No, it's real. It may not be visible now, but this user has been changing his sig to remove the evidence. He HAS been placing goatsex links in his sig, where the link-checker doesn't yet function.
See this bug and several others on sourceforge... they all appear to be closed, but apparently the problem still exists.
Re:Did you expect any differently?
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 1
I just don't think it's feasible that MS can gain a monopoly in this market anytime soon-- they'd have to buy Nintendo (trivial) AND Sony (decidedly NON-trivial). Plus it's not nearly as lucrative as any of their other markets... I suppose it's possible that in the future they could gain a monopoly there, but does that mean that they have to walk on eggshells NOW, when they have ZERO market share?
Re:Did you expect any differently?
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What exactly, though, is the difference between this and any other company that tries to grow and take over its market? The company I work for makes acquisitions on a monthly basis, but they're "growing" instead of "squashing competition."
The difference is that your company doesn't have a monopoly in any of its markets. The reason Microsoft doesn't have the right to expand into other markets by "bundling" is because they are using their monopoly in the operating system market to gain an unfair advantage over other competitors in that market (e.g. Netscape, though that war has been fought and lost). The fight is still being fought over Microsoft's bundling/integration in Windows XP that favors Microsoft and Microsoft-affiliated companies and services (music, financial services, email, streaming media, etc).
However, the bundling we're seeing here in the console market is legal, because MS holds no monopoly in the gaming console market. In fact, since they haven't even released the Xbox yet, they have ZERO market share. They are not using their desktop OS monopoly to enter into the console market, and since they have no monopoly in the console market they are not using it illegally to compete in the console games market.
Moral: Using your monopoly in one market to force out competition in a different market = anti-competitive. Bundling as a general practice = pisses off consumers, but not illegal or anti-competitive.
Scrounge up as many old laptops as you can, and make a tiled LCD display wall! Use it to check your email, watch CNN, etc, or just display your vis output from winamp... put them in rows on your file drawers, or wallpaper with them!
(Note: may require some assembly)
(PS: sorry for the lack of links, but I tried and tried and couldn't find anything worth showing.)
Dynamic PDF stuff is *necessary* for those of us writing workflow applications in industried (e.g. financial services, insurance) where the complexity of forms requires lots of dynamic calculation and database interaction and the regulatory requirements all but make sure we cannot deviate from existing paper forms design. Plus, eventually we must produce documents for customers to sign, and to be archived, and to be audited, so PDF is the best choice.
Yes, for many industries the JS/ODBC stuff is unnecessary (and, if you'll notice, this bug only affects those with full acrobat, not acrobat reader), but for others it's critical.
Yeah, I just spent the last 5 minutes looking for a link with pictures of those SCARY SCARY ads.;) Does anyone have a link? They don't appear to be on the bsa or MS sites....
I should know-- I've just had my identity stolen. Somebody opened up a credit account at Gateway (in addition to other places) and bought a computer for himself! All in all there are $2000 worth of fraudulent charges-- fortunately they're not on my credit cards, so I won't have to pay them in order to conduct daily business.
The Credit Bureaus are a PAIN in the butt to deal with-- I've had to re-open the investigations on my accounts several times-- becuase Gateway and others report that the account is "under investigation," the credit bureaus interpret that as saying the account is mine!
The police are even worse-- it's been 6 weeks since I originally filed my complaint, and only this week have I actually recieved a call from a detective! These things just SIT there until they either get lost or fall onto somebody's desk.
I could have been completely screwed over by this if my circumstances were a little different-- I have been looking for a place to live, and almost all landlords in NYC require credit checks on all applications. With those nasty adverse items on my report (even with a victim statement), I would never have stood a chance getting an apartment. I decided to rent a room instead until things settle down a bit with my credit (and my job), so it hasn't kicked me in the ass yet.
Identity theft is REAL! I'm really surprised more testimonials haven't been posted here... I know of three other people off the top of my head who this has happened to.
I still don't know how they got the information-- a security breach, a disgruntled university employee, intercepted mail... no idea. I haven't lost my wallet or anything.
Maybe that detective will be able to tell me something useful... we shall see.
Re:Audiophiles are *worse* than drug addicts
on
Insanely Audiophile
·
· Score: 1
You ask what the difference is between your garage keeping a record of all your oil changes, etc, and some big evil corporation doing the same?
Well, the difference is this: your garage keeps only the information it needs in order to do business with you. What if all of a sudden, your mechanic went out to all the other businesses you frequent-- your supermarket, your drycleaners, or got out your criminal record, your employment history, etc? Would that be an invasion of privacy?
What if then, they sold it to the highest bidder, without asking you if they could share that information with anyone else? Do you think you still implicitly consented to that when you decided you use all those services?
You didn't. You agreed to let the mechanic keep track of *one* piece of data about you-- your car. You didn't agree to let him share it with anybody else, nor should you have to.
It's not the data-tracking people are objecting to, it's the sharing of said data with people you may or may not trust, and the sale of such information without your consent.
We won't even begin to talk about what happens when your mechanic makes an error in his system about what kind of car you own (maybe a jalopy instead of your mercedes), which simultaneously gets transferred to seventeen other databases around the world (your employers', the governments', your dry cleaners', the banks'), whose psychographic profiles of you now put you in a "high-risk" demographic, and you can't get loans or service or be eligible for credit.
I know that's a worst-case scenario, but this is what PRIVACY POLICY is for-- not just for websites but for all our personal information. We should have the right to choose who can see it and who can sell it.
There is a phrase circulating through television studios and newsrooms across the country describing the philosophy of the modern television news director: "If it bleeds, it leads." Murders, sex crimes, animal abuse, freeway chases, and domestic squabbles are the main staples of television news programs today. The corporations owning most TV stations place excessive profit expectations on their subsidiaries, mandating that TV stations generate huge margins. The way most TV stations have managed to survive is by producing shows that appeal to the greatest number of viewers. However, in the process, the television industry has forgotten the responsibilities and requirements that allowed them to use publicly owned airwaves. This ignorance of the responsibility to inform is a threat to a democratic system relying on an informed citizenry.
TV news has not always been shamelessly sensationalistic. When television was in its infancy during the late 1940s and the 1950s, the news was an inconsequential portion of the television day: just 15 minutes a day were devoted to a somber reading of the news by Douglas Edwards on CBS (Isaak 1). Back then there were only the 3 major networks; CBS, ABC, and CBS, known then and now as the "Big Three." They had practically no competition for viewers-with only three stations to choose from, the networks were guaranteed a large portion of the audience (Donaldson 3). The networks made all their money on the entertainment portion of their programming, and they made mountains of it. The networks could afford to have responsible, informative newscasts that lost money (Donaldson 3).
This utopia of sorts, however, did not last forever. Starting in the late 1960s, with television viewership sharply on the rise, the local stations that run network programming, known as network affiliates, discovered the viability of local television news programming. What began as an experiment in San Francisco during a newspaper strike (Stark 3) quickly exploded across the nation as a way to supplement the compensation given station owners for running the network's programs. Creating or expanding existing news programming was very attractive to station owners because news is staggeringly cheaper to produce than a dramatic show (Stark 2). For those stations that already had news programs in one form or another, the expanding markets offered more opportunities for revenue. According to Jim Thistle, a professor at the Boston University School of Communications, and former news director at all three major network affiliates in Boston, "Once you have a newscast, the cheapest thing you can do is more news" (qtd. in Siegel, 3). Once stations started expanding, many saw newscasts generating one-half to one-third of the profit for the entire station (Stark 2).
Competition drove the development of these newscasts because of the huge amounts of money involved. For example in Orlando, the 36th largest market, the top-rated station charges $1,400 for a 30-second advertising spot on its 11pm newscast. In contrast, the third most-watched news station charges only $900 for the same time slot. With eight minutes of commercials during the half-hour, the difference in one night is between $22,400 versus $14,400 in revenue. In a year, that makes for a $3 million difference between first and third place, just for that one program. In larger markets such as New York, the difference is $100 million per year (Winerip 34).
These new newscasts did not arise from the tradition of radio and print journalism, as the network programs did. Many local TV programs were because of the potential for profits, and consequently were staffed with "TV people" instead of seasoned journalists (Stark 3). The result was a highly stylized version of journalism, focused more on the anchors reading the news than on the news itself. Some newscasts featured frequent banter between the newsreaders, and were likewise dubbed "happy talk" newscasts (Stark 3). Other stations used a different, "action news" format with fewer, faster-paced stories, exciting, upbeat music, and a heavy emphasis on visuals. These various formats were developed and marketed by a few, highly-paid media consultants to stations all across the country looking for a reliable way to make TV news attract viewers and bring in advertising dollars (Stark 4).
If the new TV news was in a decline during the sixties and seventies, it entered a free-fall during the eighties. When Congress deregulated the telecommunications industry, they changed the rules governing TV station ownership: large corporations could now own three times as many stations as under the previous laws, and they were no longer required to keep a station for three years before selling it (Winerip 35). This significantly changed the climate in the television industry. The period following deregulation was marked by a rapid consolidation of many TV stations across the country by a few large corporations. In addition, larger corporations, enabled by the deregulation, acquired each of the Big 3 networks (Ver Berkmoes 3). Because the networks, in addition to providing programming, also own local stations ("O&O's:" Owned and Operated), their acquisition impacted a large number of individual stations across the country.
Corporate ownership of TV stations and networks meant that changes were inevitable. Because TV stations typically have such huge profit margins (40-50%) (Winerip 39), they were attractive targets. Corporations with a variety of assets bought TV stations to take the pressure off more important holdings, like a flagship newspaper (Winerip 39). The result of this strategy was that TV stations bore the brunt of the profit-generating responsibilities (Ver Berkmoes 3). According to a vice-president at one such corporation, because these companies are publicly owned, corporations are accountable to their shareholders, and must pay attention to what Wall Street analysts expect of them, namely that television stations should be cash cows for their mother corporations (Winerip 39).
Suddenly, the bottom line became much more important at TV stations. Station managers began frantically looking for ways to boost viewership. Since news programs were already the stations' main source of profit (Rapping 2), modifying the news to attract even more viewers seemed to make the most sense. News directors began to look for paradigms at other stations that had been successful in boosting ratings (Ver Berkmoes 3). One standout was WSVN in Miami. After losing their CBS affiliation in 1989, WSVN signed on with the fledgling Fox network and took a different approach to local programming. Station owner Edmund Ansin added four hours of news to the station's three (Lane 2). More notably, the station drastically restyled its approach to news. The new shows were fast-paced, had flashy graphics, breathless promos, and a large diet of crimes, fires, disasters, and mayhem. The change vaulted the station from a losing position to a consistent second place in the Miami market, regularly finishing above the area's ABC and NBC affiliates (Lane 1). Station managers looking for an idea to copy found a gold mine in WSVN (Ver Berkmoes 3).
WSVN's influence is strongly felt in the picture of television news today. In a study by Rocky Mountain Media Watch in 1995 of 50 major news markets, crime and disaster news constituted 53% of news on local newscasts, on average. Other non-news items, including "soft news, anchor chatter, teases, and celebrity items" made up an average of 31% (Stark 2). These sensational stories are most often the ones with the best pictures-with satellite technology, on a slow day a station can pull in the latest mayhem from anywhere in the world. So if no one gets shot or escapes from prison in Boston, we can still see today's train wreck in Arizona or a gas explosion in Houston (Frank 2).
The main purveyors of schlock are the same consultants, now hired by stations to help them stay competitive. Consultants' basic task is to alter the newscast to bring in as many viewers as possible. Their philosophy is evident in this consultant's report:
"It is not surprising...that research indicates ratings rise when the broadcast is successful in exposing the viewer to what he wants to hear, in the very personal way he wants to hear it. In terms of news, this means ratings are improved not when listeners are told what they should know, but what they want to know." (qtd. in Stark 3)
This new concept of "want to know" versus "need to know" is now the controlling principle of modern TV news. The popular term is "infotainment," describing pieces designed to arouse, scare, anger, and ultimately entertain hidden in the guise of "hard" news (Paige 2).
The new approach has its defenders as well as its detractors. Joel Cheatwood, the news director at WSVN who pioneered the approach, defends his tactics by claiming, "I'm not talking about changing journalistic standards as much as...changing presentation" (qtd. in Siegel 4). However, one veteran reporter working under Cheatwood (who is now at WHDH in Boston) offers this contradictory anectode: "When I would get into arguments over basic journalistic accuracy, I would have five producers fighting with me" (Siegel 4).
The consultants in charge of the changes often face bitter resentment from old-guard reporters who view responsible journalism as more important than boosted profit statements. Natalie Jacobson, a 25-year veteran of WCVB in Boston, calls consultants "the worst thing that ever happened to television" (qtd. in Aucoin 2). Jacobson decries consultants' cockiness, saying that they think they know better than experienced reporters do (Aucoin 3). She also lambasted consultants' hiring decisions, claiming that young reporters are hired for "showmanship" rather than reporting skills (qtd. in Aucoin 3).
The dominance of infotainment affects not only those stations that seek out the approach, but also those stations that seek to preserve their traditions of responsible journalism. If one station in a market has moved to tabloid-style news, competitors' newscasts can seem old and tired by comparison. Many react by modernizing their own newscasts so as not to be trumped by a newer, flashier show (Siegel 4). Those that do not react quickly enough face plummeting ratings, which means plummeting revenue.
The transformation of respectable television news into infotainment has drawn sharp criticism from all sides. Charles Kravetz, news director of New England Cable News and former assistant news director at WCVB, says of the new crop of newscasts: "[There used to be] a lack of a need to sensationalize and a reverence for journalistic standards that doesn't exist now" (qtd. in Siegel, 2). In reference to increased celebrity and scandal coverage, Jim Thistle says, "You almost can't tell where their tabloid shows like Hard Copy end and the news begins" (Siegel 4). Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz weighs in on the infotainment trend:
"There's absolutely nothing wrong when they try to pitch journalism to a mass audience by making it entertaining. The danger comes when they try to pass off as real news a segment designed to titillate, anger, or scare people." (qtd. in Paige, 2)
The danger is even more frightening because television, local news in particular, is for most Americans their main source of news. According to a 1996 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 65 percent of adults are regular viewers of local TV news. The study also reported that local news is the most trusted source of news-trusted more than local daily papers, network news, and national daily papers (Winerip 32).
That so many people trust a medium so thoroughly dubious is disturbing because of the inaccuracies plaguing television. In a most basic sense, the fast-paced formatting and the importance of striking visuals make it impossible to provide context or perspective on a story, two pillars of responsible journalism (Zuckerman, Limits, 2). This lack of context can distort a story. Marvin Kalb, president of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University, says that the disproportionate coverage of crime and scandal "skew[s] reality-" by covering only the politicians who are corrupt, showing wars when the world is largely at peace, and more crime in a society with the lowest crime rate in a quarter century (qtd. in McCartney, 6). One cable news reporter expresses her frustrations: "What I object to is the lack of context. It all goes hurtling by, and the world is a frightening and inexplicable place" (Stark 6). Ted Koppel thinks the rush to embrace new technological gimmicks for ratings affects the perception of journalism: "...live TV has confused a lot of people into thinking that seeing a live event is the equivalent of journalism" (Koppel 2).
The pursuit of ad dollars has also influenced TV news in a far more subtle way. According to the Tyndall Report, a newsletter covering the network news programs published weekly, the amount of time allotted to editorial matter is slowly dwindling, replaced by more commercials (McCartney 2). The original format for the nightly network news was 21 minutes of editorial, and 8 minutes of advertising. Now only 19½ minutes of editorial are aired (McCartney 3). Less time means fewer or shorter segments, which means less context and less information (McCartney 3).
The depraved state of television news constitutes a serious threat to the operation of the democratic system. The governmental process in a democracy relies on an informed citizenship-citizens need to know how their elected representatives are performing, what issues may be relevant to their own lives that might warrant political action, and where political candidates stand on issues in order to intelligently exercise their voting privilege (McCartney 4). Television news, by not providing context, by providing misleading and sensational coverage, and by not providing sufficient coverage of the political process, is clearly not doing its job of informing the public. Thistle sums it up: "[I don't think]...if you want to make a stab at being a well-informed citizen you would want a tabloid format as your main source of information" (Siegel 3).
The extent of the problem is wide-ranging and far-reaching. According to a study by the Rocky Mountain Media Watch, subjects not covered sufficiently or at all were the environment, education, the economy, science, the arts, children, civil rights, parenting, and homelessness (Stark 6). These are the kinds of issues dealt with by politicians, but television does a shoddy job of providing enough coverage or information. For example, during the 1997 campaign finance hearings in Washington, D.C., the major networks provided no coverage at all, instead opting to produce in-depth reporting about the murder of Gianni Versace (Bozell 4). In a similar episode, during the 1998 gubernatorial race in California, none of the Los Angeles network affiliates showed up to cover the debates between the candidates. The leading stations similarly abandoned political coverage during the 1997 mayoral race in Los Angeles. When asked about their lapses in coverage, station and network spokespersons excuse was that there was insufficient public interest to justify such coverage; i.e. the stations would not be making any money (Cadell 1). National statistics confirm the trend: a University of Miami study discovered nationally twice as much crime news as political news, and 15 times as much crime as education news (Winerip 33).
Viewers, on the other hand, seem not to care very much. Surveys have repeatedly shown that audiences prefer crime stories (Winerip 32). Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, sees this as part of the problem. "Local TV news wouldn't cover crime as much as it does if the public didn't reward such coverage with high ratings," says Altman (Public Health 1). News directors are bound to deliver whatever polls say viewers want. One Orlando news director says, "all the surveys put crime at the top of the list. Who am I to second-guess the audience" (qtd. in Winerip 32)? Critics differ as to why viewers like crime. A meteorology professor, commenting on over-hyped storm coverage, provided this observation: "People have a natural interest in damage and other people problems. It makes your own problems seem a little less" (qtd. in Stark, 5). Carlos Fuentes, a writer for World Press Review, sees the industry as the problem-because the public gets such a huge volume of low-quality news, they think they are well-informed (Fuentes 1). Writer Steven D. Stark has another theory. He says that the citizens who want to be well-informed are often wealthier, and therefore have access to other more reliable sources of news, such as cable TV and the Internet. The remaining bloc of viewers are less-educated, poorer people who probably think that tabloid journalism is perfectly acceptable (Stark 6).
Despite the fact that viewers seem to be satisfied, television has a larger responsibility than pleasing viewers and corporate profit statements. Television is a remarkably influential medium, both to viewers and to the government to which television provides oversight. The decisions made by news directors in choosing which stories or issues to cover have a direct effect on the broader political agenda, both locally and nationally. As U.S. News and World Report media critic Mortimer B. Zuckerman, most succinctly put it, "No pictures, no policy" (Blind Eye 1). The television networks and local news are the "main source of perceptions about what is important" (McCartney 3). The effect can be best illustrated by the relationship between coverage and action on foreign policy. A few years ago there were famines in both Somalia and the Sudan, but CNN only had good pictures from Somalia. The public outrage fueled a policy effort to assist Somalia, while nothing was done for the Sudan (Zuckerman, Blind Eye, 1). Television influences the public's agenda, as well-studies show that viewers who watch crime-saturated newscasts are more likely to support more radical and punitive law-enforcement policies (Stark 6).
The television industry's obligations go beyond austere democratic responsibilities to be informative. The television industry has violated the terms under which they are licensed to use the airwaves by the Federal Communications Commission: the 1934 mandate that established the FCC stated that the broadcast media are to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" (McCartney 9). While there may be some wiggle room in the wording of the license requirements, and TV stations may be serving the public convenience, they are far from fulfilling their obligations to the public interest and necessity.
Fortunately, the law provides a way out: if a station is not fulfilling its obligations, a petition can be heard to revoke the station's license. This has been done only once in recent memory-in 1972, a group of prominent business and education leaders sued for the FCC license of Boston station WHDH-TV because they were fed up with the "garbage" the station was producing. They renamed the station WCVB, which has remained a responsible news leader ever since (Siegel 2), despite the invasion of consultants (Aucoin 1). Ironically, Boston's ailing WNEV-TV was recently acquired by WSVN owner Edmund Ansin, and renamed WHDH. The tradition of schlock TV continues.
Others see self-regulation as the way to save TV journalism. Austin, Texas ABC affiliate KVUE-TV has adopted a new strategy to battle sensationalism. The news director has put in place a set of stringent requirements that determine whether or not a crime story is aired, which include: Is action required? Is there a threat to public safety? Is there a threat to children? Does this have a larger community impact? These new rules are in response to viewer surveys that indicated that they were sick of crime (Holley 5). While this is represents being a slave to the viewers in a way, news director Mike George has the best of intentions: "It's just like any other story. We ask the question, 'Why is this important?'" (Holley 5)
Works Cited
Aucoin, Don. "The News from Natalie." Boston Globe 31 Mar. 1998: C1. Boston Globe Online. Online. 6 Jan. 1999.
Bozell, L. Brent. "Tabloid Trash TV Preferred Over Hearings." Insight on the News 1 Sep. 1997: 29. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Caddell, Patrick. "A Modest Proposal: Sue the Bastards!" The Nation 8 Jun. 1998: 16. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Donaldson, Sam. "The State of Television News: In the Business to Make Money." Vital Speeches 1 Jan. 1998: 168. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Frank, Reuven. "Localizing Network News." The New Leader 6 Sep. 1993: 20. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
"Health Ranks Fifth on Local TV News." Public Health Reports July-August 1998: 296. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Holley, Joe. "Should the Coverage Fit the Crime?" Columbia Journalism Review May-June 1996: 27. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Because it's just those "clueless AOL minions" that many of us need to keep in contact with! Surprisingly, many of us geeks have non-geek friends and family members who use AOL/AIM and will/can not be convinced to switch to the IM flavor of the month-- all their contacts speak AIM, too! I have no choice when it comes to IM-- use AOL, or don't talk to anyone.
It's just like the days when you had to buy/rent a Bell telephone in order to talk to Bell customers! It's called a monopoly, and the FTC/FCC ruled is as such. Another example is with cable networks (AOL/TW vs. Disney, IIRC).
I'll tell you what-- when you convince everyone I know, and everyone they know, and everyone they know (remember Gnutella's scalability problem?) to switch to Jabber/MSN/Yahoo/whatever, I'll switch too and quit my whining. Okay?
Can anyone point me to a good article on telephone system interoperability? You know, how you used to have to buy an AT&T phone to talk to other AT&T customers...
If I could only find such an article, and post it as a reply to every single "well just use AOL's client, you ungrateful bastards" post...
a) Fully open IM system? Jabber.
b) Why hasn't Jabber taken over, then? Because most of the free world uses AIM. You want to try to convice 70 million AIM users to switch to a service where none of their friends are, and for which there isn't even a decently usable Win32 client?
Remember when you had to buy an AT&T phone in order to talk to AT&T customers? Same deal here.
Slashdot Mirror
How did you come to be in the posession of such a list of MPAA IP's? That would have come in handy to me a few months ago when I got my 'letter' ...
No, it's real. It may not be visible now, but this user has been changing his sig to remove the evidence. He HAS been placing goatsex links in his sig, where the link-checker doesn't yet function.
See this bug and several others on sourceforge... they all appear to be closed, but apparently the problem still exists.
I just don't think it's feasible that MS can gain a monopoly in this market anytime soon-- they'd have to buy Nintendo (trivial) AND Sony (decidedly NON-trivial). Plus it's not nearly as lucrative as any of their other markets... I suppose it's possible that in the future they could gain a monopoly there, but does that mean that they have to walk on eggshells NOW, when they have ZERO market share?
What exactly, though, is the difference between this and any other company that tries to grow and take over its market? The company I work for makes acquisitions on a monthly basis, but they're "growing" instead of "squashing competition."
The difference is that your company doesn't have a monopoly in any of its markets. The reason Microsoft doesn't have the right to expand into other markets by "bundling" is because they are using their monopoly in the operating system market to gain an unfair advantage over other competitors in that market (e.g. Netscape, though that war has been fought and lost). The fight is still being fought over Microsoft's bundling/integration in Windows XP that favors Microsoft and Microsoft-affiliated companies and services (music, financial services, email, streaming media, etc).
However, the bundling we're seeing here in the console market is legal, because MS holds no monopoly in the gaming console market. In fact, since they haven't even released the Xbox yet, they have ZERO market share. They are not using their desktop OS monopoly to enter into the console market, and since they have no monopoly in the console market they are not using it illegally to compete in the console games market.
Moral:
Using your monopoly in one market to force out competition in a different market = anti-competitive.
Bundling as a general practice = pisses off consumers, but not illegal or anti-competitive.
ah. found a few.
Scrounge up as many old laptops as you can, and make a tiled LCD display wall! Use it to check your email, watch CNN, etc, or just display your vis output from winamp... put them in rows on your file drawers, or wallpaper with them!
(Note: may require some assembly)
(PS: sorry for the lack of links, but I tried and tried and couldn't find anything worth showing.)
Electronic Workflow.
Dynamic PDF stuff is *necessary* for those of us writing workflow applications in industried (e.g. financial services, insurance) where the complexity of forms requires lots of dynamic calculation and database interaction and the regulatory requirements all but make sure we cannot deviate from existing paper forms design. Plus, eventually we must produce documents for customers to sign, and to be archived, and to be audited, so PDF is the best choice.
Yes, for many industries the JS/ODBC stuff is unnecessary (and, if you'll notice, this bug only affects those with full acrobat, not acrobat reader), but for others it's critical.
hey, what company is that? I'm about to get local, long distance, and internet service and i'd be THRILLED to go with ANYONE other that verizon...
whoops, sorry, didn't mean to use +1 bonus on this.
where are my mod points when i need them??
... I'll change my homepage from Sneakemail to PopUp Killer-- for those of us on Win32 who can't run Konquerer.
Yeah, I just spent the last 5 minutes looking for a link with pictures of those SCARY SCARY ads. ;) Does anyone have a link? They don't appear to be on the bsa or MS sites....
If not worse!
I should know-- I've just had my identity stolen. Somebody opened up a credit account at Gateway (in addition to other places) and bought a computer for himself! All in all there are $2000 worth of fraudulent charges-- fortunately they're not on my credit cards, so I won't have to pay them in order to conduct daily business.
The Credit Bureaus are a PAIN in the butt to deal with-- I've had to re-open the investigations on my accounts several times-- becuase Gateway and others report that the account is "under investigation," the credit bureaus interpret that as saying the account is mine!
The police are even worse-- it's been 6 weeks since I originally filed my complaint, and only this week have I actually recieved a call from a detective! These things just SIT there until they either get lost or fall onto somebody's desk.
I could have been completely screwed over by this if my circumstances were a little different-- I have been looking for a place to live, and almost all landlords in NYC require credit checks on all applications. With those nasty adverse items on my report (even with a victim statement), I would never have stood a chance getting an apartment. I decided to rent a room instead until things settle down a bit with my credit (and my job), so it hasn't kicked me in the ass yet.
Identity theft is REAL! I'm really surprised more testimonials haven't been posted here... I know of three other people off the top of my head who this has happened to.
I still don't know how they got the information-- a security breach, a disgruntled university employee, intercepted mail... no idea. I haven't lost my wallet or anything.
Maybe that detective will be able to tell me something useful... we shall see.
Hehe you've obviously never met one... ;)
One look at that title and I thought he was talking about my old 386... print server or paperweight? You decide...
Now I'm just waiting till they build a computer in the hot new "doorstop" form-factor... ;)
wow... two identical posts within the space of 60 seconds... what do you figure the odds of that are? :)
The car: http://www.rinspeed.com/pages/press/pre-r_one.htm
The Fuel: http://www.kompogas.ch/e/index.html
copy and paste the link text for the goatsex-wary...
If you're in the NYC area, I stumbled upon this messageboard where lots of models and photogs in the fetish/glamour/porn industry hang out.
:)
Going to change my userinfo link to some photos now...
where are my mod points where i need them?!? this is the best response i've seen in a long time to the trolls that always flood this topic...
http://www.feedmag.com/templates/default.php3?a_id =1690
left out a trailing zero...
You ask what the difference is between your garage keeping a record of all your oil changes, etc, and some big evil corporation doing the same?
Well, the difference is this: your garage keeps only the information it needs in order to do business with you. What if all of a sudden, your mechanic went out to all the other businesses you frequent-- your supermarket, your drycleaners, or got out your criminal record, your employment history, etc? Would that be an invasion of privacy?
What if then, they sold it to the highest bidder, without asking you if they could share that information with anyone else? Do you think you still implicitly consented to that when you decided you use all those services?
You didn't. You agreed to let the mechanic keep track of *one* piece of data about you-- your car. You didn't agree to let him share it with anybody else, nor should you have to.
It's not the data-tracking people are objecting to, it's the sharing of said data with people you may or may not trust, and the sale of such information without your consent.
We won't even begin to talk about what happens when your mechanic makes an error in his system about what kind of car you own (maybe a jalopy instead of your mercedes), which simultaneously gets transferred to seventeen other databases around the world (your employers', the governments', your dry cleaners', the banks'), whose psychographic profiles of you now put you in a "high-risk" demographic, and you can't get loans or service or be eligible for credit.
I know that's a worst-case scenario, but this is what PRIVACY POLICY is for-- not just for websites but for all our personal information. We should have the right to choose who can see it and who can sell it.
There is a phrase circulating through television studios and newsrooms across the country describing the philosophy of the modern television news director: "If it bleeds, it leads." Murders, sex crimes, animal abuse, freeway chases, and domestic squabbles are the main staples of television news programs today. The corporations owning most TV stations place excessive profit expectations on their subsidiaries, mandating that TV stations generate huge margins. The way most TV stations have managed to survive is by producing shows that appeal to the greatest number of viewers. However, in the process, the television industry has forgotten the responsibilities and requirements that allowed them to use publicly owned airwaves. This ignorance of the responsibility to inform is a threat to a democratic system relying on an informed citizenry.
TV news has not always been shamelessly sensationalistic. When television was in its infancy during the late 1940s and the 1950s, the news was an inconsequential portion of the television day: just 15 minutes a day were devoted to a somber reading of the news by Douglas Edwards on CBS (Isaak 1). Back then there were only the 3 major networks; CBS, ABC, and CBS, known then and now as the "Big Three." They had practically no competition for viewers-with only three stations to choose from, the networks were guaranteed a large portion of the audience (Donaldson 3). The networks made all their money on the entertainment portion of their programming, and they made mountains of it. The networks could afford to have responsible, informative newscasts that lost money (Donaldson 3).
This utopia of sorts, however, did not last forever. Starting in the late 1960s, with television viewership sharply on the rise, the local stations that run network programming, known as network affiliates, discovered the viability of local television news programming. What began as an experiment in San Francisco during a newspaper strike (Stark 3) quickly exploded across the nation as a way to supplement the compensation given station owners for running the network's programs. Creating or expanding existing news programming was very attractive to station owners because news is staggeringly cheaper to produce than a dramatic show (Stark 2). For those stations that already had news programs in one form or another, the expanding markets offered more opportunities for revenue. According to Jim Thistle, a professor at the Boston University School of Communications, and former news director at all three major network affiliates in Boston, "Once you have a newscast, the cheapest thing you can do is more news" (qtd. in Siegel, 3). Once stations started expanding, many saw newscasts generating one-half to one-third of the profit for the entire station (Stark 2).
Competition drove the development of these newscasts because of the huge amounts of money involved. For example in Orlando, the 36th largest market, the top-rated station charges $1,400 for a 30-second advertising spot on its 11pm newscast. In contrast, the third most-watched news station charges only $900 for the same time slot. With eight minutes of commercials during the half-hour, the difference in one night is between $22,400 versus $14,400 in revenue. In a year, that makes for a $3 million difference between first and third place, just for that one program. In larger markets such as New York, the difference is $100 million per year (Winerip 34).
These new newscasts did not arise from the tradition of radio and print journalism, as the network programs did. Many local TV programs were because of the potential for profits, and consequently were staffed with "TV people" instead of seasoned journalists (Stark 3). The result was a highly stylized version of journalism, focused more on the anchors reading the news than on the news itself. Some newscasts featured frequent banter between the newsreaders, and were likewise dubbed "happy talk" newscasts (Stark 3). Other stations used a different, "action news" format with fewer, faster-paced stories, exciting, upbeat music, and a heavy emphasis on visuals. These various formats were developed and marketed by a few, highly-paid media consultants to stations all across the country looking for a reliable way to make TV news attract viewers and bring in advertising dollars (Stark 4).
If the new TV news was in a decline during the sixties and seventies, it entered a free-fall during the eighties. When Congress deregulated the telecommunications industry, they changed the rules governing TV station ownership: large corporations could now own three times as many stations as under the previous laws, and they were no longer required to keep a station for three years before selling it (Winerip 35). This significantly changed the climate in the television industry. The period following deregulation was marked by a rapid consolidation of many TV stations across the country by a few large corporations. In addition, larger corporations, enabled by the deregulation, acquired each of the Big 3 networks (Ver Berkmoes 3). Because the networks, in addition to providing programming, also own local stations ("O&O's:" Owned and Operated), their acquisition impacted a large number of individual stations across the country.
Corporate ownership of TV stations and networks meant that changes were inevitable. Because TV stations typically have such huge profit margins (40-50%) (Winerip 39), they were attractive targets. Corporations with a variety of assets bought TV stations to take the pressure off more important holdings, like a flagship newspaper (Winerip 39). The result of this strategy was that TV stations bore the brunt of the profit-generating responsibilities (Ver Berkmoes 3). According to a vice-president at one such corporation, because these companies are publicly owned, corporations are accountable to their shareholders, and must pay attention to what Wall Street analysts expect of them, namely that television stations should be cash cows for their mother corporations (Winerip 39).
Suddenly, the bottom line became much more important at TV stations. Station managers began frantically looking for ways to boost viewership. Since news programs were already the stations' main source of profit (Rapping 2), modifying the news to attract even more viewers seemed to make the most sense. News directors began to look for paradigms at other stations that had been successful in boosting ratings (Ver Berkmoes 3). One standout was WSVN in Miami. After losing their CBS affiliation in 1989, WSVN signed on with the fledgling Fox network and took a different approach to local programming. Station owner Edmund Ansin added four hours of news to the station's three (Lane 2). More notably, the station drastically restyled its approach to news. The new shows were fast-paced, had flashy graphics, breathless promos, and a large diet of crimes, fires, disasters, and mayhem. The change vaulted the station from a losing position to a consistent second place in the Miami market, regularly finishing above the area's ABC and NBC affiliates (Lane 1). Station managers looking for an idea to copy found a gold mine in WSVN (Ver Berkmoes 3).
WSVN's influence is strongly felt in the picture of television news today. In a study by Rocky Mountain Media Watch in 1995 of 50 major news markets, crime and disaster news constituted 53% of news on local newscasts, on average. Other non-news items, including "soft news, anchor chatter, teases, and celebrity items" made up an average of 31% (Stark 2). These sensational stories are most often the ones with the best pictures-with satellite technology, on a slow day a station can pull in the latest mayhem from anywhere in the world. So if no one gets shot or escapes from prison in Boston, we can still see today's train wreck in Arizona or a gas explosion in Houston (Frank 2).
The main purveyors of schlock are the same consultants, now hired by stations to help them stay competitive. Consultants' basic task is to alter the newscast to bring in as many viewers as possible. Their philosophy is evident in this consultant's report:
"It is not surprising...that research indicates ratings rise when the broadcast is successful in exposing the viewer to what he wants to hear, in the very personal way he wants to hear it. In terms of news, this means ratings are improved not when listeners are told what they should know, but what they want to know." (qtd. in Stark 3)
This new concept of "want to know" versus "need to know" is now the controlling principle of modern TV news. The popular term is "infotainment," describing pieces designed to arouse, scare, anger, and ultimately entertain hidden in the guise of "hard" news (Paige 2).
The new approach has its defenders as well as its detractors. Joel Cheatwood, the news director at WSVN who pioneered the approach, defends his tactics by claiming, "I'm not talking about changing journalistic standards as much as...changing presentation" (qtd. in Siegel 4). However, one veteran reporter working under Cheatwood (who is now at WHDH in Boston) offers this contradictory anectode: "When I would get into arguments over basic journalistic accuracy, I would have five producers fighting with me" (Siegel 4).
The consultants in charge of the changes often face bitter resentment from old-guard reporters who view responsible journalism as more important than boosted profit statements. Natalie Jacobson, a 25-year veteran of WCVB in Boston, calls consultants "the worst thing that ever happened to television" (qtd. in Aucoin 2). Jacobson decries consultants' cockiness, saying that they think they know better than experienced reporters do (Aucoin 3). She also lambasted consultants' hiring decisions, claiming that young reporters are hired for "showmanship" rather than reporting skills (qtd. in Aucoin 3).
The dominance of infotainment affects not only those stations that seek out the approach, but also those stations that seek to preserve their traditions of responsible journalism. If one station in a market has moved to tabloid-style news, competitors' newscasts can seem old and tired by comparison. Many react by modernizing their own newscasts so as not to be trumped by a newer, flashier show (Siegel 4). Those that do not react quickly enough face plummeting ratings, which means plummeting revenue.
The transformation of respectable television news into infotainment has drawn sharp criticism from all sides. Charles Kravetz, news director of New England Cable News and former assistant news director at WCVB, says of the new crop of newscasts: "[There used to be] a lack of a need to sensationalize and a reverence for journalistic standards that doesn't exist now" (qtd. in Siegel, 2). In reference to increased celebrity and scandal coverage, Jim Thistle says, "You almost can't tell where their tabloid shows like Hard Copy end and the news begins" (Siegel 4). Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz weighs in on the infotainment trend:
"There's absolutely nothing wrong when they try to pitch journalism to a mass audience by making it entertaining. The danger comes when they try to pass off as real news a segment designed to titillate, anger, or scare people." (qtd. in Paige, 2)
The danger is even more frightening because television, local news in particular, is for most Americans their main source of news. According to a 1996 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 65 percent of adults are regular viewers of local TV news. The study also reported that local news is the most trusted source of news-trusted more than local daily papers, network news, and national daily papers (Winerip 32).
That so many people trust a medium so thoroughly dubious is disturbing because of the inaccuracies plaguing television. In a most basic sense, the fast-paced formatting and the importance of striking visuals make it impossible to provide context or perspective on a story, two pillars of responsible journalism (Zuckerman, Limits, 2). This lack of context can distort a story. Marvin Kalb, president of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University, says that the disproportionate coverage of crime and scandal "skew[s] reality-" by covering only the politicians who are corrupt, showing wars when the world is largely at peace, and more crime in a society with the lowest crime rate in a quarter century (qtd. in McCartney, 6). One cable news reporter expresses her frustrations: "What I object to is the lack of context. It all goes hurtling by, and the world is a frightening and inexplicable place" (Stark 6). Ted Koppel thinks the rush to embrace new technological gimmicks for ratings affects the perception of journalism: "...live TV has confused a lot of people into thinking that seeing a live event is the equivalent of journalism" (Koppel 2).
The pursuit of ad dollars has also influenced TV news in a far more subtle way. According to the Tyndall Report, a newsletter covering the network news programs published weekly, the amount of time allotted to editorial matter is slowly dwindling, replaced by more commercials (McCartney 2). The original format for the nightly network news was 21 minutes of editorial, and 8 minutes of advertising. Now only 19½ minutes of editorial are aired (McCartney 3). Less time means fewer or shorter segments, which means less context and less information (McCartney 3).
The depraved state of television news constitutes a serious threat to the operation of the democratic system. The governmental process in a democracy relies on an informed citizenship-citizens need to know how their elected representatives are performing, what issues may be relevant to their own lives that might warrant political action, and where political candidates stand on issues in order to intelligently exercise their voting privilege (McCartney 4). Television news, by not providing context, by providing misleading and sensational coverage, and by not providing sufficient coverage of the political process, is clearly not doing its job of informing the public. Thistle sums it up: "[I don't think]...if you want to make a stab at being a well-informed citizen you would want a tabloid format as your main source of information" (Siegel 3).
The extent of the problem is wide-ranging and far-reaching. According to a study by the Rocky Mountain Media Watch, subjects not covered sufficiently or at all were the environment, education, the economy, science, the arts, children, civil rights, parenting, and homelessness (Stark 6). These are the kinds of issues dealt with by politicians, but television does a shoddy job of providing enough coverage or information. For example, during the 1997 campaign finance hearings in Washington, D.C., the major networks provided no coverage at all, instead opting to produce in-depth reporting about the murder of Gianni Versace (Bozell 4). In a similar episode, during the 1998 gubernatorial race in California, none of the Los Angeles network affiliates showed up to cover the debates between the candidates. The leading stations similarly abandoned political coverage during the 1997 mayoral race in Los Angeles. When asked about their lapses in coverage, station and network spokespersons excuse was that there was insufficient public interest to justify such coverage; i.e. the stations would not be making any money (Cadell 1). National statistics confirm the trend: a University of Miami study discovered nationally twice as much crime news as political news, and 15 times as much crime as education news (Winerip 33).
Viewers, on the other hand, seem not to care very much. Surveys have repeatedly shown that audiences prefer crime stories (Winerip 32). Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, sees this as part of the problem. "Local TV news wouldn't cover crime as much as it does if the public didn't reward such coverage with high ratings," says Altman (Public Health 1). News directors are bound to deliver whatever polls say viewers want. One Orlando news director says, "all the surveys put crime at the top of the list. Who am I to second-guess the audience" (qtd. in Winerip 32)? Critics differ as to why viewers like crime. A meteorology professor, commenting on over-hyped storm coverage, provided this observation: "People have a natural interest in damage and other people problems. It makes your own problems seem a little less" (qtd. in Stark, 5). Carlos Fuentes, a writer for World Press Review, sees the industry as the problem-because the public gets such a huge volume of low-quality news, they think they are well-informed (Fuentes 1). Writer Steven D. Stark has another theory. He says that the citizens who want to be well-informed are often wealthier, and therefore have access to other more reliable sources of news, such as cable TV and the Internet. The remaining bloc of viewers are less-educated, poorer people who probably think that tabloid journalism is perfectly acceptable (Stark 6).
Despite the fact that viewers seem to be satisfied, television has a larger responsibility than pleasing viewers and corporate profit statements. Television is a remarkably influential medium, both to viewers and to the government to which television provides oversight. The decisions made by news directors in choosing which stories or issues to cover have a direct effect on the broader political agenda, both locally and nationally. As U.S. News and World Report media critic Mortimer B. Zuckerman, most succinctly put it, "No pictures, no policy" (Blind Eye 1). The television networks and local news are the "main source of perceptions about what is important" (McCartney 3). The effect can be best illustrated by the relationship between coverage and action on foreign policy. A few years ago there were famines in both Somalia and the Sudan, but CNN only had good pictures from Somalia. The public outrage fueled a policy effort to assist Somalia, while nothing was done for the Sudan (Zuckerman, Blind Eye, 1). Television influences the public's agenda, as well-studies show that viewers who watch crime-saturated newscasts are more likely to support more radical and punitive law-enforcement policies (Stark 6).
The television industry's obligations go beyond austere democratic responsibilities to be informative. The television industry has violated the terms under which they are licensed to use the airwaves by the Federal Communications Commission: the 1934 mandate that established the FCC stated that the broadcast media are to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" (McCartney 9). While there may be some wiggle room in the wording of the license requirements, and TV stations may be serving the public convenience, they are far from fulfilling their obligations to the public interest and necessity.
Fortunately, the law provides a way out: if a station is not fulfilling its obligations, a petition can be heard to revoke the station's license. This has been done only once in recent memory-in 1972, a group of prominent business and education leaders sued for the FCC license of Boston station WHDH-TV because they were fed up with the "garbage" the station was producing. They renamed the station WCVB, which has remained a responsible news leader ever since (Siegel 2), despite the invasion of consultants (Aucoin 1). Ironically, Boston's ailing WNEV-TV was recently acquired by WSVN owner Edmund Ansin, and renamed WHDH. The tradition of schlock TV continues.
Others see self-regulation as the way to save TV journalism. Austin, Texas ABC affiliate KVUE-TV has adopted a new strategy to battle sensationalism. The news director has put in place a set of stringent requirements that determine whether or not a crime story is aired, which include: Is action required? Is there a threat to public safety? Is there a threat to children? Does this have a larger community impact? These new rules are in response to viewer surveys that indicated that they were sick of crime (Holley 5). While this is represents being a slave to the viewers in a way, news director Mike George has the best of intentions: "It's just like any other story. We ask the question, 'Why is this important?'" (Holley 5)
Works Cited
Aucoin, Don. "The News from Natalie." Boston Globe 31 Mar. 1998: C1. Boston Globe Online. Online. 6 Jan. 1999.
Bozell, L. Brent. "Tabloid Trash TV Preferred Over Hearings." Insight on the News 1 Sep. 1997: 29. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Caddell, Patrick. "A Modest Proposal: Sue the Bastards!" The Nation 8 Jun. 1998: 16. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Donaldson, Sam. "The State of Television News: In the Business to Make Money." Vital Speeches 1 Jan. 1998: 168. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Frank, Reuven. "Localizing Network News." The New Leader 6 Sep. 1993: 20. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
"Health Ranks Fifth on Local TV News." Public Health Reports July-August 1998: 296. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Holley, Joe. "Should the Coverage Fit the Crime?" Columbia Journalism Review May-June 1996: 27. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Isaak, Sharon. "Anchors Aweigh." Entertainment Weekly 18 Jun. 1993: 32. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Lane, Randall. "The Dean of Tabloid TV." Forbes 28 Feb. 1994: 100. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
McCartney, James. "News Lite." American Journalism Review June 1997: 18. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Paige, Sean. "That's Infotainment!" Insight on the News 8 Jun. 1998: 8. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Rapping, Elayne. "Watching the Eyewitless News." The Progressive Mar. 1995: 38. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Siegel, Ed. "Lack of Vision Hurt Channel 7 Under Mugar." Boston Globe 23 Apr. 1993: 45. Boston Globe Online. Online. 6 Jan. 1999.
Siegel, Ed. "TV Wars." Boston Globe 12 Feb. 1995: 18. Boston Globe Online. Online. 6 Jan. 1999.
Stark, Steven D. "Local News: The Biggest Scandal on TV." Washington Monthly June 1997: 38. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Ver Berkmoes, Ryan. "89 Hours." Chicago April 1995: 66. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Winerip, Michael. "Looking for an 11 O'clock Fix." The New York Times Magazine 11 Jan. 1998: 30+.
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "The Blind Eye of Television." U.S. News & World Report 18 Jan. 1993: 84. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "The Limits of the TV Lens." U.S. News & World Report 25 Jul. 1994: 64. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Because it's just those "clueless AOL minions" that many of us need to keep in contact with! Surprisingly, many of us geeks have non-geek friends and family members who use AOL/AIM and will/can not be convinced to switch to the IM flavor of the month-- all their contacts speak AIM, too! I have no choice when it comes to IM-- use AOL, or don't talk to anyone.
It's just like the days when you had to buy/rent a Bell telephone in order to talk to Bell customers! It's called a monopoly, and the FTC/FCC ruled is as such. Another example is with cable networks (AOL/TW vs. Disney, IIRC).
I'll tell you what-- when you convince everyone I know, and everyone they know, and everyone they know (remember Gnutella's scalability problem?) to switch to Jabber/MSN/Yahoo/whatever, I'll switch too and quit my whining. Okay?
Sheesh.
Can anyone point me to a good article on telephone system interoperability? You know, how you used to have to buy an AT&T phone to talk to other AT&T customers...
If I could only find such an article, and post it as a reply to every single "well just use AOL's client, you ungrateful bastards" post...
a) Fully open IM system? Jabber.
b) Why hasn't Jabber taken over, then? Because most of the free world uses AIM. You want to try to convice 70 million AIM users to switch to a service where none of their friends are, and for which there isn't even a decently usable Win32 client?
Remember when you had to buy an AT&T phone in order to talk to AT&T customers? Same deal here.