Scott Cleland: Amazingly, the proponents of this radical change in policy don't even have any real evidence of a problem, only unsubstantiated assertions about hypothetical problems.
It's called a concern. If I hand some firecrackers and some matches to my 6-year-old and turn him loose, I don't have any real evidence of a problem, only unsubstatiated assertions about hypothetical problems.
You're right about Cleland blowing off (heh) people's concerns; this whole debate is really about the smaller players remaining competitive in the content marketplace.
We already have cable and satelite TV... In my view, the telecoms' proposals would inevitably devolve the Internet into a similar model, with a a few big players, a handful of mid-tier players, and a marginalized fringe of "public-access cable channels" on the outside. These last would only be available at a premium while the propaganda pablum would remain cheaply available to the masses.
This would result in commentators, writers, artists, filmmakers, musicians, and other creative types having their ability to break into the public consciousness severely restricted. The common "guy on the street" would be relegated to publish only through established channels, e.g., livejournal/myspace/friendster, where their voices would be allowed only so long as they didn't substantively reject the established order or compete aggressively for the audience controlled by big media. An upstart competitor in the vein of Slashdot wouldn't have a prayer.
With all the predictions of an attention-based economy, an awareness of this potentiality can only help policy-makers and opinion-shapers build a stronger case for preventing an oligopoly of information providers from squeezing the (currently) niche players out of the market of ideas. When people like Cleland dismiss my concerns, he only strengthens my urge to kick and scream loudly.
Well... "Telco spokesthing says telco plan is Good For America" isn't much of a story. Add a voice from the other side and it gets more interesting.
That's true enough... I did include a little flamebait in my original submission, though, to liven it up a bit;-) Still, I can respect the editorial decision not to run with the story; I just didn't want 7macaw (and others) to blame me for not having served the commentary when it was freshest.
BTW, I'm not worrying about Google or Yahoo. As far as I'm concerned, New Neutrality is all about me [flash video] and other small-timers moving into Internet video delivery, not a fight between big companies.
You're right; this whole debate is really about the smaller players remaining competitive in the content marketplace.
We already have cable and satelite TV... In my view, the telecoms' proposals would inevitably devolve the Internet into a similar model, with a a few big players, a handful of mid-tier players, and a marginalized fringe of "public-access cable channels" on the outside. These last would only be available at a premium while the propaganda pablum would remain cheaply available to the masses.
On the one hand, that would probably make Slashdot an established mid-tier player; on the other hand, it would mean that commentators, writers, artists, filmmakers, musicians, and other creative types would have their ability to break into the public consciousness severely restricted. The common "guy on the street" would be relegated to publish only through established channels, e.g., livejournal/myspace/friendster, where their voices would be allowed only so long as they didn't substantively reject the established order or compete aggressively for the audience controlled by big media.
With all the predictions of an attention-based economy, an awareness of this potentiality can only help policy-makers and opinion-shapers build a stronger case for preventing an oligopoly of information providers from squeezing the (currently) niche players out of the market of ideas.
Hmmm...I predict a lot of healthy discussion and changed minds on this one.
Yeah, when I submitted just the Clelan commentary on the morning it aired, I was a little more opinionated about the lack of logical thought and strong emotional arguments he made. Unfortunately, the editors chose to reject that submission.
Is this the appropriate topic to vent about how the Internet's promise of customized ads -- ads tailored to the audience, ads that we'll want to look at, ads that are relevant to our lifestyles -- is a crock?
By way of example, I have three tabs open in Mozilla right now, each with a Slashdot story displayed.
And each with an ad for Lane Bryant.
Now, tell me, how are those ads tailored (ahem) to a 37-year-old white male geek with no unusual tastes in clothing, beyond the occasional geeky t-shirt?
I hate spelling and grammar nazis as much as the next guy... But I couldn't let this go un-noted.
People like choice about as much as they like taxes. They except [sic] them as a symbol of freedom whilst secretly hating them for the effort they force them to excert[sic].
Everybody likes choices. For example, people like to choose words that sound but don't mean the same thing. In fact, they like to choose words that arguably mean the opposite of what is intended.
s/except/accept/g
(Now carefully checking for my own spelling and grammar errors, but not posting anonymously 'cause I can take the heat...)
A few years back, I witnessed an amazing sight. That's right, I saw penguins fly.
After attending a conference in San Diego, I snagged a Southwest Airlines flight home to Sacramento. The flight attendants, as usual, were perky and excited; but they also let me know as I boarded the plane that a surprise was in store.
(get your mind out of the gutter!)
After takeoff, the announcement came over the loudspeaker:
"We are very pleased to have some special passengers with us on Southwest today! Two penguins on their way from Sea World in San Diego to Marine World, Africa, USA in Vallejo have joined us. Their handlers have graciously allowed us to meet them."
And so it was, two penguins waddled down the center aisle of that 737. Flying. Across California.
I worked (briefly) for an online bookseller carrying this title. Since the author published it independently, I couldn't rely on the usual sources to find cover art to thumbnail. As a conseqence, I had to contact the author directly in my attempts to obtain the cover art.
She was very nice; but I can certainly see why she had difficulty finding a publisher when insisting on this particular title.
Bill Gates is powerful, because he's so insanely wealthy. He then can influence all sorts of people with his power.
Yes, yes. But Steve Jobs is the one who's insanely great.
Marketing slogans aside, it's really good to see a more-or-less mainstream press article rating the influence of a "grassroots" movement so highly in relation to more traditional business.
Since I'm not formally trained as a computer scientist (I'm merely an information technology major, sorry), I can't offer much in the way of "deep" algorithms to this list.
This is what I wrote, based on the template provided.
I urge you to reject the Hollings copy protection bill, also known as the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA). Although I do not on principle oppose regulation in general, this particular proposal mocks the foundation of American capitalism and distorts the intent of the Copyright Clause and First Amendment of the US Constitution. I vehemently oppose the bill for many practical reasons, as well. Among them:
This bill appears to be an attempt by the film and television entertainment industry to prevent competitors from entering the marketplace by limiting the ability of others to use digital devices to create new works -- even wholely original works. Additionally, it would add an insurmountable hurdle to small businesses entering the digital hardware marketplace. As a citizen, writer, programmer, and performer, this attempt offends me.
This bill will restrict my Consitutionally-implicit, Congressionally-granted, and court-upheld rights to fairly use content that I have legally acquired. The Hollings bill would take away most of those rights and in return give me no benefits. Until my fair use rights are ensured, any further encroachment on them must not occur.
The CBDTPA will inevitably stifle competition and innovation. Again, it appears that the film and television entertainment industry has failed to see the benefit of technology except in the narrowest of terms. I am reminded of the protests against consumer VCRs when they were introduced and how the entertainment industry believed it would be decimated. Videotape sales and rentals now make up the bulk of revenue for the industry. Hardly decimation.
Piracy is a problem. However, content piracy has long been the domain of large-scale, offshore criminals who then sell their goods illicitly. The Hollings bill, however, is the wrong approach. A government-mandated "copy-protection" standard will never be able to adapt to the rapidly changing digital world. The new "anti-piracy" measures will only inconvenience -- nay, harm -- law-abiding consumers. Content protection will prevent fair use. Every content protection measure will be defeated by foreign pirates who sell the stolen goods illicitly. Instead, the film and television entertainment industry should follow the example of the video game industry in combatting piracy: using only a mix of licensing, software, legal action, and moral authority rather than government intervention in the marketplace, the video game industry has grown from zero to be larger than the film and television entertainment industry in just thirty years -- while using entirely digital media the whole time.
Finally, The content companies said that the DMCA would allow them to deliver great broadband content. Yet four years later, the only outcome of the DMCA has been lawsuits against innovative companies and threats against consumers and scholars. We have no reason to believe that implementation of the Hollings bill will be any different.
If you have any questions about my position or reasoning, please contact me by email (<snip>) or phone (<snip>).
Again, I urge you to protect my fair use rights by opposing the Hollings bill.
Wandering WAY off topic here....(I'll even leave off the +1 bonus.)
I'll omit company names to protect the guilty.
I am a resident of California, where it is illegal for private sector employers to require drug tests of employees unless:
a pre-employment drug screen was done,
there is individualized suspicion of drug use (meaning being stoned on the job or unexplained absenteeism), or
the field is related to public safety and security (for example, driving a truck or handling a weapon).
These are fairly clear-cut requirements.
For the record, I had not been subjected to a pre-employment drug screening; I hadn't shown up for work under the influence nor had I had any sick days for 15 months; and I don't work in a safety-sensitive occupation.
In January, I was fired for refusing to take a "voluntary" drug test at the behest of my employer. Since I was a contract employee working onsite at a major telecommunications company rather than an employee of the telecommunications company, my employer cited the "at will" employment conditions and the need to fulfill their contractual obligation (to have all contractors screened) as all the authority they needed to fire me.
Since I don't use drugs -- no, stronger than that -- since I've never even tasted alcohol, the idea of submitting to a drug screening under these conditions was onerous. What I do on my own time (hey back on topic!) is none of my employer's business unless I explicitly make it so.
Just goes to show you: taking a stance on principle when the weight of public opinion is against you is not pleasant.
To maintain one's geek cachét, naturally, you'd have a Kirk and a Spock, maybe a Picard and a Riker or a Janeway and a Chakotay (sp? guess I'm not a Trekker...), and so forth.
If you have too many boxen to name, you can start with Redshirt001, Redshirt002, etc.
The catch for these last, though, is that they have to be redundant and/or expendable. In other words, use 'em for development and staging, not production.
As I noted in an earlier reply, the Supremes did not rule as to whether the plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by her work-related activity; and thus that remains an open question.
My parent comment could certainly have been clearer on this point. Let me state unequivocably: If Toyota's management practices and work environment are shown to be the cause of this woman's CTS and/or repetitive motion injuries, then Toyota is and should be responsible for ensuring that she receives compensation and retraining. This is what Workers Compensation is for. Toyota is not, however, responsible for employing her, nor is her cause actionable under the ADA.
I don't agree. The CTS was caused by the job, therefore the employer is obligated to take care of them.
I don't disagree with you. Rather, I took a different approach.
The Supremes, to my recollection, did not rule as to whether the plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by her work-related activity; and thus that remains an open question.
If, in fact, the CTS was directly related to her work activities, as others have noted already, she is entitled to workers' compensation and other remedies. But she still can't sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
If memory serves, this woman had worked for Toyota in an assembly plant for a number of years. Over time, her carpal tunnel syndrome developed and resulted in significant absenteeism. After UAW-Management mediation, Toyota reassigned her to a job that was less physically demanding, e.g., inspecting the paint on new cars. While at that task, her attendance record improved dramatically. Unfortunately, after a time Toyota management again reassigned her to assembly work in circumstances that aggravated her carpal tunnel syndrome and again resulted in absenteeism due to chronic pain. I don't recall whether she quit or was fired prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
The Supremes have ruled that Toyota is not obligated to provide a job for this woman, nor to provide reasonable accommodation in any existing job, because the carpal tunnel syndrome she suffers from does not significantly limit "major life activities" -- meaning, she can still drive, care for her own hygiene, hold a less physically demanding job, etc.
In my view, Toyota is both a good guy and a bad guy here. After making a reasonable accommodation by transfering its employee to the paint shop, it then put her back in the circumstance that was a significant factor in the development of her carpal tunnel syndrome. Initially nice, then heartless. However, Toyota is in the right about asserting no responsibility to employ her because, as noted by the Supremes, its former employee is perfectly capable of choosing a less physically demanding career path, with equal if not better economic opportunities.
This is similar to a construction foreperson saying she will not hire me for the physically demanding job of digging trenches if I suffer from obesity, chronic back pain, and uncontrolled hypertension. I'm simply not suited to the job.
I also have The Atlas of the Land, which details the world described in the Thomas Covenant books by Stephen R. Donaldson. This is an excellent and extremely well done reference.
what's the point of running the emulation if you lose speed and capabilities?
I use VMWare to emulate Windows NT and 9x under Linux so that I can do web development in Linux, reconfigure Apache and MySQL on the fly, and still test my work in the most common browsing environments without having to own a second machine or worry about losing my 'net connection to an off-site box. Would a second or third machine be better? Sometimes. But not when my desk space and/or budget are limited.
(Actually, I only do it this way at work; at home I have four boxes for doing the same thing and much prefer that arrangement. But my employer is too cheap to give me a second, let alone third, box for testing purposes.)
You make an excellent point: changing policy and practice in these four areas would either cost more money or demonstrate that existing funds are being misused. I suggest that the former is more likely than the later. I stand by my assertion, however, that throwing money at the problems with education would solve none of them. Rather, these four policy areas require fundamental reworking before additional money would make any measureable, long-term difference.
...are these state test scores? Nothing can be really proved if each state comes up with its own test, which would probably be geared so that a certain percentage of the students will pass.
No. The SAT, ACT and NAEP, specifically, are nationwide tests. The first two are commonly used by colleges and universities to help determine admission eligibility, and the third is the National Assessment of Educational Progress, administered nationwide. NAEP is the most controversial because some researchers believe its testing methodology is fundamentally flawed. But it was one of very few measures available; I used what I could.
Besides which, you state later that smaller class sizes improve the quality; I can't think of a single method to reduce class size that wouldn't require more funding.
You are correct; in most cases, solving these issues would require additional funding. However, no incremental increase in funding will make a difference if these four issues are not addressed by policy change at the state and national level.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right about Cleland blowing off (heh) people's concerns; this whole debate is really about the smaller players remaining competitive in the content marketplace.
We already have cable and satelite TV... In my view, the telecoms' proposals would inevitably devolve the Internet into a similar model, with a a few big players, a handful of mid-tier players, and a marginalized fringe of "public-access cable channels" on the outside. These last would only be available at a premium while the propaganda pablum would remain cheaply available to the masses.
This would result in commentators, writers, artists, filmmakers, musicians, and other creative types having their ability to break into the public consciousness severely restricted. The common "guy on the street" would be relegated to publish only through established channels, e.g., livejournal/myspace/friendster, where their voices would be allowed only so long as they didn't substantively reject the established order or compete aggressively for the audience controlled by big media. An upstart competitor in the vein of Slashdot wouldn't have a prayer.
With all the predictions of an attention-based economy, an awareness of this potentiality can only help policy-makers and opinion-shapers build a stronger case for preventing an oligopoly of information providers from squeezing the (currently) niche players out of the market of ideas. When people like Cleland dismiss my concerns, he only strengthens my urge to kick and scream loudly.
That's true enough... I did include a little flamebait in my original submission, though, to liven it up a bit ;-) Still, I can respect the editorial decision not to run with the story; I just didn't want 7macaw (and others) to blame me for not having served the commentary when it was freshest.
You're right; this whole debate is really about the smaller players remaining competitive in the content marketplace.
We already have cable and satelite TV... In my view, the telecoms' proposals would inevitably devolve the Internet into a similar model, with a a few big players, a handful of mid-tier players, and a marginalized fringe of "public-access cable channels" on the outside. These last would only be available at a premium while the propaganda pablum would remain cheaply available to the masses.
On the one hand, that would probably make Slashdot an established mid-tier player; on the other hand, it would mean that commentators, writers, artists, filmmakers, musicians, and other creative types would have their ability to break into the public consciousness severely restricted. The common "guy on the street" would be relegated to publish only through established channels, e.g., livejournal/myspace/friendster, where their voices would be allowed only so long as they didn't substantively reject the established order or compete aggressively for the audience controlled by big media.
With all the predictions of an attention-based economy, an awareness of this potentiality can only help policy-makers and opinion-shapers build a stronger case for preventing an oligopoly of information providers from squeezing the (currently) niche players out of the market of ideas.
Yeah, when I submitted just the Clelan commentary on the morning it aired, I was a little more opinionated about the lack of logical thought and strong emotional arguments he made. Unfortunately, the editors chose to reject that submission.
Sorry about that. I submitted the Cleland commentary almost immediately after it was broadcast; but the editors saw fit to reject the story.
Is this the appropriate topic to vent about how the Internet's promise of customized ads -- ads tailored to the audience, ads that we'll want to look at, ads that are relevant to our lifestyles -- is a crock?
By way of example, I have three tabs open in Mozilla right now, each with a Slashdot story displayed.
And each with an ad for Lane Bryant.
Now, tell me, how are those ads tailored (ahem) to a 37-year-old white male geek with no unusual tastes in clothing, beyond the occasional geeky t-shirt?
I hate spelling and grammar nazis as much as the next guy... But I couldn't let this go un-noted.
Everybody likes choices. For example, people like to choose words that sound but don't mean the same thing. In fact, they like to choose words that arguably mean the opposite of what is intended.
s/except/accept/g
(Now carefully checking for my own spelling and grammar errors, but not posting anonymously 'cause I can take the heat...)
I'm sorry, but you lost me there.
A few years back, I witnessed an amazing sight. That's right, I saw penguins fly.
After attending a conference in San Diego, I snagged a Southwest Airlines flight home to Sacramento. The flight attendants, as usual, were perky and excited; but they also let me know as I boarded the plane that a surprise was in store.
(get your mind out of the gutter!)
After takeoff, the announcement came over the loudspeaker:
"We are very pleased to have some special passengers with us on Southwest today! Two penguins on their way from Sea World in San Diego to Marine World, Africa, USA in Vallejo have joined us. Their handlers have graciously allowed us to meet them."
And so it was, two penguins waddled down the center aisle of that 737. Flying. Across California.
No kidding.
I worked (briefly) for an online bookseller carrying this title. Since the author published it independently, I couldn't rely on the usual sources to find cover art to thumbnail. As a conseqence, I had to contact the author directly in my attempts to obtain the cover art.
She was very nice; but I can certainly see why she had difficulty finding a publisher when insisting on this particular title.
Yes, yes. But Steve Jobs is the one who's insanely great .
Marketing slogans aside, it's really good to see a more-or-less mainstream press article rating the influence of a "grassroots" movement so highly in relation to more traditional business.
I can imagine it now: Mass narcolepsy at American airports as NASA implements its plan to scan brain waves.
Avoid the rush: Get your aluminum foil deflector beanie now!
When it finally hits cable, I can digitally record Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone without the commercials on a gen-u-ine Firebolt! W00t!
Since I'm not formally trained as a computer scientist (I'm merely an information technology major, sorry), I can't offer much in the way of "deep" algorithms to this list.
However, I can poke fun...
My personal favorite algorithm is:
(Ducks)
This is what I wrote, based on the template provided.
Wandering WAY off topic here....(I'll even leave off the +1 bonus.)
I'll omit company names to protect the guilty.
I am a resident of California, where it is illegal for private sector employers to require drug tests of employees unless:
These are fairly clear-cut requirements.
For the record, I had not been subjected to a pre-employment drug screening; I hadn't shown up for work under the influence nor had I had any sick days for 15 months; and I don't work in a safety-sensitive occupation.
In January, I was fired for refusing to take a "voluntary" drug test at the behest of my employer. Since I was a contract employee working onsite at a major telecommunications company rather than an employee of the telecommunications company, my employer cited the "at will" employment conditions and the need to fulfill their contractual obligation (to have all contractors screened) as all the authority they needed to fire me.
Since I don't use drugs -- no, stronger than that -- since I've never even tasted alcohol, the idea of submitting to a drug screening under these conditions was onerous. What I do on my own time (hey back on topic!) is none of my employer's business unless I explicitly make it so.
Just goes to show you: taking a stance on principle when the weight of public opinion is against you is not pleasant.
Incidentally, I'm still looking for work,
Uh... Gravity and inertia?
To maintain one's geek cachét, naturally, you'd have a Kirk and a Spock, maybe a Picard and a Riker or a Janeway and a Chakotay (sp? guess I'm not a Trekker...), and so forth.
If you have too many boxen to name, you can start with Redshirt001, Redshirt002, etc.
The catch for these last, though, is that they have to be redundant and/or expendable. In other words, use 'em for development and staging, not production.
My parent comment could certainly have been clearer on this point. Let me state unequivocably: If Toyota's management practices and work environment are shown to be the cause of this woman's CTS and/or repetitive motion injuries, then Toyota is and should be responsible for ensuring that she receives compensation and retraining. This is what Workers Compensation is for. Toyota is not, however, responsible for employing her, nor is her cause actionable under the ADA.
I don't disagree with you. Rather, I took a different approach.
The Supremes, to my recollection, did not rule as to whether the plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by her work-related activity; and thus that remains an open question.
If, in fact, the CTS was directly related to her work activities, as others have noted already, she is entitled to workers' compensation and other remedies. But she still can't sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
If memory serves, this woman had worked for Toyota in an assembly plant for a number of years. Over time, her carpal tunnel syndrome developed and resulted in significant absenteeism. After UAW-Management mediation, Toyota reassigned her to a job that was less physically demanding, e.g., inspecting the paint on new cars. While at that task, her attendance record improved dramatically. Unfortunately, after a time Toyota management again reassigned her to assembly work in circumstances that aggravated her carpal tunnel syndrome and again resulted in absenteeism due to chronic pain. I don't recall whether she quit or was fired prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
The Supremes have ruled that Toyota is not obligated to provide a job for this woman, nor to provide reasonable accommodation in any existing job, because the carpal tunnel syndrome she suffers from does not significantly limit "major life activities" -- meaning, she can still drive, care for her own hygiene, hold a less physically demanding job, etc.
In my view, Toyota is both a good guy and a bad guy here. After making a reasonable accommodation by transfering its employee to the paint shop, it then put her back in the circumstance that was a significant factor in the development of her carpal tunnel syndrome. Initially nice, then heartless. However, Toyota is in the right about asserting no responsibility to employ her because, as noted by the Supremes, its former employee is perfectly capable of choosing a less physically demanding career path, with equal if not better economic opportunities.
This is similar to a construction foreperson saying she will not hire me for the physically demanding job of digging trenches if I suffer from obesity, chronic back pain, and uncontrolled hypertension. I'm simply not suited to the job.
That being said, it sucks to be the plaintiff.
I also own a copy of this book; it adds immeasurably to the pleasure of re-reading Tolkien's works. Fonstad has also written The Atlas of the Land , The Atlas of Pern , and atlases for both Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance.
I also have The Atlas of the Land, which details the world described in the Thomas Covenant books by Stephen R. Donaldson. This is an excellent and extremely well done reference.
At those prices I think it would be cheaper to buy a second low-end machine.
I'm using version 2.0.2 from their earlier product line: $99, runs Win9x, NT, or 3.x.
I use VMWare to emulate Windows NT and 9x under Linux so that I can do web development in Linux, reconfigure Apache and MySQL on the fly, and still test my work in the most common browsing environments without having to own a second machine or worry about losing my 'net connection to an off-site box. Would a second or third machine be better? Sometimes. But not when my desk space and/or budget are limited.
(Actually, I only do it this way at work; at home I have four boxes for doing the same thing and much prefer that arrangement. But my employer is too cheap to give me a second, let alone third, box for testing purposes.)
You make an excellent point: changing policy and practice in these four areas would either cost more money or demonstrate that existing funds are being misused. I suggest that the former is more likely than the later. I stand by my assertion, however, that throwing money at the problems with education would solve none of them. Rather, these four policy areas require fundamental reworking before additional money would make any measureable, long-term difference.
No. The SAT, ACT and NAEP, specifically, are nationwide tests. The first two are commonly used by colleges and universities to help determine admission eligibility, and the third is the National Assessment of Educational Progress, administered nationwide. NAEP is the most controversial because some researchers believe its testing methodology is fundamentally flawed. But it was one of very few measures available; I used what I could.
Besides which, you state later that smaller class sizes improve the quality; I can't think of a single method to reduce class size that wouldn't require more funding.
You are correct; in most cases, solving these issues would require additional funding. However, no incremental increase in funding will make a difference if these four issues are not addressed by policy change at the state and national level.