out into the IT field a couple years ago. Just after the dot com crash.
The job market sucked. Not only that, but the hours that were expected were not something that I really wanted to do. 80 hours a week? Making $60k - $80k? Sounds great until you really look at it. Outside of IT the average work week is 40 hours. So what that really means is that someone working 80 hr/week making (let's be generous) $80k is in all reality making $40k.
Why would I want to do that? I want to have a life outside of work. Sure I enjoy programming, sure I love developing databases. But you know what, that's not enough to keep me in the field. Not with what is demanded from me. (Cost:Benefit ratio)
I've switched over to environmental engineering. And you know what? I've had the time of my life. I get to look at all the sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, and so on) and apply them to solve problems that we are facing now. And now I can get into a job that isn't demanding 80 hour weeks for a $50k salary. And I know that when I'm done getting my degree, I will be able to find a job.