With its very limited coverage areas this isn't going to be able to take on the cellular market anytime soon. But you can be fairly confident that WiFi saturation will continue at its current rapid pace (based on laptop and handheld demand)and eventually these WiFi phones will give cellular a run for their money.
I see camera phones that send your club-kid photos right to your moblog... oh wait, we have that already. But with WiFi, it will be at a MUCH cheaper cost!
Since the US is the largest contributer of greenhouse gasses, it seems a touch disingenous to defer because "other countries won't have to cut down". No one will have to cut down their emissions of greenhouse gasses as much as the US will, because no one contributes them at the rates we do.
Even so-called serious media like the New York Times and Washington Post are market-driven, focused increasingly on high-end consumer products spawned by digital technology, and on entertainment and controversy. The Times runs several weekly sections brazenly aimed at affluent second home buyers, wine connoisseurs and other high-end consumers. Stories about redecorating million-dollar cottages don't appear because they're newsworthy, but because they draw readers with money, thus advertisers with revenue.
This is close to correct, but not quite. Such special sections appear because they appeal to existing readers. Advertisers don't spend their money based on who the publishers hope will eventually become readers. And a very large segment of the population likes to read about indulgence. Which explains the popularity of "Cribs" now, and "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" back in the day. God knows it's not the rich that keep shows like this on the air.
As far as choosing which child is prime for media saturation, it is the extreme cases that catch our attention. Thus they are the ones that receive media focus. Amadou Diallo, unarmed, shot 41 times in his doorway is explosive: Johnny Gammage beaten and smothered to death in a traffic stop is much less mediagenic. Similarly, a child snatched from the apparent safety of her bed is a summer blockbuster movie: a child snatched from the sidewalk is tragically commonplace enough to be an after-school special.
for many radio stations (like, for example, ABC affilliate WLS AM, newstalk out of Chicago), the problem had little or nothing to do with music royalties and everything to do with advertising. If you pay the voice talent for a local ad because yours is a local radio station, but then you stream the advertising over the internet, how does the voice talent get reimbursed for the increased potential audience? Do you base the new royalty structure on number of listeners, or is it de facto an international audience? How do you determine "prime time" vs. off hours when your potential audience is global? Additionally, how do you justify this increased ad cost to Bob's Mattress Shoppe, who's not likely to benefit from advertising in Japan?
For WLS AM, apparently, the advertising royalty issue was the driving factor to their taking down the stream. I can't help but assume this was a major factor for most other radio stations, music-oriented or not, albeit one they might not want to discuss. Labor relations are always a sticky wicket, whereas music royalties for digital media is already such a widely discussed topic that it's easy for them to point the finger that way without seeming like a heartless employer.
Sure, there is FBI misconduct. But there is no way to prevent misconduct in any group of people. And it isn't unreasonable for any group of people to protect their own in cases of wrongdoing.
When the group of people are operating under the guise of "public servants" using public funding, I believe it *is* unreasonable for them to protect their own from the public in cases of wrongdoing.
Regardless, misappropriation of data against stated policies and laws has been de rigeur for various federal agencies. Misappropriation of census data was the number one tool for rounding up Japanese-Americans for the WWII internment camps, for example. But so many abuses have already been cited that I'll not belabor the thread with further examples.
Sure, the FBI are not the only ones illegally misappropriating data. Businesses do it, catholic school girls do it, in many ways it's human nature... but it is of course still wrong and extremely dangerous when done by a government agency.
What if someone on the same cellular switch as me is being investigated, and my text messages to my gay lover get intercepted, tagged, and stored? That's not information the FBI has any right to know. It's not illegal (at least in my state), but could be easily used against me by a corrupt agent, or in a court case to discredit me to a homophobic jury, or a slew of other ways.
It's the indiscriminate nature of Carnivore that makes it so scary in this instance. If you get a court order to listen in to my neighbor's communications, that should not entitle you to listen to my own.
Slashdot Mirror
With its very limited coverage areas this isn't going to be able to take on the cellular market anytime soon. But you can be fairly confident that WiFi saturation will continue at its current rapid pace (based on laptop and handheld demand)and eventually these WiFi phones will give cellular a run for their money.
... oh wait, we have that already. But with WiFi, it will be at a MUCH cheaper cost!
I see camera phones that send your club-kid photos right to your moblog
Since the US is the largest contributer of greenhouse gasses, it seems a touch disingenous to defer because "other countries won't have to cut down". No one will have to cut down their emissions of greenhouse gasses as much as the US will, because no one contributes them at the rates we do.
Even so-called serious media like the New York Times and Washington Post are market-driven, focused increasingly on high-end consumer products spawned by digital technology, and on entertainment and controversy. The Times runs several weekly sections brazenly aimed at affluent second home buyers, wine connoisseurs and other high-end consumers. Stories about redecorating million-dollar cottages don't appear because they're newsworthy, but because they draw readers with money, thus advertisers with revenue.
This is close to correct, but not quite. Such special sections appear because they appeal to existing readers. Advertisers don't spend their money based on who the publishers hope will eventually become readers. And a very large segment of the population likes to read about indulgence. Which explains the popularity of "Cribs" now, and "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" back in the day. God knows it's not the rich that keep shows like this on the air.
As far as choosing which child is prime for media saturation, it is the extreme cases that catch our attention. Thus they are the ones that receive media focus. Amadou Diallo, unarmed, shot 41 times in his doorway is explosive: Johnny Gammage beaten and smothered to death in a traffic stop is much less mediagenic. Similarly, a child snatched from the apparent safety of her bed is a summer blockbuster movie: a child snatched from the sidewalk is tragically commonplace enough to be an after-school special.
for many radio stations (like, for example, ABC affilliate WLS AM, newstalk out of Chicago), the problem had little or nothing to do with music royalties and everything to do with advertising. If you pay the voice talent for a local ad because yours is a local radio station, but then you stream the advertising over the internet, how does the voice talent get reimbursed for the increased potential audience? Do you base the new royalty structure on number of listeners, or is it de facto an international audience? How do you determine "prime time" vs. off hours when your potential audience is global? Additionally, how do you justify this increased ad cost to Bob's Mattress Shoppe, who's not likely to benefit from advertising in Japan?
For WLS AM, apparently, the advertising royalty issue was the driving factor to their taking down the stream. I can't help but assume this was a major factor for most other radio stations, music-oriented or not, albeit one they might not want to discuss. Labor relations are always a sticky wicket, whereas music royalties for digital media is already such a widely discussed topic that it's easy for them to point the finger that way without seeming like a heartless employer.
When the group of people are operating under the guise of "public servants" using public funding, I believe it *is* unreasonable for them to protect their own from the public in cases of wrongdoing.
Regardless, misappropriation of data against stated policies and laws has been de rigeur for various federal agencies. Misappropriation of census data was the number one tool for rounding up Japanese-Americans for the WWII internment camps, for example. But so many abuses have already been cited that I'll not belabor the thread with further examples.
Sure, the FBI are not the only ones illegally misappropriating data. Businesses do it, catholic school girls do it, in many ways it's human nature ... but it is of course still wrong and extremely dangerous when done by a government agency.
What if someone on the same cellular switch as me is being investigated, and my text messages to my gay lover get intercepted, tagged, and stored? That's not information the FBI has any right to know. It's not illegal (at least in my state), but could be easily used against me by a corrupt agent, or in a court case to discredit me to a homophobic jury, or a slew of other ways.
It's the indiscriminate nature of Carnivore that makes it so scary in this instance. If you get a court order to listen in to my neighbor's communications, that should not entitle you to listen to my own.