Family Guy got priority because American Dad was making money. Groening and Cohen don't have any new projects to demonstrate "See? We can make money!" in the same way; heck, we had Futurama to begin with because of Groening's success with The Simpsons.
"Fines are not enough and hurt shareholders more than those who are responsible: the executives."
Who are the people that voted the executives into their jobs?
The more shares a holder owns, the more responsible they are for putting these yahoos into these positions to begin with, and the more their bottom line should hurt. Don't like it? Don't invest; that will certainly clean things up in corporate board rooms.
10 kelvin "isn't that much?" It's the difference between wearing jeans and a jacked or shorts and a t-shirt. It's a difference of 18 degrees Farenheit/Rankine.
That's obviously more than one a year. Why not, instead of monthly subscriptions, simply roll a yearly subscription into the price of all these frequent expansions?
Seriously, is anybody still playing EQ without any expansions?
"The Korea Herald is reporting that 'disgraced stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk recently defended himself insisting he has the technology to produce patient-specific stem cells and that he had been the victim of a "long-planned" conspiracy."
Yeah, maybe it's the same oil companies that were out to get Pons and Fleischmann.
".... allows you to browse the Internet using WiFi..."
It also costs almost twice as much as the DS ($250 compared to $130), easily covering the browser licensing fees I mentioned.
As I said before, Nintendo makes game systems. If you want something else, buy something else. If you want a PSP, get a PSP, just don't expect Animal Crossing.
"So you're seriously arguing that radio remains more pervasive than TV,"
Yes. Even if it's just a piped "easy listening" station, more people spend more time listening to broadcast radio than watching television (broadcast or otherwise). There are also more radio receivers in the United States than television receivers.
"and that existing TVs becoming obsolete impacts so few people that it is limited only to constituents of the current administration?"
No. I believe I stated that it was not a funciton of government to pay for these upgrades (or to force the upgrade to begin with), especially since not everybody is interested in upgrading. Simply because I used the word "minority" does not mean I was talking about election results.
"That would fit "pork" and your definition of impact."
I refer to it as "pork" because the money goes directly to electronics manufacturers for no other reason than because Congress mandated this switch to begin with. People would be receiving vouchers, not cash.
But on top of that, it does not benefit everybody. Believe it or not, there are people out there who pay federal taxes who also do not watch television, and they will not see the benefit of these vouchers (unless, of course, they hold stock in one of the aforementioned electronics manufacturers).
"There ARE a lot of radios out there, I could concede that point but I would argue that since they're bundled with casette players, clocks, walkmans, cd-players and stereo's that perhaps it's not something that's used anywhere near as often."
I was using radio as an example of a more pervasive broadcast medium for whom money could have been spent so long as we're spending money "for the people to get electromagnetic broadcasts." If this program were not pork, that is what the money should be spent on.
However, ultimately, I do not feel that money should be spent by the government either way. Interested viewers should be the ones to pay for the new receivers and interested broadcasters should be the ones to pay for the new channels. This is exactly where FM radio came from to begin with; there was no government mandate requiring a switch from AM to FM, and there certainly weren't government disbursments to pay for new FM equipment.
"I can concede that you do not agree with the switch from analog to digital, thus necessitating this whole mess."
I did not say that. I do not agree with a government mandated switch. If private parties are interested in switching, let them, but I'm not interested and see no reason why I should be dragged along when I, personally, will see no benefit from either the change or the vouchers.
"I can't see this as pork though, this has been 4 administrations in the making and will apparently make it to a 5th, regardless of who funds it,"
Money comes from Congress, where more incumbents retire than are voted out of office. This may be a new president, but it is not a new Congress by any stretch of the imagination.
"It's been argued a long time,"
In the public, but looking at the vote count, not in Congress.
"the electronics industry has been assured of money once it was decided upon."
My money, in a decision process in which I was not a part of nor were my views heard.
"I can't see how coca-cola formula changes are even a close parallel."
I would wager as many people, if not more people, were affected and angry about the "new Coke" as there are concerned television viewers. Protests in the streets and everything. Your argument for the government to pay for new television receivers for everybody, in spite of the fact that not everybody wants a new television receiver, was based on the "pervasiveness" of the television market (ignoring the fact that there are more taxpayers than television viewers). Demand for the old forumla of Coca-Cola was so "pervasive" in the United States that, to t
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you want a higher resolution picture, it should be upon you to pay for it, not for the rest of us to pick up the tab for you.
"Actually, entertaining the masses has been part of the government's job for much of history-- check out Greek theater, for example."
Note that the ancient Greek governments that provided that theater isn't around any more. They were conqeured by the Romans, who in turn were themselves conquered when they focused on bread and circuses.
But none of this matters, because we have a written constitution that describes what is the role of the federal government, and "entertaining the masses" appears nowhere in the document. If anything, it would be the duty of a state, but to my knowledge no state constitution has such a clause either.
"The problem in every situation I've seen it applied is that people are either unaware of what is offered, or more commonly unable to use it."
Then wouldn't it make more sense to spend the money on making people more aware of the program rather than buying them a new television? If the federal government has the resources to distribute these vouchers, they have the resources for a direct mail campaign.
"Radios aren't in many houses,"
What wakes them up in the morning so they can get to work? It's easier to find a clock/radio for your nightstand than to find a clock without a radio.
"Not everyone has a car (especially in cities,"
I've never seen anybody bring a television onto a bus, but I've seen a fair number of radios.
"especially if they are financially struggling),"
A cheap AM/FM radio is orders of magnitude less expensive than a cheap television, even if you splurge for stereo on the radio and settle for black-and-white on the television. The Walkman has been out for decades, and that was decades after the first personal radio. If we're going to shell out federal pork so people can get their precious, precious receivers, you'll get more bang for your buck by buying everybody a headset.
"and we're not talking about replacing the radio."
But we are talking about a medium that is undeniably less pervasive than radio that is somehow justified in having all this federal pork spent on it.
"Nor is it relevant what people's employers do as employers tend to buy the TV."
I can't remember the last job in which a television was provided, even in a break room. But many (if not most) of my fellow employees had a radio on their desk.
"But slashdot is first and foremost about technology, and TV, whether we like it or not, has a pretty significant impact on a huge number of people."
Whether or not it "has an impact" is moot. The only people it impacts are those who use it, those who are interested in using it. This is not the road system, this is not the military, this is an entirely pull-type service paid for by the people who already bought their receivers and the advertisers already paying for the programming. Other than regulating who can use what channel when and where, there is no compelling reason for the government (least of all the federal government) to get involved, especially when there is a minority of people (however small) who will see zero benefit from these vouchers.
Back in the 1980's we also saw that the recipe used by Coca-Cola "has a pretty signifigant impact on a huge number of people." Should the federal government now start passing out vouchers for a free 2 L?
"It makes sense for the government to make sure it continues to be accessible (particularly since it is depriving those people of something they already bought)."
Then the federal government should not be depriving the people of analog broadcasts to begin with. Two wrongs do not make a right.
"Further, as this is a one time charge, it's not as big of a deal as trying to fund recurring programs."
Whether or not it's one-time or not is irrelevent, it's still my tax dollars, and they're being spent to benefit broadcasters and electronics manufacturers rather than the people in general. After all, the government will be handing out vouchers, not cash (much like notorious class-action lawsuits).
It also sets a very bad precedent.
"We send tens of billions of dollars in "aid packages" to places that grossly misappropriate our money, I'm not sure $1.5B to upgrade TV sets is really worth the angst."
Simply because it's "not as bad as" in relative terms doesn't make it good in the absolute.
"College money isn't going to help a good number of disadvantaged people, these may not have finished high school and may be barely literate"
Which is why aid should be provided by the government for tuition costs in their local community college so they can get their GED and so forth. Just because it's "college aid" doesn't mean it's all about four-year degrees or graduate work.
"Having a working TV is very important, it's the only way to keep citizens informed of emergencies, government activities, etc."
Even in the Twenty-First Century, there are still more radio listeners than television viewers. According to the CIA's World Factbook, there are about six times as many FM broadcasters as there are TV broadcasters, and that doesn't include AM. Even if you include (pay-for) cable, there are still far more information sources on radio than on television.
"We take the state of the union address for granted, but it's important it is there,"
No, it's not. When was the last time the State of the Union Address was anything but White Houe propoganda? Certainly not in my lifetime, at least. Recently, they seem to be more mandatory applause than actual speaking, and little if any has anything to do with the actual State of the Union and focuses instead on what the White House would like to do in the future.
If it is important, it is more useful to read the transcript so that you don't have to sit through all the applause. Lord knows the Union survived through a century and a half, a world war and a civil war with nothing more than a transcript, and a smaller percentage of citizens back then could read the damned thing.
"Similarly hurricanes, tornados, terrorist attack info, etc. need to get out to everyone and the TV is a reliable way of doing it."
No, it's not. Television works only when it is turned on, and if nothing else, people do actually turn the things off when they go to bed. This is why we have loud sirens to warn us about tornados and the like.
"You can count on a TV being almost everywhere (certainly anywhere I've ever lived, worked or went to school)."
TV isn't in your car. And 99 times out of 100, your employer isn't going to let you put a TV on your desk, but a radio is usually permitted. That's up to 9 waking hours that the average American is sans television.
"It's like having roads or a standing army, the kind of thing that everyone benefits from."
If I'm not watching it, how does it benefit me? Goods that I purchase are not carried on it (especially since it's paid for by advertisers, not viewers), and it will not protect me from invasion, domestic violence or guarantee I have a republican (small R) state government. Even when it is on, all I get is squawking about the latest Hollywood couple breaking up.
Television does not help anybody who does not own and view one, if it helps anybody at all. But even then, if it's so damned important, why is Congress messing with it by forcing us all to upgrade to begin with?
Better yet, instead of all this shady pork, why not pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing each and every citizen a television?
"Specifically, where could a blimp get to more easily than a helicopter?"
They can fly higher and longer than helicopters.
But in general, the perfect use for airships is AWACS. They don't have to come down to refuel periodically (they'll need food more often than they'll need fuel), so that's one less major hassle for an aircraft carrier crew to deal with.
It would also work well for similar work over land, and might work well as an anti-balistic missile laser platform.
They have a limited range and a limited flying time, whereas with airships the hard part isn't staying up but coming down.
As it currently stands, supplies have to be shipped towards your target destination by more coventional means that require either a road, a port or a runway in a workable condition, get as close as possible, and then offload everything from the truck/ship/plane and reload it all into a helicopter to move it the last leg of the trip. An airship, on the other hand, could carry supplies cross-country (or even across oceans) all the way to the intended destination without having to offload its cargo along the way.
They also have the potential to carry heavier loads than helicopters.
"Shouldn't they pick a new game, you know, one that has been published in the current millenium."
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I know several people that are happier with WarCraft II (and StarCraft) than they were with WarCraft III and its hero system.
Besides, the beautiful thing about StarCraft is that you don't need a $500 card from nVidia to play it. In today's terms, its system requirements are only marginally greater than the requirements to play Scorched Earth
Let me adjust the statement so that it makes more sense:
The vast majority of sales have been in the United States (4 million) and Japan (5 million), compared to the 1 million units sold in Europe and the rest of the world
90% is the "vast majority" they were talking about, as 50% isn't a majority at all.
If you want a handheld multimedia web browser, go get a handheld multimedia web browser. Nintendo make game consoles.
"how hard would it have been to include a wireless browser in the interface outside of games?"
An IP stack does not a web browser make. They'd have to pay a licensing fee for the browser, which would likely cost about as much as a game. If it was built-in to the unit, that'd increase the price of the unit. And even then there's going to be issues with website compatability (as there was with the Dreamcast browser).
"We bitch about and make light of all the delays going digital,"
"We" do? Personally, I'm still complaining about needing to switch to begin with. Between the government-mandated switch, the push for the broadcast flag, and now these new pork vouchers, I find nothing to be happy about with the entire process.
Slashdot Mirror
Family Guy got priority because American Dad was making money. Groening and Cohen don't have any new projects to demonstrate "See? We can make money!" in the same way; heck, we had Futurama to begin with because of Groening's success with The Simpsons.
"Fines are not enough and hurt shareholders more than those who are responsible: the executives."
Who are the people that voted the executives into their jobs?
The more shares a holder owns, the more responsible they are for putting these yahoos into these positions to begin with, and the more their bottom line should hurt. Don't like it? Don't invest; that will certainly clean things up in corporate board rooms.
10 kelvin "isn't that much?" It's the difference between wearing jeans and a jacked or shorts and a t-shirt. It's a difference of 18 degrees Farenheit/Rankine.
Actually, it's 10 kelvin. You capitalize the abbreviation K, but SI unit names are lower-case.
For the love of God, put your dongle away!
"the company had possibly overbilled the Transportation Security Administration by as much as 171,000 hours of labor and overtime."
But they have the way out!
"First off, you're probably just counting income tax. All poor people, even unemployed, pay sales tax."
Unrelated. There is no federal sales tax, but the money for these vouchers comes from federal tax dollars.
Have you looked at the United States Navy in the past half-century or so? We even dominate oceans we don't have a shoreline on!
"'Do you know when the PS3 launch is? Neither do we,' said Epic vice president Mark Rein. 'but we know when UT2007 will be done: WHEN IT'S DONE!'"
Then we can't assume that the PS3 will not ship "when it's done?" I know Sony is famous for shipping "about two weeks before it's done," but really...
"Everquest's 11th expansion"
That's obviously more than one a year. Why not, instead of monthly subscriptions, simply roll a yearly subscription into the price of all these frequent expansions?
Seriously, is anybody still playing EQ without any expansions?
"For god's sake, units of energy are defined by how much they heat water,"
:)
In SI Russia, the only acceptable unit of energy is the joule, which has nothing to with heating water.
Blame metrication!
"The Korea Herald is reporting that 'disgraced stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk recently defended himself insisting he has the technology to produce patient-specific stem cells and that he had been the victim of a "long-planned" conspiracy."
Yeah, maybe it's the same oil companies that were out to get Pons and Fleischmann.
".... allows you to browse the Internet using WiFi..."
It also costs almost twice as much as the DS ($250 compared to $130), easily covering the browser licensing fees I mentioned.
As I said before, Nintendo makes game systems. If you want something else, buy something else. If you want a PSP, get a PSP, just don't expect Animal Crossing.
"So you're seriously arguing that radio remains more pervasive than TV,"
Yes. Even if it's just a piped "easy listening" station, more people spend more time listening to broadcast radio than watching television (broadcast or otherwise). There are also more radio receivers in the United States than television receivers.
"and that existing TVs becoming obsolete impacts so few people that it is limited only to constituents of the current administration?"
No. I believe I stated that it was not a funciton of government to pay for these upgrades (or to force the upgrade to begin with), especially since not everybody is interested in upgrading. Simply because I used the word "minority" does not mean I was talking about election results.
"That would fit "pork" and your definition of impact."
I refer to it as "pork" because the money goes directly to electronics manufacturers for no other reason than because Congress mandated this switch to begin with. People would be receiving vouchers, not cash.
But on top of that, it does not benefit everybody. Believe it or not, there are people out there who pay federal taxes who also do not watch television, and they will not see the benefit of these vouchers (unless, of course, they hold stock in one of the aforementioned electronics manufacturers).
"There ARE a lot of radios out there, I could concede that point but I would argue that since they're bundled with casette players, clocks, walkmans, cd-players and stereo's that perhaps it's not something that's used anywhere near as often."
I was using radio as an example of a more pervasive broadcast medium for whom money could have been spent so long as we're spending money "for the people to get electromagnetic broadcasts." If this program were not pork, that is what the money should be spent on.
However, ultimately, I do not feel that money should be spent by the government either way. Interested viewers should be the ones to pay for the new receivers and interested broadcasters should be the ones to pay for the new channels. This is exactly where FM radio came from to begin with; there was no government mandate requiring a switch from AM to FM, and there certainly weren't government disbursments to pay for new FM equipment.
"I can concede that you do not agree with the switch from analog to digital, thus necessitating this whole mess."
I did not say that. I do not agree with a government mandated switch. If private parties are interested in switching, let them, but I'm not interested and see no reason why I should be dragged along when I, personally, will see no benefit from either the change or the vouchers.
"I can't see this as pork though, this has been 4 administrations in the making and will apparently make it to a 5th, regardless of who funds it,"
Money comes from Congress, where more incumbents retire than are voted out of office. This may be a new president, but it is not a new Congress by any stretch of the imagination.
"It's been argued a long time,"
In the public, but looking at the vote count, not in Congress.
"the electronics industry has been assured of money once it was decided upon."
My money, in a decision process in which I was not a part of nor were my views heard.
"I can't see how coca-cola formula changes are even a close parallel."
I would wager as many people, if not more people, were affected and angry about the "new Coke" as there are concerned television viewers. Protests in the streets and everything. Your argument for the government to pay for new television receivers for everybody, in spite of the fact that not everybody wants a new television receiver, was based on the "pervasiveness" of the television market (ignoring the fact that there are more taxpayers than television viewers). Demand for the old forumla of Coca-Cola was so "pervasive" in the United States that, to t
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you want a higher resolution picture, it should be upon you to pay for it, not for the rest of us to pick up the tab for you.
"Actually, entertaining the masses has been part of the government's job for much of history-- check out Greek theater, for example."
Note that the ancient Greek governments that provided that theater isn't around any more. They were conqeured by the Romans, who in turn were themselves conquered when they focused on bread and circuses.
But none of this matters, because we have a written constitution that describes what is the role of the federal government, and "entertaining the masses" appears nowhere in the document. If anything, it would be the duty of a state, but to my knowledge no state constitution has such a clause either.
"The problem in every situation I've seen it applied is that people are either unaware of what is offered, or more commonly unable to use it."
Then wouldn't it make more sense to spend the money on making people more aware of the program rather than buying them a new television? If the federal government has the resources to distribute these vouchers, they have the resources for a direct mail campaign.
"Radios aren't in many houses,"
What wakes them up in the morning so they can get to work? It's easier to find a clock/radio for your nightstand than to find a clock without a radio.
"Not everyone has a car (especially in cities,"
I've never seen anybody bring a television onto a bus, but I've seen a fair number of radios.
"especially if they are financially struggling),"
A cheap AM/FM radio is orders of magnitude less expensive than a cheap television, even if you splurge for stereo on the radio and settle for black-and-white on the television. The Walkman has been out for decades, and that was decades after the first personal radio. If we're going to shell out federal pork so people can get their precious, precious receivers, you'll get more bang for your buck by buying everybody a headset.
"and we're not talking about replacing the radio."
But we are talking about a medium that is undeniably less pervasive than radio that is somehow justified in having all this federal pork spent on it.
"Nor is it relevant what people's employers do as employers tend to buy the TV."
I can't remember the last job in which a television was provided, even in a break room. But many (if not most) of my fellow employees had a radio on their desk.
"But slashdot is first and foremost about technology, and TV, whether we like it or not, has a pretty significant impact on a huge number of people."
Whether or not it "has an impact" is moot. The only people it impacts are those who use it, those who are interested in using it. This is not the road system, this is not the military, this is an entirely pull-type service paid for by the people who already bought their receivers and the advertisers already paying for the programming. Other than regulating who can use what channel when and where, there is no compelling reason for the government (least of all the federal government) to get involved, especially when there is a minority of people (however small) who will see zero benefit from these vouchers.
Back in the 1980's we also saw that the recipe used by Coca-Cola "has a pretty signifigant impact on a huge number of people." Should the federal government now start passing out vouchers for a free 2 L?
"It makes sense for the government to make sure it continues to be accessible (particularly since it is depriving those people of something they already bought)."
Then the federal government should not be depriving the people of analog broadcasts to begin with. Two wrongs do not make a right.
"Further, as this is a one time charge, it's not as big of a deal as trying to fund recurring programs."
Whether or not it's one-time or not is irrelevent, it's still my tax dollars, and they're being spent to benefit broadcasters and electronics manufacturers rather than the people in general. After all, the government will be handing out vouchers, not cash (much like notorious class-action lawsuits).
It also sets a very bad precedent.
"We send tens of billions of dollars in "aid packages" to places that grossly misappropriate our money, I'm not sure $1.5B to upgrade TV sets is really worth the angst."
Simply because it's "not as bad as" in relative terms doesn't make it good in the absolute.
"College money isn't going to help a good number of disadvantaged people, these may not have finished high school and may be barely literate"
Which is why aid should be provided by the government for tuition costs in their local community college so they can get their GED and so forth. Just because it's "college aid" doesn't mean it's all about four-year degrees or graduate work.
"Having a working TV is very important, it's the only way to keep citizens informed of emergencies, government activities, etc."
Even in the Twenty-First Century, there are still more radio listeners than television viewers. According to the CIA's World Factbook, there are about six times as many FM broadcasters as there are TV broadcasters, and that doesn't include AM. Even if you include (pay-for) cable, there are still far more information sources on radio than on television.
"We take the state of the union address for granted, but it's important it is there,"
No, it's not. When was the last time the State of the Union Address was anything but White Houe propoganda? Certainly not in my lifetime, at least. Recently, they seem to be more mandatory applause than actual speaking, and little if any has anything to do with the actual State of the Union and focuses instead on what the White House would like to do in the future.
If it is important, it is more useful to read the transcript so that you don't have to sit through all the applause. Lord knows the Union survived through a century and a half, a world war and a civil war with nothing more than a transcript, and a smaller percentage of citizens back then could read the damned thing.
"Similarly hurricanes, tornados, terrorist attack info, etc. need to get out to everyone and the TV is a reliable way of doing it."
No, it's not. Television works only when it is turned on, and if nothing else, people do actually turn the things off when they go to bed. This is why we have loud sirens to warn us about tornados and the like.
"You can count on a TV being almost everywhere (certainly anywhere I've ever lived, worked or went to school)."
TV isn't in your car. And 99 times out of 100, your employer isn't going to let you put a TV on your desk, but a radio is usually permitted. That's up to 9 waking hours that the average American is sans television.
"It's like having roads or a standing army, the kind of thing that everyone benefits from."
If I'm not watching it, how does it benefit me? Goods that I purchase are not carried on it (especially since it's paid for by advertisers, not viewers), and it will not protect me from invasion, domestic violence or guarantee I have a republican (small R) state government. Even when it is on, all I get is squawking about the latest Hollywood couple breaking up.
Television does not help anybody who does not own and view one, if it helps anybody at all. But even then, if it's so damned important, why is Congress messing with it by forcing us all to upgrade to begin with?
Better yet, instead of all this shady pork, why not pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing each and every citizen a television?
"Specifically, where could a blimp get to more easily than a helicopter?"
They can fly higher and longer than helicopters.
But in general, the perfect use for airships is AWACS. They don't have to come down to refuel periodically (they'll need food more often than they'll need fuel), so that's one less major hassle for an aircraft carrier crew to deal with.
It would also work well for similar work over land, and might work well as an anti-balistic missile laser platform.
They have a limited range and a limited flying time, whereas with airships the hard part isn't staying up but coming down.
As it currently stands, supplies have to be shipped towards your target destination by more coventional means that require either a road, a port or a runway in a workable condition, get as close as possible, and then offload everything from the truck/ship/plane and reload it all into a helicopter to move it the last leg of the trip. An airship, on the other hand, could carry supplies cross-country (or even across oceans) all the way to the intended destination without having to offload its cargo along the way.
They also have the potential to carry heavier loads than helicopters.
"Shouldn't they pick a new game, you know, one that has been published in the current millenium."
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I know several people that are happier with WarCraft II (and StarCraft) than they were with WarCraft III and its hero system.
Besides, the beautiful thing about StarCraft is that you don't need a $500 card from nVidia to play it. In today's terms, its system requirements are only marginally greater than the requirements to play Scorched Earth
Only old people in Korea use the Zerg rush!
If you want a handheld multimedia web browser, go get a handheld multimedia web browser. Nintendo make game consoles.
"how hard would it have been to include a wireless browser in the interface outside of games?"
An IP stack does not a web browser make. They'd have to pay a licensing fee for the browser, which would likely cost about as much as a game. If it was built-in to the unit, that'd increase the price of the unit. And even then there's going to be issues with website compatability (as there was with the Dreamcast browser).
"We bitch about and make light of all the delays going digital,"
"We" do? Personally, I'm still complaining about needing to switch to begin with. Between the government-mandated switch, the push for the broadcast flag, and now these new pork vouchers, I find nothing to be happy about with the entire process.