Could we be more careful in making such strong assertions? Firstly, WHO's right to speech and expression is being trampled? Generally, artists make little or no profit. If you are saying that since radio stations will be more squeezed by this proposal, causing artists to go out of business, they already have. Since when is the American Way disregarded when the sheep (read: non-Slashdotters?) buy commercialized music, and since when does commercial media make the listeners' preferences tasteless? Look back on the history of music. Many of the songs we may cherish dearly today were commercial successes because of commercial backing. It's fine to boycott RIAA affiliated works, but you will probably punish the artists more than record companies. To say the RIAA is causing more harm to the "American Way of Life" than any terrorist organization is plain stupid. Music is a rather important element of life in the United States, but to many people does not make the core of their existence. Remember that most people only have time for the Top 40. They would rather be engaging in activities other than downloading music or listening to webcasts. I agree the corporate structure in the United States/abroad is getting too strong, and may result in a curtailing of freedoms, but let's remember that devices such as copyright laws, education, telecommunications infrastructure, highways, and the like come with restrictions so that they remain in place to maintain stability.
I pity the fool who doesn't have access to academic licensing. I can get a copy of Office v.X for $199. I guess that is a great way for Micro$haft to get people into their product. It is good software, though. Office is a pretty slick suite, even if it is from the much-berated MS.
I notice the trend of colleges going the way of tech institutes, places where people learn job skills. It is with sadness I recognize that the love of learning may be fading, at least in the safety blanket of the U.S. One thing to be careful about when asserting that the introduction of courses like this is akin to colleges competing and not trying to provide truly engaging education is that one can fall into the traditionally labeled "elitist West" mindset that says instructors need to stick with the classics and that people who more than struggle (i.e. learning disabled) with courses should not be provided a class they can relate to and learn from. Simpsons appeals to almost every level of intellect and is thus a fitting course for analysis of contemporary issues. People who already understand the deeper themes to Simpsons episodes may more closely analyze the show thru a course like this, and people who don't get the moreal and political implications of the show will probably have their eyes opened to this "hip and posturing" commentary of history and contemporary life. Many instructors at the post-secondary level can incorporate modern, trendy topics into their classes quite well. Don't laugh, but I took a class with Jon Katz (Mary Shelly, Frankenstein, and the Unabomber) on modern media. It was the same stuff he goes over on Slashdot that we all take for granted, but it was really an eye opener for most students. It is important, I think, to not overlook the value of contemporary topics.
The University of Minnesota shut down today. My roommate talked with a polisci instructor here who said large campuses are general targets in terrorism of the future. This is no major cause for alarm at universities in general, but something to understand. Where does the US go from here? The next battle is in the financial institutions. The government needs to inform business that it MUST set up safeguards against digital attacks.
It is easy to start pointing fingers toward Osama Bin Laden, but let's hold on for a while. Let's remember we still need investigation before going on a witchhunt, if any.
Why not ask for an accepted FCC-Monitor chip that takes in a signal warning of possibly offensive material? It would be like the V-Chip, but for most airwave-transmitted media. If someone really wanted to institute a nice-teletubby-content-only filter, then they could do it on their own time. Filters suck, but filters can be disabled or customized.
This allows parents, teachers, school boards (yikes!) to make the critical decisions. More power to the people in making the final say about content.
Each broadcaster would have to take care to note which material contained expletives/lewd sexual content, satisfying the FCC's wish to control racier content, while allowing adults to choose a screening system appropriate to their comforts and their parenting style. These screening systems are silly, but still better than restrictions on what may be aired. The document has an arguable case for improving, enlightening...whatever-ing the airwave content for more intelligent broadcasts, but I prefer this come of free will.
Of course there will be the argument from many that any filtering system is just another step toward the "slippery slope" (or other overused term of the year) of anti-freespeech, but let's be honest with ourselves, U.S. citizens. Most of the American content out there sucks; it IS patently offensive to many poeple and it gets its ratings because there is still something of a charm about racier content when there is such strong moral damnation of such content.
Mom says to teenager, "don't have sex."
Teen to mom: "Okay, mom."
The teen runs to the drug store to get anti-pregnancy device and has sex.
People in the U.S. (maybe worldwide--I cannot say as I am not a world traveler) gravitate toward what they are told to avoid.
Broadcasts are the same. So long it seems as there is resistance against racier content, the stronger the lure of the content. By closing more lines to racier content, but not completely thwarting any non-wholesome broadcasts and thus allowing the interest in racier content to live, the FCC panelists seem to have defeated themselves.
After years of this technology entering broadcast receiving devices, content filtering technology could become pervasive, but only at the leisure of consumers who wanted it.
Alternatively, more stations could adopt the policy of forewarning about possibly indecent material. But, I hardly see good in this since such forewarned material is still deemed indecent by the FCC panel. I think the FCC rulings are akin to telling people they can tell broadcasters what can be aired--but only if the government has the final say.
Let the markets rule.
I have a final plan: the FCC could send a pamphlet to every U.S. mailbox with instructions on how to use his or her volume dials and power buttons.
Like the from-dept line reads, why not Lisp? I'm learning scheme in the STK environment right now, and find the language terribly tough at times, but also very easy to use as a way for thinking about programming in both a top-down and bottom-up way. The early functional approach to programming has been good for me; my object-oriented programming pals say that they wish they started this way, because it is a good base. There may be dissenters, but Java is a fairly powerful and complicated language.
At least with a variant of Lisp, there aren't as many things to confuse the programmer as he/she is just picking up the theory behind it all. My next college course is taught using Java. The language isn't the only thing important to explaining concepts, but a simple, generally functional language (yes, Lisp can use message passing, for those unfamiliar) might help students transition into computer theory best. Of course, we're talking about AP exams here. As long as the spec includes learning about methods of thinking about efficient and accurate program design, that is what counts.
good suggestion spitzak. the reason why this generally won't work is that sites using javascript for the onClick events tend to set up their scripting so that it is difficult--and sometimes almost impossible without a knowledge of programming [even sometimes with it]--to get to the link without knowing the specific uri. for example, a js coder might set up an encoding system for their javascript URIs so that a user can't tell by viewing the page source just what the javascript links actually are. however, a simple mod to the code in, say, mozilla, to detect the simplest types of javascript onClick browser redirects probably wouldn't be a bad thing, and would probably come at little expense to the processing engine (if that is what it is called; i'm not fully up-to-speed on the terminology within the project). the mod could simply do the redirect without javascript when it is certain (or pretty certain) of the link in question, and let the user choose what to do in the other cases where the mod can't figure out the link. this would probably be one of those features that would end up in the Edit -> preferences -> advanced options -> for javascript protestors -> and/. geeks like me menu.
sometimes entire posts are not displayed. you need to click the "Read the rest of this comment..." link at the end of a post if the post length exceeds the display limit. unfortunately, the link for the full post actually points to a malformed uri (maybe this was pulled somehow from a link) on the microsoft server, so you'll need to go the actual page of the text at:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/profe ss ional/solutions/toptenupgrade.asp
and, no, i am not a microsoft rep; i'm just trying to help this anonymous poster get to the rest of the post.
As multinational corporations dominate the world we live in, they generally must operate on consumer demand. American politics, in its current state, operates moreso on personal interests than on demands because corporations are smart enough to lobby. If we're to pick the lesser of the two evils, the new capitalism/corporatism at least has this much going for itself
1) It has improved efficiency.
2) It has created jobs.
3) It has raised the standard of comfortable living in general, even if that means longer hours.
4) It has attempted to improve its efforts towards environmental-friendliness.
Meanwhile, American politics offers scandals and mostly outdated, misguided legislation.
If there is blame for the current corporate-political system, it is in the hands of the public who technically run the new capitalism. Corporations cannot take completely the blame for what they do: they operate on the bottom line. Punch them in the pocketbooks if you want change. Kudos to Katz for a guided effort to rejuvinate interest in this needing-tweaking system.
We may not hear about television having the "isolating" effects of the Internet, but we hear of other "perils" of televison. We hear that televison may hyperstimulate people, that it will push children prone to violence over the edge, and that it breeds fat couch potatoes.
In either slandering the Internet or the television, we can debate whether these bad effects exist, and if they exist, whether these "bad" effects are even bad at all. For instance, hyperstimulation may be bad if it leads to a psychotic breakdown. But we know that doesn't usually happen. Children may see violence on television or the Internet that gives them an idea of the forms of violence out there, but they probably won't commit the acts of violence, otherwise we would live amongst an epidemic. As for fat couch potatoes bred from too much televison watching, maybe there is some validity that media give an outlet for sitting down and munching, which evenentually leads to weight gain for a sedentary person. Blame it on Budweiser and their silly WASSUP? commercials or soda. Either is too hard to pass up:-)
Like other/. posters, I'm a little confused as to how NOT voting is "political". Not voting may be ethical, but is still apolitical. The Internet--specifically the Web--is a great forum for a new rationalist perspective for people who want to vote for a good candidate instead of to vote with apathy or not vote at all. Is anyone else interested in forming a new Net-based movement formed on open debate? I have been for several years. This new Katz column was the push over the edge for me.The drive of the/. community and other online forums could make it successful. Visit The 20th Perspective at http://www.geocities.com/gotscheme if you're up for this online debate process in formation of a new (can you say name-in-progress?) Rationalist's Party. Currently, I'm taking suggestions on the message board system for this "grassroots" movement. Within the next seven days, I'm shooting for a full-steam ahead debate on one mainstream topic and one publicly unaddressed issue. It's time somebody do something...And do it right. I want a movement, and I hope you do, too.
One of the great boons of this archiving will be the ability to look back on how people viewed the world--how they predicted the future and so on. Many of these predictions are available in print or online, but video is a quick dosage most of the time. As a resident of another nation, I'd be interested to see the perceptions of the world through the slant of television.
I wonder if this opens up a world of lawsuits based on false coverage.
Chances are better that consumerism (funny traditional media--WSJ in fact, today--is just cathing on/admitting to this) had more to do with the upswing in recent years than anything else. Thank corporatized mass culture for the upswing. Who's responsible for the rize of corporatized mass culture? Republicans for siding with corporations? Democrats for siding with media? Or companies for seeing the profit opportunities and jumping on it? World population growth makes many political theories about the economy difficult to swallow, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Could we be more careful in making such strong assertions? Firstly, WHO's right to speech and expression is being trampled? Generally, artists make little or no profit. If you are saying that since radio stations will be more squeezed by this proposal, causing artists to go out of business, they already have. Since when is the American Way disregarded when the sheep (read: non-Slashdotters?) buy commercialized music, and since when does commercial media make the listeners' preferences tasteless? Look back on the history of music. Many of the songs we may cherish dearly today were commercial successes because of commercial backing. It's fine to boycott RIAA affiliated works, but you will probably punish the artists more than record companies. To say the RIAA is causing more harm to the "American Way of Life" than any terrorist organization is plain stupid. Music is a rather important element of life in the United States, but to many people does not make the core of their existence. Remember that most people only have time for the Top 40. They would rather be engaging in activities other than downloading music or listening to webcasts. I agree the corporate structure in the United States/abroad is getting too strong, and may result in a curtailing of freedoms, but let's remember that devices such as copyright laws, education, telecommunications infrastructure, highways, and the like come with restrictions so that they remain in place to maintain stability.
I pity the fool who doesn't have access to academic licensing. I can get a copy of Office v.X for $199. I guess that is a great way for Micro$haft to get people into their product. It is good software, though. Office is a pretty slick suite, even if it is from the much-berated MS.
I notice the trend of colleges going the way of tech institutes, places where people learn job skills. It is with sadness I recognize that the love of learning may be fading, at least in the safety blanket of the U.S. One thing to be careful about when asserting that the introduction of courses like this is akin to colleges competing and not trying to provide truly engaging education is that one can fall into the traditionally labeled "elitist West" mindset that says instructors need to stick with the classics and that people who more than struggle (i.e. learning disabled) with courses should not be provided a class they can relate to and learn from. Simpsons appeals to almost every level of intellect and is thus a fitting course for analysis of contemporary issues. People who already understand the deeper themes to Simpsons episodes may more closely analyze the show thru a course like this, and people who don't get the moreal and political implications of the show will probably have their eyes opened to this "hip and posturing" commentary of history and contemporary life. Many instructors at the post-secondary level can incorporate modern, trendy topics into their classes quite well. Don't laugh, but I took a class with Jon Katz (Mary Shelly, Frankenstein, and the Unabomber) on modern media. It was the same stuff he goes over on Slashdot that we all take for granted, but it was really an eye opener for most students. It is important, I think, to not overlook the value of contemporary topics.
The University of Minnesota shut down today. My roommate talked with a polisci instructor here who said large campuses are general targets in terrorism of the future. This is no major cause for alarm at universities in general, but something to understand. Where does the US go from here? The next battle is in the financial institutions. The government needs to inform business that it MUST set up safeguards against digital attacks.
It is easy to start pointing fingers toward Osama Bin Laden, but let's hold on for a while. Let's remember we still need investigation before going on a witchhunt, if any.
Don't engage in Jihad. It is akin to WW3.
Who needs a wife when you've got cold beer?
Why not ask for an accepted FCC-Monitor chip that takes in a signal warning of possibly offensive material? It would be like the V-Chip, but for most airwave-transmitted media. If someone really wanted to institute a nice-teletubby-content-only filter, then they could do it on their own time. Filters suck, but filters can be disabled or customized.
This allows parents, teachers, school boards (yikes!) to make the critical decisions. More power to the people in making the final say about content.
Each broadcaster would have to take care to note which material contained expletives/lewd sexual content, satisfying the FCC's wish to control racier content, while allowing adults to choose a screening system appropriate to their comforts and their parenting style. These screening systems are silly, but still better than restrictions on what may be aired. The document has an arguable case for improving, enlightening...whatever-ing the airwave content for more intelligent broadcasts, but I prefer this come of free will.
Of course there will be the argument from many that any filtering system is just another step toward the "slippery slope" (or other overused term of the year) of anti-freespeech, but let's be honest with ourselves, U.S. citizens. Most of the American content out there sucks; it IS patently offensive to many poeple and it gets its ratings because there is still something of a charm about racier content when there is such strong moral damnation of such content.
Mom says to teenager, "don't have sex."
Teen to mom: "Okay, mom."
The teen runs to the drug store to get anti-pregnancy device and has sex.
People in the U.S. (maybe worldwide--I cannot say as I am not a world traveler) gravitate toward what they are told to avoid.
Broadcasts are the same. So long it seems as there is resistance against racier content, the stronger the lure of the content. By closing more lines to racier content, but not completely thwarting any non-wholesome broadcasts and thus allowing the interest in racier content to live, the FCC panelists seem to have defeated themselves.
After years of this technology entering broadcast receiving devices, content filtering technology could become pervasive, but only at the leisure of consumers who wanted it.
Alternatively, more stations could adopt the policy of forewarning about possibly indecent material. But, I hardly see good in this since such forewarned material is still deemed indecent by the FCC panel. I think the FCC rulings are akin to telling people they can tell broadcasters what can be aired--but only if the government has the final say.
Let the markets rule.
I have a final plan: the FCC could send a pamphlet to every U.S. mailbox with instructions on how to use his or her volume dials and power buttons.
Talk about a mental thrill. I LOVED that game, and was excited when I finally took it down. Simple game, elegant.
Like the from-dept line reads, why not Lisp? I'm learning scheme in the STK environment right now, and find the language terribly tough at times, but also very easy to use as a way for thinking about programming in both a top-down and bottom-up way. The early functional approach to programming has been good for me; my object-oriented programming pals say that they wish they started this way, because it is a good base. There may be dissenters, but Java is a fairly powerful and complicated language.
At least with a variant of Lisp, there aren't as many things to confuse the programmer as he/she is just picking up the theory behind it all. My next college course is taught using Java. The language isn't the only thing important to explaining concepts, but a simple, generally functional language (yes, Lisp can use message passing, for those unfamiliar) might help students transition into computer theory best. Of course, we're talking about AP exams here. As long as the spec includes learning about methods of thinking about efficient and accurate program design, that is what counts.
good suggestion spitzak. the reason why this generally won't work is that sites using javascript for the onClick events tend to set up their scripting so that it is difficult--and sometimes almost impossible without a knowledge of programming [even sometimes with it]--to get to the link without knowing the specific uri. for example, a js coder might set up an encoding system for their javascript URIs so that a user can't tell by viewing the page source just what the javascript links actually are. however, a simple mod to the code in, say, mozilla, to detect the simplest types of javascript onClick browser redirects probably wouldn't be a bad thing, and would probably come at little expense to the processing engine (if that is what it is called; i'm not fully up-to-speed on the terminology within the project). the mod could simply do the redirect without javascript when it is certain (or pretty certain) of the link in question, and let the user choose what to do in the other cases where the mod can't figure out the link. this would probably be one of those features that would end up in the Edit -> preferences -> advanced options -> for javascript protestors -> and /. geeks like me menu.
sometimes entire posts are not displayed. you need to click the "Read the rest of this comment..." link at the end of a post if the post length exceeds the display limit. unfortunately, the link for the full post actually points to a malformed uri (maybe this was pulled somehow from a link) on the microsoft server, so you'll need to go the actual page of the text at:
e ss ional/solutions/toptenupgrade.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/prof
and, no, i am not a microsoft rep; i'm just trying to help this anonymous poster get to the rest of the post.
As multinational corporations dominate the world we live in, they generally must operate on consumer demand. American politics, in its current state, operates moreso on personal interests than on demands because corporations are smart enough to lobby. If we're to pick the lesser of the two evils, the new capitalism/corporatism at least has this much going for itself
1) It has improved efficiency.
2) It has created jobs.
3) It has raised the standard of comfortable living in general, even if that means longer hours.
4) It has attempted to improve its efforts towards environmental-friendliness.
Meanwhile, American politics offers scandals and mostly outdated, misguided legislation.
If there is blame for the current corporate-political system, it is in the hands of the public who technically run the new capitalism. Corporations cannot take completely the blame for what they do: they operate on the bottom line. Punch them in the pocketbooks if you want change. Kudos to Katz for a guided effort to rejuvinate interest in this needing-tweaking system.
We may not hear about television having the "isolating" effects of the Internet, but we hear of other "perils" of televison. We hear that televison may hyperstimulate people, that it will push children prone to violence over the edge, and that it breeds fat couch potatoes.
:-)
In either slandering the Internet or the television, we can debate whether these bad effects exist, and if they exist, whether these "bad" effects are even bad at all. For instance, hyperstimulation may be bad if it leads to a psychotic breakdown. But we know that doesn't usually happen. Children may see violence on television or the Internet that gives them an idea of the forms of violence out there, but they probably won't commit the acts of violence, otherwise we would live amongst an epidemic. As for fat couch potatoes bred from too much televison watching, maybe there is some validity that media give an outlet for sitting down and munching, which evenentually leads to weight gain for a sedentary person. Blame it on Budweiser and their silly WASSUP? commercials or soda. Either is too hard to pass up
Like other /. posters, I'm a little confused as to how NOT voting is "political". Not voting may be ethical, but is still apolitical. The Internet--specifically the Web--is a great forum for a new rationalist perspective for people who want to vote for a good candidate instead of to vote with apathy or not vote at all. Is anyone else interested in forming a new Net-based movement formed on open debate? I have been for several years. This new Katz column was the push over the edge for me.The drive of the /. community and other online forums could make it successful. Visit The 20th Perspective at http://www.geocities.com/gotscheme if you're up for this online debate process in formation of a new (can you say name-in-progress?) Rationalist's Party. Currently, I'm taking suggestions on the message board system for this "grassroots" movement. Within the next seven days, I'm shooting for a full-steam ahead debate on one mainstream topic and one publicly unaddressed issue. It's time somebody do something...And do it right. I want a movement, and I hope you do, too.
One of the great boons of this archiving will be the ability to look back on how people viewed the world--how they predicted the future and so on. Many of these predictions are available in print or online, but video is a quick dosage most of the time. As a resident of another nation, I'd be interested to see the perceptions of the world through the slant of television.
I wonder if this opens up a world of lawsuits based on false coverage.
Chances are better that consumerism (funny traditional media--WSJ in fact, today--is just cathing on/admitting to this) had more to do with the upswing in recent years than anything else. Thank corporatized mass culture for the upswing. Who's responsible for the rize of corporatized mass culture? Republicans for siding with corporations? Democrats for siding with media? Or companies for seeing the profit opportunities and jumping on it? World population growth makes many political theories about the economy difficult to swallow, too.