With the NHL existing for the foreseeable future as an institution that has everything to do with professional hockey except for playing it, I look forward to seeing the evolution of the future games.
The similucrae of real players that currently fill the EA hockey videogames will likely be removed from the games around the time the real person would have retired had he still been a player. Look for the roster of your favorite NHL team to slowly fill with goaltending ducks, man-sized slapshotting lizards, and other colorful talking animals, aliens, and robots as EA tries to add some "pizzazz" to this dead-end videogame/sport tie-in franchise.
I'm really looking forward to "Brendan Snail-a-han" being introduced to the Red Wings line-up. This scorin' Escargot will be the only player who acts as his own Zamboni.
"A bunch of radio stations in LA are running Super Bowl contests, but they can't use the term "Super Bowl". They have to call it The Big Game or something to that effect"
I'm pretty sure that the case is, any time someone has some promotion tied to the Superbowl, they have to pay for it.
It seems to go beyond that, however. I recall a "Green Lantern" comic years ago in which the plot involved the Super Bowl. It was called "The Bowl" through the entire thing. I guess they want to be paid for stories about the Superbowl too.
Better off advertising on Blade Runner
on
The Dot Com Super Bowl
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It looks like these companies would do a lot better advertising on things like "Blade Runner", like Atari and TDK did. This did wonders for them.
"I stick it to Microsoft by not buying their products."
Really? That is a novel approah for boycotting that I have not considered. I have been protesting Beijing's policies by buying as many Chinese-made consumer goods as possible. But after reading your message, I will reconsider this approach. I also wonder if "sticking it to the Republicans" by voting for George W. Bush was a good idea either.
Here's a dictionary link that actually contains a definition of the word "propaganda":
link.
From the link: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."
This is exactly what political parties, editorialists, and activists do. Ralph Nader does it. Rush Limbaugh does it. Al Franken does it. They have been doing this for centuries. The First Amendment was written to protect such activity. What you call "propaganda" (speaking to advocate a cause) is necessary for democracy.
"but I admit I'm surprised to hear public radio"
It is one of my main reasons for opposing the return of this "doctrine". NPR talk stations have flourished in recent years because the doctrine is gone.
Not sure on this, but I think that professional baseball is ALL controlled by the "MLB" due to a congress-granted monopoly. Every minor-team I know if is affiliated with major-league team. Someone clarify this for me?
If true, then NFL is not all pro football, but MLB is all pro baseball. Outside of MLB, what is there in the U.S.? Maybe, just maybe, you can name your neighbor's kid who is in Little League.
"Wanna make a game featuring the Lakers? Gotta pay up"
But what can they do about open-source player rosters? The NBL (National Basketball League)'s "L.A. Fakers" featuring Tactille Surreal and Toby Plyant? The mighty "Washington Lizards" with Mickey Gordon? The "Detroit Pissed-off's" featuring Claney Pullups? The Utah Spazz and Chicago Boo? Go ahead and sue, I dare ya. EA will have to face this soon enough when they have to create hockey players for "NHL 2005-2006"
Not true, since it has the government censor something that is "not fair".
"The government cannot do anything else."
Oh yes it can. It can let people express political views without censoring them for not being "fair".
"By your absurd and illegal definition, they are already "censoring" you the second the FCC regulates anything."
Hmmm? I agree that this is censorship.
" [you] support the rules only when they do not apply to your love of televised advocacy of issues."
Actually, my favorite source of unfettered political expression is public radio. I rarely get news from broadcast TV, and I do not find it terribly relevant to the argument personally as I do not recall much content change in the "10:00 News" pre and post fairness doctrine.
"I have never advocated partial censorship"
False. In every message, you call for censorship of "unfair" media.
""my position on the First Amendment is on solid ground with both sides of the supreme court and a decades-long bipartisan succession of American executives"
You are in agreement with none of them. They have all had hands-off when it comes to content of cable TV and satellite radio.
"I am not a liberal"
Call yourself "progressive" or whatever. Regardless, you are clearly in the left-wing when you think that a left-wing pressure group like FAIR is in the "center".
"neither is advocating the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine inherently liberal or indeed partisan in any way"
This might be true of some, but for you it is inherently liberal (anti-conservative) as your main "poster boy" for it is Fox News, which you want to stop being so conservative.
"All I have ever advocated is fairness, and this frightens you""
You bet it frightens me when the means to "fairness" is censorship of political content.
"No, their content should be fair. The government already regulates them. They just started giving their propaganda a pass"
The government never regulated the political content of Fox News. The "Fairness Doctrine" did not apply to them. If we bring it back, it would not apply to them unless it was significantly altered. The alteration of the "Fairness Doctrine" to censor such non-broadcast content would open up another big can of worms that I find also objectionable.
Howard Stern has fled to satellite (non-broadcast) radio so he could say dirty words and interview porn stars with much more freedom. If we expand the "Fairness Doctrine" to censor satellite (cable) as well as broadcast, I think Howard's going to be in trouble again. Maybe that is fine with you. It is not for me.
"Your criticism should have been: "poor people can't afford a newspaper, so are you saying we should require newspaper owners to be fair, too?""
My concern was about government censorship of the papers, not arbitrary application of what someone thinks is "fair". After all, what paper is "fair" to the person who thinks that the scandal of the Bildeburgers and the Illuminati deserves the from page every day?
" The biggest difference with newspapers is that, unlike radio and television, there is no restriction on whether you can have one. No one to register with, no techincal problems with having a hundred, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand newspapers. It costs some money, but anyone can do it."
This would make sense but it does not. As a result, the number of real viable newspapers in a typical media market is much lower than the number of radio stations, and close to the same number of TV stations. It works out that people find it easier to start a radio station than a newspaper. My "argument is not nonsense", as I am not seeing any of your imaginary media market with 3 tv stations and thousands of newspapers.
So... we come to a new question. Newspapers tend to be fewer in number than radio stations. Why do you not demand for them the same censorship to enforce "fairness" that you demand for radio? Especially since so much of your argument is based on the scarcity of broadcast radio?
"But people know what fairness is."
Indeed they do, and they have many different ideas about it.
"The explosive growth of right-wing talk radio is, of course, widely acknowledged to be a direct result of ending the rule. Rush Limbaugh himself campaigned to end Fairness"
Just as many of those who want to bring it back admit that their main reason is to silence Limbaugh. There is also an explosive growth of left-wing (or at least non-conservative) radio at the same time.
"Obviously, the Fairness Doctrine isn't censorship. It tries to ensure that everyone gets to speak"
How did this happen when the Doctrine was in place? Do you have any specific examples?
"On cable, the cable company decides, but only the government can say who gets to be the cable company - it's a "natural monopoly.""
You have a gross misunderstanding of the cable franchising system. The "government monopoly" applies to the local wire-runner only. It does not apply to someone who decides to uplink a new cable station to the network.
"Every act of advocacy of issues in the mass media is harmful as a result."
Every act is an expression of free speech, not "harmful".
"Every time Fox News is biased and one-sided when covering an issue, they are preventing the other side from being heard."
No, they are not. They are just expressing their views.
"They are censoring them, in other words."
You do not censor just by saying something someone does not like. Using your backwards definition of censorship, Howard Stern is the King of All Censors.
"but the other danger here is diversity, which the conservative-run FCC is also dropping the ball on, despite a huge public outcry."
There is no problem here at all. The outcry was from the pro-censorship crowd who went as far as to make Murdoch their poster boy. They did not dislike him out of diversity: they hated him for his opinions. There are 4 other companies that are bigger than Murdoch in broadcast TV ownership of stations.
If more and more channels can be controlled by a single individual or company, and the results of this unfair censorship become worse and worse.
This "censorship" could occur if this was anywhere near happening. But look at the Clear Channel controversy. They control 8% of the radio stations!!! A similar tiny percent of TV stations! They could triple station ownership and still be far from a monopoly.
"If that person doesn't speak for the others, he is being unfair to them."
Not at all. The only unfairness involved is in preventing the other 9 to speak. The content of the one speaker's speech has nothing to do with it. The solution is to get the other ones a soap box, not to gag the one speaker (or, as you want, have the government write his speech). It is getting better: now that the Fairness Doctrine is gone, the number of national TV news outlets has more than doubled, and there are a lot more radio soapboxes available.
"Dance dance dance."
Mr. Bojangles? This is a very incoherent response to when I pointed out the fact that it is a lot easier to "talk back" now to TV and radio.
"Look, AtariAmarok is implying that propaganda on TV is OK"
Using the dictionary definition of propaganda (information reflecting the views and interests of advocates), I not only imply this. I come right out and say it is great.
"...the important thing is that you seem to imagine if liberals played just as dirty and the mass media were somehow "evenly split" it would be OK..."
Actually, I recognize that "liberal" or "conservative" are not recognized by the Constitution, and there is nothing for and everything against the idea of censoring something because it is too liberal or too conservative. It is the freedom of expression I advocate in general, not for one side or the other.
"This shows that you know an imbalance is unfair (and bad)."
I was pointing out the fact of the recent growth of diverse shows showing many sides to show that even by your standards of fairness, the media are more fair and diverse now. However, something that is artificially conceived as an "imbalance" is Constitutionally irrelevant.
In fact, the perception of "balance" is entirely subjective and has no place in media regulation or even in consideration of censorship. First, there is your arbitrary and repeated mention of "both sides". There are many more sides than just two. What of the IWW? the communist? The die-hard Perotista? The libertarian? If we do what you want and censor media content to represent "both sides", is this fair to the other 80 sides left out?
"You don't want any rules to put that balance in place."
Absolutely true, as "balance" is a perception of someone's political opinion.
"You want to have no rules"
You got it. Free expression for conservatives, liberals, and the Chuck Harder ufo nuts. No censoring one because some biased censor wants "balance".
It seems conservatives (or whoever) have a big lead in [advocacy of causes].
That is quite debatable. Regardless of how far left they might be, Rather/etc is not conservative. CNN... Ted Turner, anyone? NPR radio is going strong. Neither one of these two sides dominates.
"
Hey, they can even use their [advocacy of causes] (or gullible little footsoldiers like you) to tell everyone that the media is fair"
Why of course. They can say the media is fair. Or that it is not. That is freedom of speech. Roger Eberts doing thumbs up and thumbs down.
"And this balance you want to pretend is there but sleazily refuse to put rules in place to protect? Even that stinks."
My mentions of wanting balance were mainly in the context of showing how things are more fair now. However, I don't want any rules to enforce anyone's perception of "balance". None at all. They have no place in everything. Did you know that all of the media are badly balanced to the left against the KKK man who wants slavery back? Did you know that all of the media are badly balanced to the right in the mind of the person who wants to ban all corporations? I trust no censor to determine "Balance".
"So your plan is... address the unfairness, bias and advocacy of causes on TV"
These are not problems to be addressed. They are subjective qualities that some may assign to information being presented.
Slashdot Mirror
With the NHL existing for the foreseeable future as an institution that has everything to do with professional hockey except for playing it, I look forward to seeing the evolution of the future games.
The similucrae of real players that currently fill the EA hockey videogames will likely be removed from the games around the time the real person would have retired had he still been a player. Look for the roster of your favorite NHL team to slowly fill with goaltending ducks, man-sized slapshotting lizards, and other colorful talking animals, aliens, and robots as EA tries to add some "pizzazz" to this dead-end videogame/sport tie-in franchise.
I'm really looking forward to "Brendan Snail-a-han" being introduced to the Red Wings line-up. This scorin' Escargot will be the only player who acts as his own Zamboni.
I'd quote you, but I don't want to pay $699 to EA.
How about the ad campaign for Nintendo Virtual Boy that avoided showing what an actual game screen looked like?
I'm pretty sure that the case is, any time someone has some promotion tied to the Superbowl, they have to pay for it.
It seems to go beyond that, however. I recall a "Green Lantern" comic years ago in which the plot involved the Super Bowl. It was called "The Bowl" through the entire thing. I guess they want to be paid for stories about the Superbowl too.
It looks like these companies would do a lot better advertising on things like "Blade Runner", like Atari and TDK did. This did wonders for them.
What, you say? "Zero Wing" are only zero game belong to us.
Really? That is a novel approah for boycotting that I have not considered. I have been protesting Beijing's policies by buying as many Chinese-made consumer goods as possible. But after reading your message, I will reconsider this approach. I also wonder if "sticking it to the Republicans" by voting for George W. Bush was a good idea either.
0. Steal original DOS and make a mint.
Here's a dictionary link that actually contains a definition of the word "propaganda": link. From the link: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."
This is exactly what political parties, editorialists, and activists do. Ralph Nader does it. Rush Limbaugh does it. Al Franken does it. They have been doing this for centuries. The First Amendment was written to protect such activity. What you call "propaganda" (speaking to advocate a cause) is necessary for democracy.
"but I admit I'm surprised to hear public radio"
It is one of my main reasons for opposing the return of this "doctrine". NPR talk stations have flourished in recent years because the doctrine is gone.
I thought the Gates Borg icon had a larger smile today. Now I know why.
Take off every xbox, for great profit.
2. Profit
3. Profit
4. Profit!
(I'd write more, except that that Clippy keeps popping up saying "You appear to be writing a Microsoft business history. Do you want any help?"
I thought the Gates Borg icon had a larger smile this morning. Now I know why.
To help fit in when you go to China, I suggest you participate in one of their native religions. This will help you get along great in your new home.
Not sure on this, but I think that professional baseball is ALL controlled by the "MLB" due to a congress-granted monopoly. Every minor-team I know if is affiliated with major-league team. Someone clarify this for me?
If true, then NFL is not all pro football, but MLB is all pro baseball. Outside of MLB, what is there in the U.S.? Maybe, just maybe, you can name your neighbor's kid who is in Little League.
But what can they do about open-source player rosters? The NBL (National Basketball League)'s "L.A. Fakers" featuring Tactille Surreal and Toby Plyant? The mighty "Washington Lizards" with Mickey Gordon? The "Detroit Pissed-off's" featuring Claney Pullups? The Utah Spazz and Chicago Boo? Go ahead and sue, I dare ya. EA will have to face this soon enough when they have to create hockey players for "NHL 2005-2006"
I know BSD rhymes with PSP, but who died (heh) and appointed you Netcraft?
I only approach these kind of gates with a tranq gun in hand. You never know when they might chomp you.
Its attempts to emulate a complete, stable OS have not reached fruition yet. Nothing to worry about for now.
Not true, since it has the government censor something that is "not fair". "The government cannot do anything else."
Oh yes it can. It can let people express political views without censoring them for not being "fair".
"By your absurd and illegal definition, they are already "censoring" you the second the FCC regulates anything."
Hmmm? I agree that this is censorship.
" [you] support the rules only when they do not apply to your love of televised advocacy of issues."
Actually, my favorite source of unfettered political expression is public radio. I rarely get news from broadcast TV, and I do not find it terribly relevant to the argument personally as I do not recall much content change in the "10:00 News" pre and post fairness doctrine.
"I have never advocated partial censorship"
False. In every message, you call for censorship of "unfair" media.
""my position on the First Amendment is on solid ground with both sides of the supreme court and a decades-long bipartisan succession of American executives"
You are in agreement with none of them. They have all had hands-off when it comes to content of cable TV and satellite radio.
"I am not a liberal"
Call yourself "progressive" or whatever. Regardless, you are clearly in the left-wing when you think that a left-wing pressure group like FAIR is in the "center".
"neither is advocating the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine inherently liberal or indeed partisan in any way"
This might be true of some, but for you it is inherently liberal (anti-conservative) as your main "poster boy" for it is Fox News, which you want to stop being so conservative.
"All I have ever advocated is fairness, and this frightens you""
You bet it frightens me when the means to "fairness" is censorship of political content.
"selectively quoting."
The trick is "Accurately quoting".
The government never regulated the political content of Fox News. The "Fairness Doctrine" did not apply to them. If we bring it back, it would not apply to them unless it was significantly altered. The alteration of the "Fairness Doctrine" to censor such non-broadcast content would open up another big can of worms that I find also objectionable.
Howard Stern has fled to satellite (non-broadcast) radio so he could say dirty words and interview porn stars with much more freedom. If we expand the "Fairness Doctrine" to censor satellite (cable) as well as broadcast, I think Howard's going to be in trouble again. Maybe that is fine with you. It is not for me.
I agree for once. Just as it is censorship for the government to control the content in any way.
My concern was about government censorship of the papers, not arbitrary application of what someone thinks is "fair". After all, what paper is "fair" to the person who thinks that the scandal of the Bildeburgers and the Illuminati deserves the from page every day?
" The biggest difference with newspapers is that, unlike radio and television, there is no restriction on whether you can have one. No one to register with, no techincal problems with having a hundred, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand newspapers. It costs some money, but anyone can do it."
This would make sense but it does not. As a result, the number of real viable newspapers in a typical media market is much lower than the number of radio stations, and close to the same number of TV stations. It works out that people find it easier to start a radio station than a newspaper. My "argument is not nonsense", as I am not seeing any of your imaginary media market with 3 tv stations and thousands of newspapers.
So... we come to a new question. Newspapers tend to be fewer in number than radio stations. Why do you not demand for them the same censorship to enforce "fairness" that you demand for radio? Especially since so much of your argument is based on the scarcity of broadcast radio?
"But people know what fairness is."
Indeed they do, and they have many different ideas about it.
"The explosive growth of right-wing talk radio is, of course, widely acknowledged to be a direct result of ending the rule. Rush Limbaugh himself campaigned to end Fairness"
Just as many of those who want to bring it back admit that their main reason is to silence Limbaugh. There is also an explosive growth of left-wing (or at least non-conservative) radio at the same time.
How did this happen when the Doctrine was in place? Do you have any specific examples?
"On cable, the cable company decides, but only the government can say who gets to be the cable company - it's a "natural monopoly.""
You have a gross misunderstanding of the cable franchising system. The "government monopoly" applies to the local wire-runner only. It does not apply to someone who decides to uplink a new cable station to the network.
"Every act of advocacy of issues in the mass media is harmful as a result."
Every act is an expression of free speech, not "harmful".
"Every time Fox News is biased and one-sided when covering an issue, they are preventing the other side from being heard."
No, they are not. They are just expressing their views. "They are censoring them, in other words."
You do not censor just by saying something someone does not like. Using your backwards definition of censorship, Howard Stern is the King of All Censors.
"but the other danger here is diversity, which the conservative-run FCC is also dropping the ball on, despite a huge public outcry."
There is no problem here at all. The outcry was from the pro-censorship crowd who went as far as to make Murdoch their poster boy. They did not dislike him out of diversity: they hated him for his opinions. There are 4 other companies that are bigger than Murdoch in broadcast TV ownership of stations.
If more and more channels can be controlled by a single individual or company, and the results of this unfair censorship become worse and worse.
This "censorship" could occur if this was anywhere near happening. But look at the Clear Channel controversy. They control 8% of the radio stations!!! A similar tiny percent of TV stations! They could triple station ownership and still be far from a monopoly.
Not at all. The only unfairness involved is in preventing the other 9 to speak. The content of the one speaker's speech has nothing to do with it. The solution is to get the other ones a soap box, not to gag the one speaker (or, as you want, have the government write his speech). It is getting better: now that the Fairness Doctrine is gone, the number of national TV news outlets has more than doubled, and there are a lot more radio soapboxes available. "Dance dance dance."
Mr. Bojangles? This is a very incoherent response to when I pointed out the fact that it is a lot easier to "talk back" now to TV and radio.
"Look, AtariAmarok is implying that propaganda on TV is OK"
Using the dictionary definition of propaganda (information reflecting the views and interests of advocates), I not only imply this. I come right out and say it is great.
"...the important thing is that you seem to imagine if liberals played just as dirty and the mass media were somehow "evenly split" it would be OK..."
Actually, I recognize that "liberal" or "conservative" are not recognized by the Constitution, and there is nothing for and everything against the idea of censoring something because it is too liberal or too conservative. It is the freedom of expression I advocate in general, not for one side or the other.
"This shows that you know an imbalance is unfair (and bad)."
I was pointing out the fact of the recent growth of diverse shows showing many sides to show that even by your standards of fairness, the media are more fair and diverse now. However, something that is artificially conceived as an "imbalance" is Constitutionally irrelevant.
In fact, the perception of "balance" is entirely subjective and has no place in media regulation or even in consideration of censorship. First, there is your arbitrary and repeated mention of "both sides". There are many more sides than just two. What of the IWW? the communist? The die-hard Perotista? The libertarian? If we do what you want and censor media content to represent "both sides", is this fair to the other 80 sides left out?
"You don't want any rules to put that balance in place."
Absolutely true, as "balance" is a perception of someone's political opinion.
"You want to have no rules"
You got it. Free expression for conservatives, liberals, and the Chuck Harder ufo nuts. No censoring one because some biased censor wants "balance".
It seems conservatives (or whoever) have a big lead in [advocacy of causes].
That is quite debatable. Regardless of how far left they might be, Rather/etc is not conservative. CNN... Ted Turner, anyone? NPR radio is going strong. Neither one of these two sides dominates. " Hey, they can even use their [advocacy of causes] (or gullible little footsoldiers like you) to tell everyone that the media is fair"
Why of course. They can say the media is fair. Or that it is not. That is freedom of speech. Roger Eberts doing thumbs up and thumbs down.
"And this balance you want to pretend is there but sleazily refuse to put rules in place to protect? Even that stinks."
My mentions of wanting balance were mainly in the context of showing how things are more fair now. However, I don't want any rules to enforce anyone's perception of "balance". None at all. They have no place in everything. Did you know that all of the media are badly balanced to the left against the KKK man who wants slavery back? Did you know that all of the media are badly balanced to the right in the mind of the person who wants to ban all corporations? I trust no censor to determine "Balance".
"So your plan is... address the unfairness, bias and advocacy of causes on TV"
These are not problems to be addressed. They are subjective qualities that some may assign to information being presented.
' To