LoJack is a decent system, but you get no added benefit over the standard GPS locator except it's hidden in one of 27 I think) spots. Tele-Aid is awesome though, and you should have gotten the first year free. If not, go bitch at your dealer.
The main added benefit I see is that LoJack doesn't rely on GPS, but on cellular. All a thief has to do to defeat GPS tracking is remove line of sight (a parking garage for example). Cellular triangulation is a bit harder to shield against.
TeleAid wins, however, on coverage area. LoJack has limited coverage outside of major metropolitan areas, whereas TeleAid just needs to see the satellites. A combination of the two is the best bet.
BTW, I read your journal entry a few weeks ago. Hope you got everything cleared up! That was a crappy chain of events. And LoJack claims 30 spots in their literature, but that's just splitting hairs.;-)
Also nice to know that you liked TeleAid. My wife hasn't decided if she wants it or not... nice to hear a viewpoint from someone other than the dealer. =-) Also, we just bought a 2000 model, so the first free year is already gone. We may subscribe, though. Thanks for the info!
Well of course Mercedes is not on the top 10, look at the percentage of Mercedes on the road compared to cars like the Camry. The Camrys probably outnumber the Mercedes 50:1 (unless you live in some hoitty-toitty neighbourhood).
They're also a lot harder to steal using typical means (slim jim, break the steering column, hotwire, etc.). They have more comprehensive theft deterrents than, say, a Ford Aspire. They can still be stolen, of course, but they're not as convenient to steal, and as you point out, are in somewhat lower demand for parts, etc.
This really burns me up when going to pay for insurance. I ask why the rate is so high and they give me this "Well, it's a high theft risk" line of crap. No shit, Sherlock, this model probably accounts for 60% of the cars on the road. Statistically speaking, it's got a higher chance of being stolen! That doesn't mean MY car has a higher chance of being stolen though.
I don't understand your point here. If you drive a car that's more popular with thieves (for whatever reason) then you have a greater chance of having it stolen. If insurance companies have to pay more money on Camry claims, then they're going to charge more for Camry premiums. The reason they pay more on Camry claims is irrelevent.
You'll also pay more insurance on cars that are out of production (high cost for replacement parts), that have typically high collision repair costs (lots of plastic parts that have to be replaced because they can't be repaired), or that are garaged in high-theft areas (Los Angeles vs. Boise). If it costs the insurance company more money, they'll pass the costs on to you.
Doesn't your argument rely on thieves showing no preference for one model over another? (I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just don't understand your reasoning.)
All Mercedes models with the Tele Aid system (Similar to On*Star) installed have GPS hardware. You have to subscribe to have it activated, though. Once subscribed, you can call Mercedes and ask them to locate your car for you at any time for any reason (where's my wife?). As long as the car is on and visible to GPS, they can give you an approximate location. Location requests remain active for up to 14 days if they don't locate the car immediately. Location isn't really what Tele Aid is for, though.
Instead, Mercedes also promotes the LoJack Locator system. LoJack apparently has a better signal strength and doesn't rely on GPS, but rather on cellular triangulation. Many police departments have cars equipped with LoJack tracking systems as well. There's no subscription fee, just the purchase of the unit itself (around $600) which is covered for the life of the car. The only drawback is that you have to be in a covered area for it to work, so if the thief is smart and can get to the desert before you call the cops, you might be out of luck.
According to LoJack's website, approximately 25% of their recoveries result in an arrest. You also typically get a pretty good break on insurance, so the costs are somewhat offset.
The Mercedes Tele Aid system is designed primarily for driver convenience (Where am I? Where's my car? Can you tell me how to get to the nearest dealer/restaurant/gas station) while LoJack's sole purpose is post-theft vehicle recovery.
I suspect that the DC bait car is using something similar to LoJack - I believe there's an FCC band dedicated to law enforcement recovery type things.
Wow... I sounded like a commercial there, didn't I? I will say that LoJack does provide peace of mind and I was much more willing to spend $600 on it than $240/year for Tele Aid. It takes a darn good product for me to provide a recommendation - but if you've got a high-end or high-theft-risk car, LoJack is definitely worth the money.
An excellent post, Pope. I am a bit disappointed, however, that you provided the actual names of such powerful entities. To name a thing is to have power over a thing, and now there are several more Slashdotters who are frantically searching Google for Cthul... whoops... almost made the same mistake!
My favorite latin reference still comes from the Simpson's Halloween episode spoofing Freddy Krueger. Martin is joyfully conjugating in latin when giant Willy says, "Ach! Yeuv mahstirred a ded tonng, let's see yeu handle a live one!" (Paraphrased, by the way).
In case anyone actually thinks that I believe that the reduction of Latin classes in public schools will result in the decline and fall of western civilization, I don't. I do, however, think that we should spend more time teaching kids how to think and less time figuring out how to get more of them to pass a test so the state can get more money.
Excellent points, kwishot. I wasn't trying to say Greek and Latin aren't taught at all, just that education in general has been consistently dumbed down over the last several decades. While classic languages are still taught, they're typically taught only as an elective or an honors/AP class. It used to be that everyone learned Latin because it was the gateway not only to many languages, but to understanding many concepts expressed through language.
And don't get hung up on the "sixty years ago number." I was mainly saying "a while back." I'm not well-versed on the exact amount and pattern of feature-creep our public education system has experienced... I suspect that much of this started in the 50s as the baby boomers started hitting schools in large numbers, resulting in the need to process them more efficiently. Efficient education doesn't automatically translate to good education. When universities have to teach remedial English, that's a pretty telling sign.
The fact that universities accept students that need remedial English is another telling sign.
Schools used to focus on a more classic, liberal arts education. They taught people a wide range of subjects, how to think, etc. But it's very hard for bureaucrats who have to justify spending more and more money to evaluate and quantify "thinking" so we get standardized testing instead. American schools (by and large) pump out lots of kids with some basic math and language skills, a smattering of school-board approved literature, and that's it. Like you, I was also lucky enough to have quality teachers in high school. I was also lucky enough to get some quality guidance early on. But I know many people who weren't that lucky.
Sadly, many high school graduates only learn to regurgitate, not cogitate. I agree with you that bureaucracy is the leading cause. Unfortunately, this is one of those hot political buttons with no easy solutions.
I am guilty of not having read the entire article... since reading it and some of the additional posts, I notice that (unsurprisingly) there's more to this than just "Rigid Honor Code Shafts Student." It's more like "Rigid Honor Code Shafts Whiner Who Probably Cheated and Got Caught."
So while I still stand by everything I said, I'll tack on a coda to my previous post.
People who get caught doing something wrong shouldn't try to get away with it by bitching to the media or resorting to inane legal minutae. Unless of course you're the President of the U.S. Then it's ok.
But only if you can define the word "is."
Come to think of it, that's exactly what those high school students who got caught plagarizing did, so perhaps I wasn't quite so far off the mark as I initially thought. I bitched about the right things for the wrong reasons.
While not directly related, this seems to be indicative of the same mindset that public schools have taken on: it's better to deal with quantifiable things. It's better to teach the mechanics of a thing than to teach the student the underlying lesson. A history test is for memorizing dates, not for learning why events happened or what that event's impact might have been. An honor code isn't a framework for living your life, it's a rigid, static thing that exists in a vacuum.
I'd rather have students learning why Napolean was sent trudging back through the snow than the date he headed back toward France. And I'd rather have teachers and professors (assuming they're capable) given the responsibility and authority to make their own decisions - especially when dealing with things as nebulous as an honor code.
This episode reminds me of the recent case where the teacher flunked several students for blatant plagarism only to have the touchy-feely school board overturn the decision. Guess they didn't want to anger the voters and risk losing reelection.
It's sad, really. We're turning out a bunch of automatons in the name of improving the percentage of students who can pass a standardized test. These overly-strict honor codes are simply the same film projected on a different canvas.
Sixty years ago, schools in the U.S. taught Greek and Latin. Now they teach remedial English (or Spanish depending on your local election demographics).
I guess it's now safe for me to disclose a patent-pending process I've developed for swing-powered flight. It involves the more traditional leg-pump forward/backward swinging, so I don't believe I'll owe any royalties on the side-swinging patent.
My process can be performed at any stage of swinging, but maximum effectiveness is obtained when the chains or ropes become momentarily slack at the outer range of motion.
At this point, the swing operator would reposition their arms so that their elbows are (and here's the important part) in front of the chains. Then at the edge of the forward motion arc, the operator uses his/her arms to lift up slightly of the swing and releases their grip on the chains/ropes. The forward momentum provides for a brief period of flight.
I'm also working on an alternate means of forward propulsion that I've decided to call "skipping."
Remember the old One Line Program contests in RUN magazine? Those were cool. I guess the Obfuscated perl contests are the closest things we have to that now. =-)
I don't have a problem with phone tapping when supervised by a strict, non-trivial judicial process and oversight. But the FCC appears to be making all sorts of new information obtainable with what is more or less a mandatory sign-off. That's trivial, and makes it far too easy (and much more likely to be abused).
I don't want law enforcement to be unnecessarily hindered when they're honestly working on a case, but I darn-well want the cops to be able to justify exactly why they need such broad taps before they're allowed to conduct them. "Ummm... cause he looks funny" appears to be a perfectly valid reason under these regs, and that's not good enough.
This kind of advance could be very helpful to deep space exploration or other long term, low gravity situations. Combine with some way to retard calcium loss and one more hurdle is gone. Additionally, as the article mentioned, this would be a great thing for bed-ridden patients who can't exercise, or people with some other ailment preventing muscle-building routines (bad joints, arthritis, etc.)
I'm definitely not against a technology (chemical, nano or otherwise) that would give me the benefits of physical exercise like better muscle to fat ratio, strength, and endurance without actually having to engage in repetitive physical activities that I find boring. There are only so many hours in a day, and I'd prefer not to spend them paying the local gym or lugging rocks around my yard.
We've developed plenty of technologies that allow us to more easily accomplish things we found tedious or difficult (hammers, cars and planes, forklifts, word processors, slashdot) so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like any advance, it has potential for abuse or misuse, but it sounds pretty darn cool to me.
I don't mean to resort to typical Microsoft bashing, but I seriously doubt that Microsoft is going to fight DRM for those reasons. Instead, I think that they'll fight DRM as a government-mandated issue, all the while working on their own Windows-integrated DRM scheme which they'll then license to major media conglomerates.
If they can pull it off, it's a Win-Win for Microsoft: No government interference on DRM and a near-instant monopoly on DRM due to buy-in from the major content providers.
Heh... I was wondering about the Flamebait mod myself. Must be someone from the MPAA.;-)
Then again, that's one of the things that makes/. great - I can always count on seeing a different viewpoint that I might not have previously considered. As long as it's a viewpoint that someone can back up, I'm always willing to listen.
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Sen. Hollings spokesman Andy Davis.
Of course they didn't "try to make it work." Why would any tech company risk being associated with stripping the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. I think the tech companies have recognized that the media conglomerates are going to get their way no matter what. Why lend credibility to the "solution" by participating in a sham process?
Media companies did learn a valuable lesson with DiVX: don't trust your interests to consumer pressures - it's far more effective to buy legislation instead.
Um, actually it wouldn't, because that would constitute "public performance," which is basically the same as a broadcast, which means you have to pay the RIAA money.
That's not correct. Public performance rights are handled by (surprisingly enough) the performing rights organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC (In the U.S., anyway). The RIAA is only concerned with unauthorized duplication.
In this particular case, the RIAA sued because the company was facilitating widespread duplication of the encoded music, not because it was being broadcast or performed. I'm definitely not in favor of the RIAA's actions in recent years, but in this case, they're well within their rights. A good parallel would be if this was 1980 and the company set up a server where employees brought their records in, the company recorded them onto giant tape reels, and then anyone could bring in a box of cassettes and make copies of anything they wanted.
It's one thing to make a copy of an album for a friend (one to one) - technically a possible infringement, but not worth pro- ecuting. It's another thing when a company sanctions copying between all employees (many to many).
The other major copyright considerations are mechanical rights (the permission to affix an artistic work to a "thing" like a CD, record, or tape, synchronization rights (the permission to synchronize music with visual images like movies, TV shows, or music videos) and compulsory licenses. The latter says that after an author has exercised their right to be the first person to record a work, any person desiring to record a version of the work must be given a license to do so. The rates are fairly affordable and set by the government.
Seriously though, I'd like to see a serious list of the services the record companies provide - advertising for music is almost nonexistent (I hardly ever see a poster or TV commercial that is specifically advertising an album or single, unless it's one of those compilation CD's). Face it - the ultimate form of advertising for music is wide distribution. The more times you hear their songs, the more likely you are to buy the CD. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a song on the radio, at work, or at home in MP3 format and gone out and purchased the entire album.
The major labels do actually provide a lot of grunt work and services (including advertising). I won't debate the efficacy of the services, but among other things, a good label provides:
Money. Most musicians can't afford to even create a quality recording, much less professional artwork, posters, image, PR, videos, etc. That doesn't even take into account whether or not the artist knows how to do any of those things (or knows someone who does and is willing to work for free/cheap). I'm ignoring the abhorent contract conditions that are attached to this money, the fact is that most musicians can't afford the game. This is changing somewhat as artists get more media saavy and the equipment needed to do these things gets cheaper. But even if you have all of those things, you still don't have...
Access. MTV isn't going to put just any video into rotation. They're only going to take videos from "serious" artists and "serious" artists are only on major labels. (I'll ignore the convenient fact that most major media outlets are owned by the same companies that own the labels).
Then there's radio. I don't know if you've tried to get a song played on your local major market Clear Channel station, but it ain't gonna happen. Heck, these stations don't even play alternate, "non-approved" tracks from major artists that they already play. So if you aren't on a major label, fuggedaboudit. Even College Radio has gotten mercenary over the last 5-7 years. An unknown, unproven, unbacked independent artist simply doesn't have access. A major label liberally greases the wheels (and palms) to get their projects the wide exposure you spoke about. Don't forget that it's also really hard to get shelf space at the local wrecka sto which brings me to...
Distribution. It's a big big job to get millions of CDs pressed, stocked, and sold. Some of the major chains will accept "local artists" but normally only if it comes through a known distributor. And known distributors don't take just any artist's stuff. If they don't already own their own distribution channels, the labels work very hard and have people dedicated to establishing and maintaining good relations with the major distribution companies.
Image, positioning, style, etc. The labels spend a lot of money (for better or worse) on focus groups and market research and can help smooth out an artist's rough edges to create a very slick package. Sometimes the artist doesn't need this (or provides it through their own people).
These are just some of the things that a major label provides that are valuable, especially to an artist who doesn't have the skill, time, or knowledge to do themselves. I'm not saying, however, that it's necessarily a good deal for the artist. The way modern record contracts work, a new band has to sell well over 2.5 million units just to break even. It's best to think of major labels as banks that loan money out with about a 40% interest rate.
But if you want to be a star - want the rich and famous lifestyle, the celebrity, the True Hollywood Story and the eventual "Behind The Music" segment, majors are still pretty much the only game in town. There are exceptions (Ani Difranco for example), but by and large, big time celebrity is still the domain of the majors.
The thing that most non-musicians or casual musicians overlook in all of this is that any musician going after a big label contract (or even major sales of an indepent release) has decided to become a business. They are a business and their product takes the form of music. It's impossible for a major label artist to "sell out" because they already made that decision a long time ago. There are good strategic alliances in business and bad ones - it all depends on what the goals of the business are. If the goal is to become famous (and maybe rich, then a major label is the way to go. If the goal is moderate celebrity, a bigger piece of the pie, and more artistic control, then the independent release is a better bet. If money is the only concern, start a cover band and play every wedding and frat party you can find.
I'm really tired of the RIAA attacking consumer rights, but I'm also really tired of musicians like Courtney Love who do anything to become stars and then whine about what a crappy deal they got. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up, and if they didn't, then it's nobody's fault but their own. Nobody forced them to sign the contract.
I expressed the same thought in a recent/. story on EQ. These games are a great proof of concept for virtual meeting/social spaces. Throw in some advances in voice/video over IP and a bunch more bandwidth, and the future is promising for telepresence.
Didn't seebs write something about managing hackers (and/or herding cats) that has much the same advice, has been around longer, and is more "truer to the cause" since it was written by one of us instead of a bunch of management professionals who claim to understand us?
Perhaps the Seebs book is "truer to the cause" (I haven't read it, so I can't comment), but assuming that the majority of this new book is accurate (and the review makes it look pretty good), wouldn't you rather have a PHB read a book from a source they trust?
A book written about a geek by a geek will be suspect in management's eyes... a book written about a geek by a management professional will have much greater credibility.
Heh... you have a point there. So far the worst offenders I've come across for "Tonight on Hard Copy (cough cough) I mean, Tonight on your Local News" have been Channel 2 in Houston (Fox?) and the NBC affiliate in San Francisco.
I've almost got the formula down:
There's a problem (doesn't matter what subject - it's a problem.)
It affects your child.
Someone's to blame
The mayor isn't doing anything about it
So let's say that a new study shows that Houston 5th graders are scoring in the 98th percentile in national standard tests:
"Tonight on Channel 2 News at 9: (cue ominous music and blurry cutshots) A new study shows that Houston 5th graders are now scoring in the 98th percentile - why is your child being left behind? And why isn't the mayor doing anything to prevent teachers from abandoning our kids? Find out tonight - only on Channel 2 News!
Exactly - and that's what's so insane about this whole thing. I'm amazed (but not completely surprised) that the RIAA is getting away with these kinds of assaults.
This has been a problem for a while now, though. Every time a new technology comes along, people think that we need to make new rules for that technology. I'm amazed at the number of companies that have policies specifically for email. While their existing communications policies would probably have covered email just fine, they insist on creating new policies to cover each new technology.
If I'm unproductive from surfing the web or posting on Slashdot, that shouldn't be any different from if I was unproductive because I took a long lunch, read a book, or doodled on my sketchpad, yet we have tons of "acceptable internet use" policies.
So now we have the RIAA leveraging this situation to make more money and squash anyone that doesn't play by their rules. Unfortunately, the majority of the music consumers out there don't care enough about the situation to seek out alternate (independent) artists, don't understand the issues, don't really care about the issues, and provide the inertia and cash for the RIAA to continue doing what it does.
This is a land grab - the RIAA is trying to make sure that it controls internet distribution since it can't (legally) control distribution by radio. That doesn't mean they don't - only that they're not supposed to.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. If you're subscribed to satellite and they don't carry any of your local channels, I doubt that signal quality or reception will be that important if you really want to watch local broadcasts, specifically, news, weather, and programs of local interest. I agree that local stations suffer if they aren't carried by a satellite provider, though... that's a certain percentage of eyeballs that they're losing and that's the whole point of legislation (to my understanding).
What I was referring to was EchoStar's attempt to modify the "Must Carry" laws which say that if they offer any local channel for a market, they are required to carry all local channels for that market.
So if they offer ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX, they are also required to carry UPN, WB, local UHF channel 42, etc. EchoStar is saying that they don't have the capacity to offer every channel in every market they carry - thus if Must Carry laws are kept, EchoStar will drop some local markets, which will make the situation worse. There will be more small markets that have to rely on a nearby major market for "local" programming.
I agree with you on one thing, though, if satellite continues to grow in popularity and EchoStar is successful in challenging these laws, small market local stations will definitely be pinched. Either they'll be dropped because of "must-carry," or they'll lose out to people choosing network programming from other markets. I think, however, that the latter will have less impact. People generally want their local weather, sports, and news, so they'll keep at least one or two local stations.
In order for AM and FM stations to broadcast, they have to pay license fees to the major performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). These not-for-profit organizations then distribute royalties to the songwriters (not necessarily the recording artist).
What's interesting here is that the RIAA is using copyright infringement as it's argument to squash these technologies that it can't control, while dressing it up as "fighting for the rights of artists." Laughable.
It's not copyright infringement for a radio station because they have physical media (bought or provided) and pay license fees to broadcast the works via radio - they aren't making a copy of the information. I'm surprised that we aren't hearing more about digital radio facing the same hurdles as web-streaming.
Don't ever listen to the RIAA saying that they're fighting for artist rights, or ensuring that artists are properly compensated. That's not their job. The RIAA's job is to protect the interests of the recording companies.
If BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, AFTRA, etc. weigh in, then you can listen with a slightly less-jaded ear, but the RIAA saying they're looking out for artists is like Microsoft saying that they're only trying to squash unix for the good of their customers.
Like them or not, the RIAA is a very effective organization for what they do - but I take offense when they purport to represent the interests of recording artists.
Slashdot Mirror
LoJack is a decent system, but you get no added benefit over the standard GPS locator except it's hidden in one of 27 I think) spots. Tele-Aid is awesome though, and you should have gotten the first year free. If not, go bitch at your dealer.
The main added benefit I see is that LoJack doesn't rely on GPS, but on cellular. All a thief has to do to defeat GPS tracking is remove line of sight (a parking garage for example). Cellular triangulation is a bit harder to shield against.
TeleAid wins, however, on coverage area. LoJack has limited coverage outside of major metropolitan areas, whereas TeleAid just needs to see the satellites. A combination of the two is the best bet.
BTW, I read your journal entry a few weeks ago. Hope you got everything cleared up! That was a crappy chain of events. And LoJack claims 30 spots in their literature, but that's just splitting hairs. ;-)
Also nice to know that you liked TeleAid. My wife hasn't decided if she wants it or not... nice to hear a viewpoint from someone other than the dealer. =-) Also, we just bought a 2000 model, so the first free year is already gone. We may subscribe, though. Thanks for the info!
Well of course Mercedes is not on the top 10, look at the percentage of Mercedes on the road compared to cars like the Camry. The Camrys probably outnumber the Mercedes 50:1 (unless you live in some hoitty-toitty neighbourhood).
They're also a lot harder to steal using typical means (slim jim, break the steering column, hotwire, etc.). They have more comprehensive theft deterrents than, say, a Ford Aspire. They can still be stolen, of course, but they're not as convenient to steal, and as you point out, are in somewhat lower demand for parts, etc.
This really burns me up when going to pay for insurance. I ask why the rate is so high and they give me this "Well, it's a high theft risk" line of crap. No shit, Sherlock, this model probably accounts for 60% of the cars on the road. Statistically speaking, it's got a higher chance of being stolen! That doesn't mean MY car has a higher chance of being stolen though.
I don't understand your point here. If you drive a car that's more popular with thieves (for whatever reason) then you have a greater chance of having it stolen. If insurance companies have to pay more money on Camry claims, then they're going to charge more for Camry premiums. The reason they pay more on Camry claims is irrelevent.
You'll also pay more insurance on cars that are out of production (high cost for replacement parts), that have typically high collision repair costs (lots of plastic parts that have to be replaced because they can't be repaired), or that are garaged in high-theft areas (Los Angeles vs. Boise). If it costs the insurance company more money, they'll pass the costs on to you.
Doesn't your argument rely on thieves showing no preference for one model over another? (I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just don't understand your reasoning.)
All Mercedes models with the Tele Aid system (Similar to On*Star) installed have GPS hardware. You have to subscribe to have it activated, though. Once subscribed, you can call Mercedes and ask them to locate your car for you at any time for any reason (where's my wife?). As long as the car is on and visible to GPS, they can give you an approximate location. Location requests remain active for up to 14 days if they don't locate the car immediately. Location isn't really what Tele Aid is for, though.
Instead, Mercedes also promotes the LoJack Locator system. LoJack apparently has a better signal strength and doesn't rely on GPS, but rather on cellular triangulation. Many police departments have cars equipped with LoJack tracking systems as well. There's no subscription fee, just the purchase of the unit itself (around $600) which is covered for the life of the car. The only drawback is that you have to be in a covered area for it to work, so if the thief is smart and can get to the desert before you call the cops, you might be out of luck.
According to LoJack's website, approximately 25% of their recoveries result in an arrest. You also typically get a pretty good break on insurance, so the costs are somewhat offset.
The Mercedes Tele Aid system is designed primarily for driver convenience (Where am I? Where's my car? Can you tell me how to get to the nearest dealer/restaurant/gas station) while LoJack's sole purpose is post-theft vehicle recovery.
I suspect that the DC bait car is using something similar to LoJack - I believe there's an FCC band dedicated to law enforcement recovery type things.
Wow... I sounded like a commercial there, didn't I? I will say that LoJack does provide peace of mind and I was much more willing to spend $600 on it than $240/year for Tele Aid. It takes a darn good product for me to provide a recommendation - but if you've got a high-end or high-theft-risk car, LoJack is definitely worth the money.
An excellent post, Pope. I am a bit disappointed, however, that you provided the actual names of such powerful entities. To name a thing is to have power over a thing, and now there are several more Slashdotters who are frantically searching Google for Cthul... whoops... almost made the same mistake!
My favorite latin reference still comes from the Simpson's Halloween episode spoofing Freddy Krueger. Martin is joyfully conjugating in latin when giant Willy says, "Ach! Yeuv mahstirred a ded tonng, let's see yeu handle a live one!" (Paraphrased, by the way).
In case anyone actually thinks that I believe that the reduction of Latin classes in public schools will result in the decline and fall of western civilization, I don't. I do, however, think that we should spend more time teaching kids how to think and less time figuring out how to get more of them to pass a test so the state can get more money.
I think Larry probably needed the money to pay off all those San Jose Airport Noise Curfew fines he racked up.
Ok, old news... but still pretty funny.
Excellent points, kwishot. I wasn't trying to say Greek and Latin aren't taught at all, just that education in general has been consistently dumbed down over the last several decades. While classic languages are still taught, they're typically taught only as an elective or an honors/AP class. It used to be that everyone learned Latin because it was the gateway not only to many languages, but to understanding many concepts expressed through language.
And don't get hung up on the "sixty years ago number." I was mainly saying "a while back." I'm not well-versed on the exact amount and pattern of feature-creep our public education system has experienced... I suspect that much of this started in the 50s as the baby boomers started hitting schools in large numbers, resulting in the need to process them more efficiently. Efficient education doesn't automatically translate to good education. When universities have to teach remedial English, that's a pretty telling sign.
The fact that universities accept students that need remedial English is another telling sign.
Schools used to focus on a more classic, liberal arts education. They taught people a wide range of subjects, how to think, etc. But it's very hard for bureaucrats who have to justify spending more and more money to evaluate and quantify "thinking" so we get standardized testing instead. American schools (by and large) pump out lots of kids with some basic math and language skills, a smattering of school-board approved literature, and that's it. Like you, I was also lucky enough to have quality teachers in high school. I was also lucky enough to get some quality guidance early on. But I know many people who weren't that lucky.
Sadly, many high school graduates only learn to regurgitate, not cogitate. I agree with you that bureaucracy is the leading cause. Unfortunately, this is one of those hot political buttons with no easy solutions.
I am guilty of not having read the entire article... since reading it and some of the additional posts, I notice that (unsurprisingly) there's more to this than just "Rigid Honor Code Shafts Student." It's more like "Rigid Honor Code Shafts Whiner Who Probably Cheated and Got Caught."
So while I still stand by everything I said, I'll tack on a coda to my previous post.
People who get caught doing something wrong shouldn't try to get away with it by bitching to the media or resorting to inane legal minutae. Unless of course you're the President of the U.S. Then it's ok.
But only if you can define the word "is."
Come to think of it, that's exactly what those high school students who got caught plagarizing did, so perhaps I wasn't quite so far off the mark as I initially thought. I bitched about the right things for the wrong reasons.
While not directly related, this seems to be indicative of the same mindset that public schools have taken on: it's better to deal with quantifiable things. It's better to teach the mechanics of a thing than to teach the student the underlying lesson. A history test is for memorizing dates, not for learning why events happened or what that event's impact might have been. An honor code isn't a framework for living your life, it's a rigid, static thing that exists in a vacuum.
I'd rather have students learning why Napolean was sent trudging back through the snow than the date he headed back toward France. And I'd rather have teachers and professors (assuming they're capable) given the responsibility and authority to make their own decisions - especially when dealing with things as nebulous as an honor code.
This episode reminds me of the recent case where the teacher flunked several students for blatant plagarism only to have the touchy-feely school board overturn the decision. Guess they didn't want to anger the voters and risk losing reelection.
It's sad, really. We're turning out a bunch of automatons in the name of improving the percentage of students who can pass a standardized test. These overly-strict honor codes are simply the same film projected on a different canvas.
Sixty years ago, schools in the U.S. taught Greek and Latin. Now they teach remedial English (or Spanish depending on your local election demographics).
I guess it's now safe for me to disclose a patent-pending process I've developed for swing-powered flight. It involves the more traditional leg-pump forward/backward swinging, so I don't believe I'll owe any royalties on the side-swinging patent.
My process can be performed at any stage of swinging, but maximum effectiveness is obtained when the chains or ropes become momentarily slack at the outer range of motion.
At this point, the swing operator would reposition their arms so that their elbows are (and here's the important part) in front of the chains. Then at the edge of the forward motion arc, the operator uses his/her arms to lift up slightly of the swing and releases their grip on the chains/ropes. The forward momentum provides for a brief period of flight.
I'm also working on an alternate means of forward propulsion that I've decided to call "skipping."
While Quartz (Aqua?) gives me a nice GUI,
Aqua is the GUI with all the eye-candy. Quartz is the underlying display engine that allows for native PDF, etc.
Just an FYI.
Remember the old One Line Program contests in RUN magazine? Those were cool. I guess the Obfuscated perl contests are the closest things we have to that now. =-)
I don't have a problem with phone tapping when supervised by a strict, non-trivial judicial process and oversight. But the FCC appears to be making all sorts of new information obtainable with what is more or less a mandatory sign-off. That's trivial, and makes it far too easy (and much more likely to be abused).
I don't want law enforcement to be unnecessarily hindered when they're honestly working on a case, but I darn-well want the cops to be able to justify exactly why they need such broad taps before they're allowed to conduct them. "Ummm... cause he looks funny" appears to be a perfectly valid reason under these regs, and that's not good enough.
This kind of advance could be very helpful to deep space exploration or other long term, low gravity situations. Combine with some way to retard calcium loss and one more hurdle is gone. Additionally, as the article mentioned, this would be a great thing for bed-ridden patients who can't exercise, or people with some other ailment preventing muscle-building routines (bad joints, arthritis, etc.)
I'm definitely not against a technology (chemical, nano or otherwise) that would give me the benefits of physical exercise like better muscle to fat ratio, strength, and endurance without actually having to engage in repetitive physical activities that I find boring. There are only so many hours in a day, and I'd prefer not to spend them paying the local gym or lugging rocks around my yard.
We've developed plenty of technologies that allow us to more easily accomplish things we found tedious or difficult (hammers, cars and planes, forklifts, word processors, slashdot) so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like any advance, it has potential for abuse or misuse, but it sounds pretty darn cool to me.
I don't mean to resort to typical Microsoft bashing, but I seriously doubt that Microsoft is going to fight DRM for those reasons. Instead, I think that they'll fight DRM as a government-mandated issue, all the while working on their own Windows-integrated DRM scheme which they'll then license to major media conglomerates.
If they can pull it off, it's a Win-Win for Microsoft: No government interference on DRM and a near-instant monopoly on DRM due to buy-in from the major content providers.
Heh... I was wondering about the Flamebait mod myself. Must be someone from the MPAA. ;-)
Then again, that's one of the things that makes /. great - I can always count on seeing a different viewpoint that I might not have previously considered. As long as it's a viewpoint that someone can back up, I'm always willing to listen.
From the article:
Of course they didn't "try to make it work." Why would any tech company risk being associated with stripping the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. I think the tech companies have recognized that the media conglomerates are going to get their way no matter what. Why lend credibility to the "solution" by participating in a sham process?
Media companies did learn a valuable lesson with DiVX: don't trust your interests to consumer pressures - it's far more effective to buy legislation instead.
That's not correct. Public performance rights are handled by (surprisingly enough) the performing rights organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC (In the U.S., anyway). The RIAA is only concerned with unauthorized duplication.
In this particular case, the RIAA sued because the company was facilitating widespread duplication of the encoded music, not because it was being broadcast or performed. I'm definitely not in favor of the RIAA's actions in recent years, but in this case, they're well within their rights. A good parallel would be if this was 1980 and the company set up a server where employees brought their records in, the company recorded them onto giant tape reels, and then anyone could bring in a box of cassettes and make copies of anything they wanted.
It's one thing to make a copy of an album for a friend (one to one) - technically a possible infringement, but not worth pro- ecuting. It's another thing when a company sanctions copying between all employees (many to many).
The other major copyright considerations are mechanical rights (the permission to affix an artistic work to a "thing" like a CD, record, or tape, synchronization rights (the permission to synchronize music with visual images like movies, TV shows, or music videos) and compulsory licenses. The latter says that after an author has exercised their right to be the first person to record a work, any person desiring to record a version of the work must be given a license to do so. The rates are fairly affordable and set by the government.
Lurgen wrote:
The major labels do actually provide a lot of grunt work and services (including advertising). I won't debate the efficacy of the services, but among other things, a good label provides:
Then there's radio. I don't know if you've tried to get a song played on your local major market Clear Channel station, but it ain't gonna happen. Heck, these stations don't even play alternate, "non-approved" tracks from major artists that they already play. So if you aren't on a major label, fuggedaboudit. Even College Radio has gotten mercenary over the last 5-7 years. An unknown, unproven, unbacked independent artist simply doesn't have access. A major label liberally greases the wheels (and palms) to get their projects the wide exposure you spoke about. Don't forget that it's also really hard to get shelf space at the local wrecka sto which brings me to...
These are just some of the things that a major label provides that are valuable, especially to an artist who doesn't have the skill, time, or knowledge to do themselves. I'm not saying, however, that it's necessarily a good deal for the artist. The way modern record contracts work, a new band has to sell well over 2.5 million units just to break even. It's best to think of major labels as banks that loan money out with about a 40% interest rate.
But if you want to be a star - want the rich and famous lifestyle, the celebrity, the True Hollywood Story and the eventual "Behind The Music" segment, majors are still pretty much the only game in town. There are exceptions (Ani Difranco for example), but by and large, big time celebrity is still the domain of the majors.
The thing that most non-musicians or casual musicians overlook in all of this is that any musician going after a big label contract (or even major sales of an indepent release) has decided to become a business. They are a business and their product takes the form of music. It's impossible for a major label artist to "sell out" because they already made that decision a long time ago. There are good strategic alliances in business and bad ones - it all depends on what the goals of the business are. If the goal is to become famous (and maybe rich, then a major label is the way to go. If the goal is moderate celebrity, a bigger piece of the pie, and more artistic control, then the independent release is a better bet. If money is the only concern, start a cover band and play every wedding and frat party you can find.
I'm really tired of the RIAA attacking consumer rights, but I'm also really tired of musicians like Courtney Love who do anything to become stars and then whine about what a crappy deal they got. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up, and if they didn't, then it's nobody's fault but their own. Nobody forced them to sign the contract.
I expressed the same thought in a recent /. story on EQ. These games are a great proof of concept for virtual meeting/social spaces. Throw in some advances in voice/video over IP and a bunch more bandwidth, and the future is promising for telepresence.
Perhaps the Seebs book is "truer to the cause" (I haven't read it, so I can't comment), but assuming that the majority of this new book is accurate (and the review makes it look pretty good), wouldn't you rather have a PHB read a book from a source they trust?
A book written about a geek by a geek will be suspect in management's eyes... a book written about a geek by a management professional will have much greater credibility.
Heh... you have a point there. So far the worst offenders I've come across for "Tonight on Hard Copy (cough cough) I mean, Tonight on your Local News" have been Channel 2 in Houston (Fox?) and the NBC affiliate in San Francisco.
I've almost got the formula down:
So let's say that a new study shows that Houston 5th graders are scoring in the 98th percentile in national standard tests:
"Tonight on Channel 2 News at 9: (cue ominous music and blurry cutshots) A new study shows that Houston 5th graders are now scoring in the 98th percentile - why is your child being left behind? And why isn't the mayor doing anything to prevent teachers from abandoning our kids? Find out tonight - only on Channel 2 News!
Exactly - and that's what's so insane about this whole thing. I'm amazed (but not completely surprised) that the RIAA is getting away with these kinds of assaults.
This has been a problem for a while now, though. Every time a new technology comes along, people think that we need to make new rules for that technology. I'm amazed at the number of companies that have policies specifically for email. While their existing communications policies would probably have covered email just fine, they insist on creating new policies to cover each new technology.
If I'm unproductive from surfing the web or posting on Slashdot, that shouldn't be any different from if I was unproductive because I took a long lunch, read a book, or doodled on my sketchpad, yet we have tons of "acceptable internet use" policies.
So now we have the RIAA leveraging this situation to make more money and squash anyone that doesn't play by their rules. Unfortunately, the majority of the music consumers out there don't care enough about the situation to seek out alternate (independent) artists, don't understand the issues, don't really care about the issues, and provide the inertia and cash for the RIAA to continue doing what it does.
This is a land grab - the RIAA is trying to make sure that it controls internet distribution since it can't (legally) control distribution by radio. That doesn't mean they don't - only that they're not supposed to.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. If you're subscribed to satellite and they don't carry any of your local channels, I doubt that signal quality or reception will be that important if you really want to watch local broadcasts, specifically, news, weather, and programs of local interest. I agree that local stations suffer if they aren't carried by a satellite provider, though... that's a certain percentage of eyeballs that they're losing and that's the whole point of legislation (to my understanding).
What I was referring to was EchoStar's attempt to modify the "Must Carry" laws which say that if they offer any local channel for a market, they are required to carry all local channels for that market.
So if they offer ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX, they are also required to carry UPN, WB, local UHF channel 42, etc. EchoStar is saying that they don't have the capacity to offer every channel in every market they carry - thus if Must Carry laws are kept, EchoStar will drop some local markets, which will make the situation worse. There will be more small markets that have to rely on a nearby major market for "local" programming.
I agree with you on one thing, though, if satellite continues to grow in popularity and EchoStar is successful in challenging these laws, small market local stations will definitely be pinched. Either they'll be dropped because of "must-carry," or they'll lose out to people choosing network programming from other markets. I think, however, that the latter will have less impact. People generally want their local weather, sports, and news, so they'll keep at least one or two local stations.
In order for AM and FM stations to broadcast, they have to pay license fees to the major performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). These not-for-profit organizations then distribute royalties to the songwriters (not necessarily the recording artist).
What's interesting here is that the RIAA is using copyright infringement as it's argument to squash these technologies that it can't control, while dressing it up as "fighting for the rights of artists." Laughable.
It's not copyright infringement for a radio station because they have physical media (bought or provided) and pay license fees to broadcast the works via radio - they aren't making a copy of the information. I'm surprised that we aren't hearing more about digital radio facing the same hurdles as web-streaming.
Don't ever listen to the RIAA saying that they're fighting for artist rights, or ensuring that artists are properly compensated. That's not their job. The RIAA's job is to protect the interests of the recording companies.
If BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, AFTRA, etc. weigh in, then you can listen with a slightly less-jaded ear, but the RIAA saying they're looking out for artists is like Microsoft saying that they're only trying to squash unix for the good of their customers.
Like them or not, the RIAA is a very effective organization for what they do - but I take offense when they purport to represent the interests of recording artists.