http://www.phys.warwick.ac.uk/theory/seminars/curr ent.html
This will take you to some abstracts, there's links for the relevant paper to more information.
Those who wish to see this thing survive, save it yourself. Send Indrema an e-mail at feedback@indrema.com and tell them you're ready to put $100 down on a credit card, advance payment on a console when it's available... It's not as if there's any real danger in SAYING you would... Now if fifteen people do this they'll just shrug and say whatever... But if ten thousand people did it they'd start to give it a serious consideration.
We make the products...
We buy the products...
Yet some outside force is always in control of the products...
Is it just me or is that fucked?
I didn't say it didn't happen or couldn't happen. I do believe people who are CERTAIN it WILL happen are not operating on evidence. And I must dispute that there is no evidence that we will die... If you have any belief in inductive reasoning then the entire history of the human race and all life on earth is compelling evidence that death still waits for us all.
And I still stand by my original point - It's interesting, amusing to think about such things - but I'll spend my time and effort on trying to do something about the problems that are in front of me in the here and now.
I wrote the original comment and I wanted to say this is unfair moderation. This person corrects me on both counts. Of course, the earth is still screwed.
Re:The NRA are left-wing?
on
Republic.Com
·
· Score: 1
"usual left-wing target, the [NRA]..."
He means the usual target OF the Left-Wing, the [right-wing] NRA.
Missing an important point.
on
Republic.Com
·
· Score: 1
All this seems to be missing an important point - one that constantly gets lost in discussions about regulating this weird hybrid of communications technologies. That is that the internet/web/whatever you call it is not truly a public communication device and it is not truly a broadcast media. When you turn on your radio or TV you get a set range of channels or stations. You can choose what you see or listen to, but what's there is what's gonna be there. When you connect to the internet it is much more like picking up your phone: You can call people you know and want to talk to, or look up strangers, companies, or topics in a directory. Although the directories and connection protocols are public, the content and the connection you as a user make with can and in my opinion should be viewed as private communication, the same as if you were talking to the content originator on the telephone. Your choice in what information you connect to is much more under your control and the medium of information exchange is through privately held pathways, not public commodities like the broadcast wavelengths.
In this context, establishing controls of the sort intimated in this review is treading on very, very dangerous ground. Should books be required to have a bibliography of differing opinions? Does the book in question present access to the opposing view? Should a computer monmitor my private telephone conversations, search for biased or hateful opinions, and break in to offer a 3-way call out to someone who disagrees?
We exercise controls on speech in this society but I for one believe that it is imperative to liberty to keep speech absolutely as free as possible and to fight and argue any proposed revision of the principle of free speech tooth and nail, testing it against the absolute standard of whether it will prevent a clear danger or promote a clear benefit to the social contract which supercedes the dangers of denying every person the right to freely express their beliefs, however odious you may find them. Worrying that advances in communication technologies will promote polarization of opinion clearly fails this test.
Apt comment. I think this brings up a very telling point in general. People piss and moan because of things like AOL - but the fact is, AOL comes in and connects the freaking dots for people who don't have either the time, inclination or ability to figure it out for themselves. They get a poorly, bastardized product because of it, but it's something compared to the nothing they would get if they had to do it themselves. Of course, as comments indicate, there are plenty who like it this way - they like the feeling of being a superior intellectual elite, and these people will always hold free technology back from achieving it's potential mainstream appeal. Then, when some bizness-savvy shark brings it to "Joe Sixpack" with the attendant oppresive software, technology, licenses and laws designed to protect their profit motive, the "elite" will cry some more about how dem bastards ruined their fun.
If all the people working feverishly on contravening copyright laws instead focused their attention on delivering a sensible, sane self-distribution strategy to artists and consumers, a lot of these issues would rapidly become moot.
But come on: All this is interesting in a "what a strange and complex universe we live in" sort of way, but can anyone really come up with an ultimate end to the universe that convincingly reads as "good" or "bad?" Guess what - I know some of you think you will ride the technological asymptote to immortality but at this moment there isn't a shred of real evidence that suggests anything other than that we are all gonna die in the very, very, very near term compared to the heat death/big crunch/infinite expansion/who cares of the universe. In the context of that kind of deep time any assumptions on what we will be, or our capabilities, are pure science fiction. It's much more realistic to fret about how we'll escape the galaxy as our sun dies out/expands to engulf us in a red giant/annihilates the galaxy in a supernova... And even more realistic to talk about how the human race will avoid a technological dark age brought on by overpopulation/resource depletion/massive climate change/destruction of arable land/meteor impact/nuclear warfare/ozone depletion/genetic tampering...
and so on
and so on
and so on...
Flat? Open? Closed?
Whatever.
Is a real need for filtering to allow an opt-in feature. Rather than starting with the question of what shall we exclude, a wiser way would be to start with the question of what shall we INCLUDE. Now, in theory, a lot of people get hot under the collar about opt-in as a filtering parameter because on the face of it, it excludes much more content than exclusionary software and hence gets tagged as "censorship." (A side note: something voluntarily applied is not censorship. If you don't like censorware what you dissaprove of is not the technique per se - though you may rightly object to clunky, stupidly designed software on principles- but noone wants to ban fire just because some people like to burn books or rock-n-roll records - what you dislike is how much power schools or parent have over kids, or goverments have over libraries, or employers have over employees. Fight that battle instead so you don't have to refight it every time someone's "brilliant" new filtering solution comes down the pike). Anyway, the point is, by adding an opt-in feature as a preselector for what is actually filtered by the software, the end-user could then lobby whoever is in charge for inclusion of particular content in opt-in list. That content would be exempt from filtering. In general the end-user has little power over filtering in these situations: this could give a little back. Problem: avoiding defrauding the system with fake e-mail return addresses etc. Hey, that's a problem I'd like to see solved anyway. THoughts?
Real question: It seems like an issue is, what is the worst case scenario if you hold out? I mean, basically the fear is always that the big corporate will sue you to death... But if you're saying in good faith, I don't think they have a right to this, shouldn't be possible to hold out until some actual, real legal action is taken, and cave at the point that it is actually going to cost you money/aggravation? Is there a danger in this? Anyone have a real-world example to cite? I mean, there's no point in fighting a battle that can only harm you, but on the other hand I don't thikn a person should roll over simply because they get an e-mail from a lawyer. Like everything else in this world, they'll try the cheap-n-nasty route first. But if everyone digs in their heels, it might at least slow them down.
Finally - any precedent for a sort of reverse class-action lawsuit, a kind of class-action defense? Perhaps a counter-offensive, a class-action lawsuit for frivolous litigation (which, face it, 99% of these things are). Maybe the internet needs a resource to connect people who are being bullied by the trademark hounds of a particular corporation.
The recent submarine accident in Japan does, one would think, showcase the impact that civilians observers can have on safety in a comparable situation. It also illustrates that it takes bad planning and handling on the part of people who should know better to turn that potential impact into a tragic accident.
The bottom line is, in any mission where safety is critical, all partners need to have the right to establish appropriate boundaries on non-mission critical personnel. On the other hand, Russia has every right to shoot anyone they want into space - on their own time, their own dime (and whatever they can get from adventurous richies) and on their own mission.
In fact, the majority of Monsanto's genetically engineered crops are engineered for just one benefit- an ability to take heavier loads of Monsanto herbicides.
Pay the extra 50%, go to your local co-op and demand non-gen-mod products! Adding value to organically grown crops will create a burden of liability on gen-mod producers for contaminating organic farmers' crops.
This is a particularly blatant example of the clever new corporate strategy Monsdanto has been pursuing for some time. If you can't make enough money selling your products, why, sue people who choose not to be your customers.
One issue this really showcases - along with the escape of Starlink corn - is that the genetically modified crop manufacturers are not capable of controlling their product, and very much want to make this someone else's problem. As people's suspicion of engineered crops (right or wrong) makes non-modified crops more and more of a value-added commodity, the issue of liability for contamination is going to get bigger - and this case sets a very bad precedent.
Since the dawn of civilization, farmers have gone through the very sensible and natural process of saving enough of the harvest for the next year's planting. Monsanto and its ilk aim to end this. I have yet to hear a single argument on how this will benefit anyone but agri-giant shareholders. For what? crops that can take heavier loads of Monsanto herbicides, mainly.
Maybe it's time for a genetic-engineering open-source movement...
Most stations are self-run non-profits (or part of a self-run statewide or region-wide network)that subbscribe to both NPR and PRI and get programming from both sources. Neither NPR nor PRI "run" any stations - they just distribute programming. In fact, stations partly "run" NPR - as members they have voting privileges in NPR decisions. PRI is a privately maintained non-profit - the station clients don't have a direct say in operating decisions (though of course as the main "customers" their opinions are taken very seriously). My opinion - not representing any official viewpoint of PRI of course - is that while NPR is more accountable to stations, PRI is more flexible and capable of faster action as a result of the different management styles. I think it's good that the system has both models distributing programming to local stations.
Just FYI, these are stations in AZ that are PRI affiliates, meaning they are running at least 1 PRI program:
KNAQ-FM 91.7 Flagstaff, AZ
KNAU-FM 88.7 Flagstaff, AZ
KNAD-FM 91.7 Page, AZ
KBAQ-FM 89.5 Phoenix, AZ
KJZZ-FM 91.5 Phoenix, AZ
KPUB-FM 89.3 Prescott, AZ
KUAZ-FM 89.1 Safford, AZ
KNAA-FM 90.7 Show Low, AZ
KUAT-FM 90.5 Tucson, AZ
KUAZ-AM 1550 Tucson, AZ
You can check out more info at PRI.org
Marketplace is not distributed by National Public Radio (NPR). It is owned by Minnesota Public Radio and distributed by Public Radio International (PRI). PRI (disclosure: I am a PRI employee) raised initial money and continues to raise maintenance money for Marketplace (which just won a Peabody award, incidentally -
http://www.peabody.uga.edu/news/pressreleases/pres srelease.asp?ID=56 ) and was heavily involved in its development, originally with KUSC, the original owners. NPR has never had anything to do with it.
While there is a precedent issue to be established, I think that at this point any writer who does not establish how on-line versus print rights of anything they create is going to be dealt with, contractually and before the fact, is kinda getting what they deserve if they receive no compensation for an on-line version. This is not a new issue.
This being said, there ARE two very big differences between an article being published in a magazine, and perhaps subsequently being archived at the library (microfiche or print storage/binding) and getting put on an on-line database. The first is the degree of access (the online form is hugely accessible by comparison) and the second is that this online content is creating a new revenue stream for the publisher. If that revenue was created after the fact of the purchase of the work for traditional print publication, then the creator can reasonably claim that the publisher illegally used their work in creating a new product, that they had the right to deny republication of their work (unless they signed away all rights to it) and should be able to seek additional compensation if they choose to allow republication. It is a different medium.
We could talk also about how many kids are killed by cars...
By preventable accidents and diseases...
We could talk about how many kids are contracting AIDS while the same *ssholes who decry violent video games push to keep decent information about sex out of schools...
Car crashes, falls, sick and starving kids are boring. School shoot-outs are exciting. They "play" well on the news.
The best way, short of an active and enlightened population working towards a common good, to address the overpopulation issue...
Is to keep pursuing screwed up priorities in our policy issues just like we are right now.
One other thing - noone really cares about school shootings except as a thing to drone on and pontificate about, precisely becuase they are so rare. The stunned reactions of the school district that draws that unfortunate lottery is the exact reaction of the person who gets told their kid just got killed in their car.
Everyone knows it can happen, it does happen, and it will happen again.
One of the basic issues this brings up is that it isn't easy to determine the impact of advertising. Aside from direct-purchase type ads (your K-Tel/Ronco variety) the internet is the first medium that routinely provides an avenue for direct response. It's inevitable that this leads to an assumption that you can guage the success of a banner ad by whether it provokes immediate response. This doesn't account for the fact that people want to keep looking at what they're looking at, not immediately go shopping for doodads. Often by the time you've browsed around a bit on the site you're on, even if you were interested in an ad it's gone, because most banners cycle.
There are basically only two methods to determine whether advertising is working, and both are imperfect. One is to look for an increase in consumer response to a product. This is flawed because it doesn't establish a direct causal link between the advertising and increased sales. Still, in the absence of visible cofactors, the manufacturer will assume that a sales surge correlates to an advertising campaign. The bottom line is for whatever reason they got the effect they wanted. The second method is to pay someone to actually perform a more or less random (depending on how you define the group you wish to reach) survey of consumers to see if the ads had an impact on their attitudes/consumption habits. This could be performed before or after the fact. It's flawed becuase respondees tend to be to some degree self-selected, and becuase they're being prompted for response, meaning the response they give is not necessarily natural.
'Kay, here's a stupid question buried in someone else's post that noone will probably see or pay attention to, but:
Do we need ICANN or any "Official" organizing body or any "Official" TLDs? I mean, pipes are pipes, right, they don't know what flows through them. All this protocol is just that - a way we organize a ton of disparate digital data from millions of different sources to lump it all into one organ and call it the World Wide Web or the Internet (okay I remember hearing somewhere those are really different things but I don't remember why). But at the most basic level all that stuff is plain and simple nothing more than a phone book. So say I set up my OWN phone book with its own set of rules (where for example all snappy names were replaced with a numeric code)... If I had the computing power to deal with the incoming traffic and route it to the appropriate line, could I create my own internet within the internet? Would that be feasible? Possible? Legal? I guess what I'm asking is this: Do I HAVE to have a registered url under one or more of the possible TLD's in order to have a bank of data that's accessible by the the internet (I mean, using the information conduits the internet uses)? Or does having all that just connect me to the nifty super-phone book that represents what we call Ye Olde Internet? I don't even have the right language for the devices so don't laugh at me but if I gave a "router" (?) an "unlisted" number - a valid number to a "server" (?) accessible by phone/"network line" (oh go ahead and laugh) but not officially registered in the conventional URL sense, would it be able to call that computer up? Could you make existing browser software do this or would you need to invent something new? What would you lose creating a privately indexed network like this besides a connection to every yahoo with a dial-up account?
We could choose to make the internet essentially a public utility, like water or a quasi-public utility like electricity, and then one could rationally seek legislation to insure our privacy online. We have not made this choice. The internet is an almost entirely private enterprise and what they do with your information is between you and them, based on the terms YOU AGREE TO when you sign up to whatever. If you get your access through a rapacious corporate monster like AOL or MSN then you deserve what you get. If you spend all your time surfing scummy porn sites then you deserve what you get. If we want privacy on-line, let's ask for it as a value-added commodity and pay for it up front and let idiots who don't know enough to protect their privacy help subsidize the total package for the rest of us. All I need by way of legislation is penalties for stealing information and an assurance that a pre-agreed privacy arrangement cannot be dissolved due to the failure of a business.
I'm kind of surprised noone has called this as flamebait, which it basically is. I voted for Ralph Nader, have worked for environmental non-profits and currently work for public radio, and in fact find the current trends in genetic manipulation intensely disturbing.
However. There are orders of magnitude and realistic facts to consider. It's very easy to get up in arms about something like sterile moths, which basically have a tiny potential to make a genuine impact. Most genetic manipulation has a tiny probablity of imacting life in general in a negative way. The most potentially damaging area of genetic research is recombinant microorganisms, and yet the majority of negative reaction to recombo DNA is towards things much further up the evolutionary ladder, with a much smaller chance of having a serious detrimental impact.
And by the by, I don't have children, yet, though I plan to, so you got me there, sort of. On the other hand, I rely on mass transit for 90% of my transportation needs. How about you? Simple traffic fatalities (not considering pollution effects etc.) in the USA alone kill 4-5 times the number killed in the Bhopal disaster every single year.
It's easy to bang on about scary gene research, not so easy to make real difficult lifestyle choices that have real impact in the here and now. Ah, but you've been there, right?
Re:Seems wasteful to me
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
I'd like to know what classifies this as flamebait. Manufacturing things that are disposable but not biodegradable is irresponsible. WHoever moderated this apparently believes that flamebait is any opinion they don't agree with.
Re:end of pay phones?!?
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
ANother issue is that there are a whole lot of people out there who simply don't have the disposible income to throw ten-spots around. The homeless need to use the phone sometimes too and it's a lot easier to come up with 35 cents.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.phys.warwick.ac.uk/theory/seminars/curr ent.html
This will take you to some abstracts, there's links for the relevant paper to more information.
Those who wish to see this thing survive, save it yourself. Send Indrema an e-mail at feedback@indrema.com and tell them you're ready to put $100 down on a credit card, advance payment on a console when it's available... It's not as if there's any real danger in SAYING you would... Now if fifteen people do this they'll just shrug and say whatever... But if ten thousand people did it they'd start to give it a serious consideration. We make the products... We buy the products... Yet some outside force is always in control of the products... Is it just me or is that fucked?
I didn't say it didn't happen or couldn't happen. I do believe people who are CERTAIN it WILL happen are not operating on evidence. And I must dispute that there is no evidence that we will die... If you have any belief in inductive reasoning then the entire history of the human race and all life on earth is compelling evidence that death still waits for us all. And I still stand by my original point - It's interesting, amusing to think about such things - but I'll spend my time and effort on trying to do something about the problems that are in front of me in the here and now.
I wrote the original comment and I wanted to say this is unfair moderation. This person corrects me on both counts. Of course, the earth is still screwed.
"usual left-wing target, the [NRA]..." He means the usual target OF the Left-Wing, the [right-wing] NRA.
All this seems to be missing an important point - one that constantly gets lost in discussions about regulating this weird hybrid of communications technologies. That is that the internet/web/whatever you call it is not truly a public communication device and it is not truly a broadcast media. When you turn on your radio or TV you get a set range of channels or stations. You can choose what you see or listen to, but what's there is what's gonna be there. When you connect to the internet it is much more like picking up your phone: You can call people you know and want to talk to, or look up strangers, companies, or topics in a directory. Although the directories and connection protocols are public, the content and the connection you as a user make with can and in my opinion should be viewed as private communication, the same as if you were talking to the content originator on the telephone. Your choice in what information you connect to is much more under your control and the medium of information exchange is through privately held pathways, not public commodities like the broadcast wavelengths. In this context, establishing controls of the sort intimated in this review is treading on very, very dangerous ground. Should books be required to have a bibliography of differing opinions? Does the book in question present access to the opposing view? Should a computer monmitor my private telephone conversations, search for biased or hateful opinions, and break in to offer a 3-way call out to someone who disagrees? We exercise controls on speech in this society but I for one believe that it is imperative to liberty to keep speech absolutely as free as possible and to fight and argue any proposed revision of the principle of free speech tooth and nail, testing it against the absolute standard of whether it will prevent a clear danger or promote a clear benefit to the social contract which supercedes the dangers of denying every person the right to freely express their beliefs, however odious you may find them. Worrying that advances in communication technologies will promote polarization of opinion clearly fails this test.
Apt comment. I think this brings up a very telling point in general. People piss and moan because of things like AOL - but the fact is, AOL comes in and connects the freaking dots for people who don't have either the time, inclination or ability to figure it out for themselves. They get a poorly, bastardized product because of it, but it's something compared to the nothing they would get if they had to do it themselves. Of course, as comments indicate, there are plenty who like it this way - they like the feeling of being a superior intellectual elite, and these people will always hold free technology back from achieving it's potential mainstream appeal. Then, when some bizness-savvy shark brings it to "Joe Sixpack" with the attendant oppresive software, technology, licenses and laws designed to protect their profit motive, the "elite" will cry some more about how dem bastards ruined their fun. If all the people working feverishly on contravening copyright laws instead focused their attention on delivering a sensible, sane self-distribution strategy to artists and consumers, a lot of these issues would rapidly become moot.
But come on: All this is interesting in a "what a strange and complex universe we live in" sort of way, but can anyone really come up with an ultimate end to the universe that convincingly reads as "good" or "bad?" Guess what - I know some of you think you will ride the technological asymptote to immortality but at this moment there isn't a shred of real evidence that suggests anything other than that we are all gonna die in the very, very, very near term compared to the heat death/big crunch/infinite expansion/who cares of the universe. In the context of that kind of deep time any assumptions on what we will be, or our capabilities, are pure science fiction. It's much more realistic to fret about how we'll escape the galaxy as our sun dies out/expands to engulf us in a red giant/annihilates the galaxy in a supernova... And even more realistic to talk about how the human race will avoid a technological dark age brought on by overpopulation/resource depletion/massive climate change/destruction of arable land/meteor impact/nuclear warfare/ozone depletion/genetic tampering... and so on and so on and so on... Flat? Open? Closed? Whatever.
Is a real need for filtering to allow an opt-in feature. Rather than starting with the question of what shall we exclude, a wiser way would be to start with the question of what shall we INCLUDE. Now, in theory, a lot of people get hot under the collar about opt-in as a filtering parameter because on the face of it, it excludes much more content than exclusionary software and hence gets tagged as "censorship." (A side note: something voluntarily applied is not censorship. If you don't like censorware what you dissaprove of is not the technique per se - though you may rightly object to clunky, stupidly designed software on principles- but noone wants to ban fire just because some people like to burn books or rock-n-roll records - what you dislike is how much power schools or parent have over kids, or goverments have over libraries, or employers have over employees. Fight that battle instead so you don't have to refight it every time someone's "brilliant" new filtering solution comes down the pike). Anyway, the point is, by adding an opt-in feature as a preselector for what is actually filtered by the software, the end-user could then lobby whoever is in charge for inclusion of particular content in opt-in list. That content would be exempt from filtering. In general the end-user has little power over filtering in these situations: this could give a little back. Problem: avoiding defrauding the system with fake e-mail return addresses etc. Hey, that's a problem I'd like to see solved anyway. THoughts?
Real question: It seems like an issue is, what is the worst case scenario if you hold out? I mean, basically the fear is always that the big corporate will sue you to death... But if you're saying in good faith, I don't think they have a right to this, shouldn't be possible to hold out until some actual, real legal action is taken, and cave at the point that it is actually going to cost you money/aggravation? Is there a danger in this? Anyone have a real-world example to cite? I mean, there's no point in fighting a battle that can only harm you, but on the other hand I don't thikn a person should roll over simply because they get an e-mail from a lawyer. Like everything else in this world, they'll try the cheap-n-nasty route first. But if everyone digs in their heels, it might at least slow them down. Finally - any precedent for a sort of reverse class-action lawsuit, a kind of class-action defense? Perhaps a counter-offensive, a class-action lawsuit for frivolous litigation (which, face it, 99% of these things are). Maybe the internet needs a resource to connect people who are being bullied by the trademark hounds of a particular corporation.
The recent submarine accident in Japan does, one would think, showcase the impact that civilians observers can have on safety in a comparable situation. It also illustrates that it takes bad planning and handling on the part of people who should know better to turn that potential impact into a tragic accident. The bottom line is, in any mission where safety is critical, all partners need to have the right to establish appropriate boundaries on non-mission critical personnel. On the other hand, Russia has every right to shoot anyone they want into space - on their own time, their own dime (and whatever they can get from adventurous richies) and on their own mission.
In fact, the majority of Monsanto's genetically engineered crops are engineered for just one benefit- an ability to take heavier loads of Monsanto herbicides. Pay the extra 50%, go to your local co-op and demand non-gen-mod products! Adding value to organically grown crops will create a burden of liability on gen-mod producers for contaminating organic farmers' crops.
This is a particularly blatant example of the clever new corporate strategy Monsdanto has been pursuing for some time. If you can't make enough money selling your products, why, sue people who choose not to be your customers. One issue this really showcases - along with the escape of Starlink corn - is that the genetically modified crop manufacturers are not capable of controlling their product, and very much want to make this someone else's problem. As people's suspicion of engineered crops (right or wrong) makes non-modified crops more and more of a value-added commodity, the issue of liability for contamination is going to get bigger - and this case sets a very bad precedent. Since the dawn of civilization, farmers have gone through the very sensible and natural process of saving enough of the harvest for the next year's planting. Monsanto and its ilk aim to end this. I have yet to hear a single argument on how this will benefit anyone but agri-giant shareholders. For what? crops that can take heavier loads of Monsanto herbicides, mainly. Maybe it's time for a genetic-engineering open-source movement...
Most stations are self-run non-profits (or part of a self-run statewide or region-wide network)that subbscribe to both NPR and PRI and get programming from both sources. Neither NPR nor PRI "run" any stations - they just distribute programming. In fact, stations partly "run" NPR - as members they have voting privileges in NPR decisions. PRI is a privately maintained non-profit - the station clients don't have a direct say in operating decisions (though of course as the main "customers" their opinions are taken very seriously). My opinion - not representing any official viewpoint of PRI of course - is that while NPR is more accountable to stations, PRI is more flexible and capable of faster action as a result of the different management styles. I think it's good that the system has both models distributing programming to local stations.
Just FYI, these are stations in AZ that are PRI affiliates, meaning they are running at least 1 PRI program: KNAQ-FM 91.7 Flagstaff, AZ KNAU-FM 88.7 Flagstaff, AZ KNAD-FM 91.7 Page, AZ KBAQ-FM 89.5 Phoenix, AZ KJZZ-FM 91.5 Phoenix, AZ KPUB-FM 89.3 Prescott, AZ KUAZ-FM 89.1 Safford, AZ KNAA-FM 90.7 Show Low, AZ KUAT-FM 90.5 Tucson, AZ KUAZ-AM 1550 Tucson, AZ You can check out more info at PRI.org
Marketplace is not distributed by National Public Radio (NPR). It is owned by Minnesota Public Radio and distributed by Public Radio International (PRI). PRI (disclosure: I am a PRI employee) raised initial money and continues to raise maintenance money for Marketplace (which just won a Peabody award, incidentally - http://www.peabody.uga.edu/news/pressreleases/pres srelease.asp?ID=56 ) and was heavily involved in its development, originally with KUSC, the original owners. NPR has never had anything to do with it.
While there is a precedent issue to be established, I think that at this point any writer who does not establish how on-line versus print rights of anything they create is going to be dealt with, contractually and before the fact, is kinda getting what they deserve if they receive no compensation for an on-line version. This is not a new issue. This being said, there ARE two very big differences between an article being published in a magazine, and perhaps subsequently being archived at the library (microfiche or print storage/binding) and getting put on an on-line database. The first is the degree of access (the online form is hugely accessible by comparison) and the second is that this online content is creating a new revenue stream for the publisher. If that revenue was created after the fact of the purchase of the work for traditional print publication, then the creator can reasonably claim that the publisher illegally used their work in creating a new product, that they had the right to deny republication of their work (unless they signed away all rights to it) and should be able to seek additional compensation if they choose to allow republication. It is a different medium.
We could talk also about how many kids are killed by cars... By preventable accidents and diseases... We could talk about how many kids are contracting AIDS while the same *ssholes who decry violent video games push to keep decent information about sex out of schools... Car crashes, falls, sick and starving kids are boring. School shoot-outs are exciting. They "play" well on the news. The best way, short of an active and enlightened population working towards a common good, to address the overpopulation issue... Is to keep pursuing screwed up priorities in our policy issues just like we are right now. One other thing - noone really cares about school shootings except as a thing to drone on and pontificate about, precisely becuase they are so rare. The stunned reactions of the school district that draws that unfortunate lottery is the exact reaction of the person who gets told their kid just got killed in their car. Everyone knows it can happen, it does happen, and it will happen again.
Did anyone else get this image of Zaphod Beeblebrox having to hold his hand infuriatingly still to listen to news about himself on the sub-etha?
One of the basic issues this brings up is that it isn't easy to determine the impact of advertising. Aside from direct-purchase type ads (your K-Tel/Ronco variety) the internet is the first medium that routinely provides an avenue for direct response. It's inevitable that this leads to an assumption that you can guage the success of a banner ad by whether it provokes immediate response. This doesn't account for the fact that people want to keep looking at what they're looking at, not immediately go shopping for doodads. Often by the time you've browsed around a bit on the site you're on, even if you were interested in an ad it's gone, because most banners cycle. There are basically only two methods to determine whether advertising is working, and both are imperfect. One is to look for an increase in consumer response to a product. This is flawed because it doesn't establish a direct causal link between the advertising and increased sales. Still, in the absence of visible cofactors, the manufacturer will assume that a sales surge correlates to an advertising campaign. The bottom line is for whatever reason they got the effect they wanted. The second method is to pay someone to actually perform a more or less random (depending on how you define the group you wish to reach) survey of consumers to see if the ads had an impact on their attitudes/consumption habits. This could be performed before or after the fact. It's flawed becuase respondees tend to be to some degree self-selected, and becuase they're being prompted for response, meaning the response they give is not necessarily natural.
'Kay, here's a stupid question buried in someone else's post that noone will probably see or pay attention to, but: Do we need ICANN or any "Official" organizing body or any "Official" TLDs? I mean, pipes are pipes, right, they don't know what flows through them. All this protocol is just that - a way we organize a ton of disparate digital data from millions of different sources to lump it all into one organ and call it the World Wide Web or the Internet (okay I remember hearing somewhere those are really different things but I don't remember why). But at the most basic level all that stuff is plain and simple nothing more than a phone book. So say I set up my OWN phone book with its own set of rules (where for example all snappy names were replaced with a numeric code)... If I had the computing power to deal with the incoming traffic and route it to the appropriate line, could I create my own internet within the internet? Would that be feasible? Possible? Legal? I guess what I'm asking is this: Do I HAVE to have a registered url under one or more of the possible TLD's in order to have a bank of data that's accessible by the the internet (I mean, using the information conduits the internet uses)? Or does having all that just connect me to the nifty super-phone book that represents what we call Ye Olde Internet? I don't even have the right language for the devices so don't laugh at me but if I gave a "router" (?) an "unlisted" number - a valid number to a "server" (?) accessible by phone/"network line" (oh go ahead and laugh) but not officially registered in the conventional URL sense, would it be able to call that computer up? Could you make existing browser software do this or would you need to invent something new? What would you lose creating a privately indexed network like this besides a connection to every yahoo with a dial-up account?
We could choose to make the internet essentially a public utility, like water or a quasi-public utility like electricity, and then one could rationally seek legislation to insure our privacy online. We have not made this choice. The internet is an almost entirely private enterprise and what they do with your information is between you and them, based on the terms YOU AGREE TO when you sign up to whatever. If you get your access through a rapacious corporate monster like AOL or MSN then you deserve what you get. If you spend all your time surfing scummy porn sites then you deserve what you get. If we want privacy on-line, let's ask for it as a value-added commodity and pay for it up front and let idiots who don't know enough to protect their privacy help subsidize the total package for the rest of us. All I need by way of legislation is penalties for stealing information and an assurance that a pre-agreed privacy arrangement cannot be dissolved due to the failure of a business.
I'm kind of surprised noone has called this as flamebait, which it basically is. I voted for Ralph Nader, have worked for environmental non-profits and currently work for public radio, and in fact find the current trends in genetic manipulation intensely disturbing. However. There are orders of magnitude and realistic facts to consider. It's very easy to get up in arms about something like sterile moths, which basically have a tiny potential to make a genuine impact. Most genetic manipulation has a tiny probablity of imacting life in general in a negative way. The most potentially damaging area of genetic research is recombinant microorganisms, and yet the majority of negative reaction to recombo DNA is towards things much further up the evolutionary ladder, with a much smaller chance of having a serious detrimental impact. And by the by, I don't have children, yet, though I plan to, so you got me there, sort of. On the other hand, I rely on mass transit for 90% of my transportation needs. How about you? Simple traffic fatalities (not considering pollution effects etc.) in the USA alone kill 4-5 times the number killed in the Bhopal disaster every single year. It's easy to bang on about scary gene research, not so easy to make real difficult lifestyle choices that have real impact in the here and now. Ah, but you've been there, right?
I'd like to know what classifies this as flamebait. Manufacturing things that are disposable but not biodegradable is irresponsible. WHoever moderated this apparently believes that flamebait is any opinion they don't agree with.
ANother issue is that there are a whole lot of people out there who simply don't have the disposible income to throw ten-spots around. The homeless need to use the phone sometimes too and it's a lot easier to come up with 35 cents.