I know everybody's in a rush to beat up on SCO for making such an irresponsible statement, but let's face it. We're dealing with a bunch of amatuers.
If you're going to sue someone, keep quiet until that last minute, and WHAM!!! They'll be reeling in shock long enough to give you an edge against them.
SCO wants publicity, so they whine and threaten instead of going straight to the suit. But what kind of company (or CEO for that matter) whines and threatens about something so important (to SCO)?
Their tactics only demonstrate that there is nothing left to save or sell, and soon their own shareholders will get tired of the dog and pony show.
These cards better have a small range (two feet max) or I don't see how you will manage to perserve the time-honored tradition of the grocery store line.
"Did you swipe your card?"
"Not yet."
"That's funny, because your total has already been paid!"
I've never seen an "after the fact" deterrent stop a crime.
Locks are good deterrents, laws are not. The lock must be properly applied before the crime happens.
Criminals in the US (and elsewhere I'd believe) really don't think that they will be caught. Although crime is a sober serious subject, sometimes this disbelief results in some very funny arrest reports. I know because I get to enjoy them as I watch TV, they make the best "reality" shows I've seen all season.
Unfortunately, a few years ago on slashdot posts like mine above were so truthful that few would consider them worthy of modpoints.
Symantec makes good virus protection software. But they have saturated their market. Nearly every PC targeted at the average user is sold with one of their products pre-installed.
Virus software is not sexy, few will rush out to grab the latest release, or even bother with the online updates. Symantec stirs the pot every now and then with a timely reminder that the net is going to h--- in a handbasket. It's not bad for sales, much like the advertisements of burgulars breaking into a house known to contain residents dosen't hurt the sales of home security alarms.
It's not new, in 2 more years we will see the same recommendation about the new "state of emergency" we all face from malicious code.
In 1995 Sun announced that JAVA technology was real and would be incorporated into Netscape Navigator.
The set top box that JAVA came from was developed in 1992. According to the same article you reference, it took 18 months to develop pushing back the birthday into possible 1990. Differences of viewpoint (like these) are the same reason my Univeristy now has had 3 founding dates (each a few years further back in history).
The truth is that JAVA was never really "born", like all technologies it was the result of an idea which took time before it could be useable, and then took more time before it could be marketed.
Details aside, I too believe that the poster was most likely not one of the original 30 developers the article referrs to.
Symantec has a long history of trying (and somtimes succeeding) to create panic in the realm of computer security.
Usually it is accompanied by a round of advertisement telling you how (through the use of their products) you can protect yourself.
I am all for computer security, and no doubt there are many pitfalls yet to come, but staffing enough programmers to instantly respond to what they term a "flash attack" would make Microsoft look like small potatoes. I guess during all of that free time between attacks they can rewrite MSxxx to close those bugs MS can't get around to (in six years or more)
On the other hand, look for rising stock prices as Macromedia sues Semantic for defamation and misuse of their branded media player.
When I took computer ethics the first things that I learned was that the incredible maze of laws and restrictions made things that promoted the public good mostly illegal.
Company A is out of business and company B uses their product but requires fixs the the code which company B somehow has a copy of? Do you fix it? NO! You would be infringing on the debtors of company A! End result company B suffers because the debtors of company A might some day sell off the assets of company A to someone who miracalously could make a profit off of the product (unlike failed company A) and provide the same service you would provide (but compensate the debtors by paying them for the product).
No where in the class did the idea of the greater common good appear, something that I believed was core to ethical behavior. But then again, I've only taken COMPUTER ethics.
When an ethics class has to identify itself differently from a standard ethics class by stating, "No this is COMPUTER ethics", then perhaps there isn't anything ethical about it at all.
Please provide one city in the US that hasn't already invested in building an automotive transportation system. Then tell me how I can get there without the use of my car.
A solution that is only applicable in a location that doesn't exist is not a solution.
I live in Houston, home to some of the widest highways I've encountered. There's even a proposal to expand one of our "streets" to 17 lanes (that's 8 each way, with a contra-flow lane in the middle!)
Traffic jams are horrible, freeways crawl to a near stop. And why? because everybody in the five lanes on your side is slowing down since there's an accident in one lane. The other side of the freeway is backing up too. Why? Well, they're scoping out the accident, and (probably unconciously) slowing down as a result. I've even seen it happen for the tiniest of things, like a flat tire.
More lanes provide better flow of traffic under ideal conditions; however, one hiccup and it doesn't seem to matter how many lanes you have.
Racemic mixtures are not decompsed anything. They are mixtures of "mirror-image" molecules. A completely racemized mixture is one with equal numbers of "left" and "right" members. Presence of both will not prevent you from using one or the other.
Look at you set of hands, one is racemic "left" and the other is racemic "right". You have a completely racemized mixture of hands. This does not deny you use of your left hand.
If amino acid procduction is industrial, usually you get (depending on the process) a mixture of the two racimic (D and L) formations that an amino acid can take. They are mirror images of each other.
Why is this important, well on planet Earth, almost all amino acids involed in life are of type L. (Metorites and non-living processes contribute the majority, if not all, of the D racemes discovered today)
Why only L-amino acids? Today we do not "know" with 100% certainty, but the theory is a living system, for whatever reason, started producing L-amino acids, which unbalanced the ratio. Other living systems (or perhaps the same one) which harvestd these L-amino acids survived and thrived in this L-amino acid rich environment while those that required D-amino acids may have never existed or may have died out due to competition.
I have to be so conservative, but the technique that is currently in use is probably much more effective.
When I enter power facilities in Mexico, there are always plenty of friendly guards on the ground and in towers carrying around machine guns. Somehow, I find this to be much more effective than webcams.
Why is there the assumption that if an idea is sufficently bizzare, it has a greater possibility of success?
Most (if not all) of the achievements around us today come from the refinement of previously successful solutions.
Let's take a look at a much simpler system which is already available: camera monitoring against shoplifting.
Camera systems in most stores are intended to prevent shoplifting, but often fail due to lack of human observers to interpert the tape. Even when there are people to observe, these system often lack people to act prior to the departure of the shoplifter (and so shoplifting is still a problem even in monitored stores)
These systems do work well in providing proof that the person was shoplifting, provided that the person was caught (usually by other means)
Assuming that we can teach software to recogonize a shoplifting event, we might be able to put more manpower on catching the shoplifter. But it will always be done "after the fact." To "pre-emptively" catch shady shoppers would be so outrageous that I sudder to think of the consequences.
Eventually, the shoplift catchers will prioritize what they will act on and what they will allow to be taken. Just like police who "only" stop cars traveling 10 or 15 MPH over the speed limit.
When I worked for a univeristy that had such keys, we could never get them replicated. Well, that was until we put a piece of colored tape over the "warning" message and wrote the room number of the key on the tape.
Well, I can see your point (as I once had it in the past myself) but to have that point you may be missing out on the techniques that (sometimes) favor the class based approach.
You only pay for instantiation (setting up of classes) once, at the time of the class's creation. I have seen many projects fail to keep often used classes around, or worse, design a system that demands the recreation of often used duplicates.
Most of the time this is due to fresh java talent leveraging their accumulated problem solving skills in ways that subtly or overtly casue maintainability or performance issues in Java.
Other times it is for various other pressures on the code (ie. management doesn't care, but wants it out NOW!)
My point is that there may be two markets of web code. That which is suitable for the quick demo, test, one-off, which doesn't need to scale or handle monstrous punishment, and that which is written from the outset with scalability, maintainability, etc... in mind. Rarely will a site fall completely into one of these endpoints of the spectrum, but you get the idea.
Code for a quick knock-off requires a language with a quick return on investment. This is why there are still people using sh/csh/ksh for install scripts, admin routines, etc. Php is not as coarse as these primitive examples, but unless more books talk about scaling PHP and improving code maintainability, PHP will constantly be open to critisim common to nearly all forms of scripted code.
Code on the other end of the spectrum lives in a different environment, and comparing the two is just about as difficult as comparing the wages of "the average worker" in two countries on opposite sides of the world.
Although ther article seems to rable on with some nifty bits of data, there's very little analysis. Still it's fun to see how people can bend this new tool to their uses.
Is it any revelation that many easily accessable net games watch their chat channels turn into forums for trash-talk, profanity, or non-game purposes (like pointed questions about age/sex/location, net-dating, cyber-sex, political forums, etc.)? If the author isn't aware of this, it seems that the X-Box is his first foray into the world of online chat. Games chat channels only tend to have a bit more, umm... reference in determining how you will be derided.
Yes it's cool that now it's voice, and I'm sure that many others will be suprised and entrigued by the ongoings which previously was known to a smaller audience. Still, if anyone is suprised that younger gamers have foul mouths, or that veteran vs newbie tensions arise, I'd be flabbergasted.
I would think that after all of the legal (and pseduo-legal) stuff that gets posted and referenced here at./, nearly everyone would realize that in legal circles, "Brief" is a technical term neither describing the length of the document, nor the time it takes to read one.
Or should I just make an analogy to a brief COBOL program?
If you actually go out and buy a racing bicycle (not a Toy-It-Is(TM) *uffy) from a bicycle shop, and ride it say, ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK, you can get these coparable figures.
16 MPH in coasting, with only occasional peddling, and no too hard at that.
20 MPH sustained pedaling, a bit of work, but you CAN do it for 15+ min.
30 MPH peak, short burst only, appx 1 min..
And this is in Houston, where the humidity seldom drops below 90% and tempatures tend to be hot.
Of course, (ra-ta-ta-ta!) you mileage may vary! (rimshot)
Most people go into a bike shop, try a bike or two, and leave with a mountain bike. On my old mountain bike, I could never get it above 16 MPH. There are too many factors slowing you down. The big nobby tires are great for providing a bit of comfy suspension, but they kill you with rolling resistance. The generally heavier frames are built to withstand generally heavier use (like jumping or riding on the rough at speed) and that slows you down too. Those fat cushy seats are great for sitting on top of your bike (as if it were a chair) but are uncomfortable for bending over your bike (which will give you an extra couple of MPH due to less wind resistance).
That said, road bikes (aka racing bikes) also have their weaknesses. The extremely high pressure in the tires (mine are 128 PSI - no typo there!) make flats and blowouts much more common. They tend to cost more than a mountain bike of comparable quality, and although I ride mine on the streets, some streets are rough enough to qualify for offroad terrain.:)
Oh, so we are supposed to feel pity that a giant media conglomerate which has pushed independant artist so far off the scope that they are now considered "fringe elements" has lost their artifical means of sustaning a monopoly by producing other people's content in a form that is not easily distributed, copied, or transfered without degradation in quality.
Damn those pesky technology people. If only they would cooperate with media we could have a world safe from pirating. A world where all content was digitally watermarked by it's coporate owner, where strong encryption hampered any means to use or distribute it without royalty, where media that was not guarded would be automatically destroyed if it slightly resembled copyrighted material (like media containing text, graphics, or video).
Brings to mind those annoying "Please Move Away from the Car" talking car alarms. While attending college some years back, they were first coming into the market.
Now I've never had the inclination to mess with somebody elses car before, but after hearing that on a particularly stressful day, I couldn't resist kicking it's tire.
Funny thing was a number of my classmates saw me, and later told me in class that the alarm was annoying enough that they were thinking of doing something to the car themselves.
I saw "The Hidden Fortress" and thought it was great.
The Criterion Collection has cleaned up the film with a better transfer than currently exists on most reel films of that age.
The REALLY sad thing was that the special fetaures included an interview with George Lucas. I mean, I had just watched the film, and was still reeling from how much of it was ripped into "Star Wars", and although George starts out acknowledging the influence, soon there's George backpedaling and claiming that the films are not really the same film.
If I made one of the most successful films of our generation based on the work of Kurosawa, one of the best directors ever, I would at least be a bit more respectful. Nobody claims that their modern Shakespeare adaption isn't really the same thing as "Much Ado About Nothing" or is a different film altogether.
So media has been promoting and distributing it's goods without the use of technology?
I'm not saying that media is "cutting-edge" but it's not like media has shunned technology.
Look at DVDs, CDs, Television, Ditigal Television, Radio, Internet Radio (Simulcast), Alternative Sound Channels (big in bi-lingual areas), Flat-screen televisions, Portable CD players, Portable Cassette players, MIDI, Eight-Track Cassettes, Vinly Records, Motion picture cameras, 8mm Movie Cameras, 35mm Camera, Photography, Solid-state radios, Vacuum-tube radios, E-books, Online News Centers, API-wire, and Prinitng presses. (I know I've missed many)
Mabye I have a bit broader definition of technology and media, but you can argue that media didn't exist without technology, unless you consider hand-copied manuscripts and books to be the central core of all media.
Slashdot Mirror
I know everybody's in a rush to beat up on SCO for making such an irresponsible statement, but let's face it. We're dealing with a bunch of amatuers.
If you're going to sue someone, keep quiet until that last minute, and WHAM!!! They'll be reeling in shock long enough to give you an edge against them.
SCO wants publicity, so they whine and threaten instead of going straight to the suit. But what kind of company (or CEO for that matter) whines and threatens about something so important (to SCO)?
Their tactics only demonstrate that there is nothing left to save or sell, and soon their own shareholders will get tired of the dog and pony show.
Sounds more like solid state to me.
These cards better have a small range (two feet max) or I don't see how you will manage to perserve the time-honored tradition of the grocery store line.
"Did you swipe your card?"
"Not yet."
"That's funny, because your total has already been paid!"
I've never seen an "after the fact" deterrent stop a crime.
Locks are good deterrents, laws are not. The lock must be properly applied before the crime happens.
Criminals in the US (and elsewhere I'd believe) really don't think that they will be caught. Although crime is a sober serious subject, sometimes this disbelief results in some very funny arrest reports. I know because I get to enjoy them as I watch TV, they make the best "reality" shows I've seen all season.
My first flamebait!
Unfortunately, a few years ago on slashdot posts like mine above were so truthful that few would consider them worthy of modpoints.
Symantec makes good virus protection software. But they have saturated their market. Nearly every PC targeted at the average user is sold with one of their products pre-installed.
Virus software is not sexy, few will rush out to grab the latest release, or even bother with the online updates. Symantec stirs the pot every now and then with a timely reminder that the net is going to h--- in a handbasket. It's not bad for sales, much like the advertisements of burgulars breaking into a house known to contain residents dosen't hurt the sales of home security alarms.
It's not new, in 2 more years we will see the same recommendation about the new "state of emergency" we all face from malicious code.
In 1995 Sun announced that JAVA technology was real and would be incorporated into Netscape Navigator.
The set top box that JAVA came from was developed in 1992. According to the same article you reference, it took 18 months to develop pushing back the birthday into possible 1990. Differences of viewpoint (like these) are the same reason my Univeristy now has had 3 founding dates (each a few years further back in history).
The truth is that JAVA was never really "born", like all technologies it was the result of an idea which took time before it could be useable, and then took more time before it could be marketed.
Details aside, I too believe that the poster was most likely not one of the original 30 developers the article referrs to.
Symantec has a long history of trying (and somtimes succeeding) to create panic in the realm of computer security.
Usually it is accompanied by a round of advertisement telling you how (through the use of their products) you can protect yourself.
I am all for computer security, and no doubt there are many pitfalls yet to come, but staffing enough programmers to instantly respond to what they term a "flash attack" would make Microsoft look like small potatoes. I guess during all of that free time between attacks they can rewrite MSxxx to close those bugs MS can't get around to (in six years or more)
On the other hand, look for rising stock prices as Macromedia sues Semantic for defamation and misuse of their branded media player.
When I took computer ethics the first things that I learned was that the incredible maze of laws and restrictions made things that promoted the public good mostly illegal.
Company A is out of business and company B uses their product but requires fixs the the code which company B somehow has a copy of? Do you fix it? NO! You would be infringing on the debtors of company A! End result company B suffers because the debtors of company A might some day sell off the assets of company A to someone who miracalously could make a profit off of the product (unlike failed company A) and provide the same service you would provide (but compensate the debtors by paying them for the product).
No where in the class did the idea of the greater common good appear, something that I believed was core to ethical behavior. But then again, I've only taken COMPUTER ethics.
When an ethics class has to identify itself differently from a standard ethics class by stating, "No this is COMPUTER ethics", then perhaps there isn't anything ethical about it at all.
Considering the extreme amount of energy required to break the triple bond between the two Nitrogen molecules, it's probably not nitrogen.
If it were, then those DVDs would have enough potential energy to be hazardous, if not a convienent form of fuel.
Please provide one city in the US that hasn't already invested in building an automotive transportation system. Then tell me how I can get there without the use of my car.
A solution that is only applicable in a location that doesn't exist is not a solution.
I live in Houston, home to some of the widest highways I've encountered. There's even a proposal to expand one of our "streets" to 17 lanes (that's 8 each way, with a contra-flow lane in the middle!)
Traffic jams are horrible, freeways crawl to a near stop. And why? because everybody in the five lanes on your side is slowing down since there's an accident in one lane. The other side of the freeway is backing up too. Why? Well, they're scoping out the accident, and (probably unconciously) slowing down as a result. I've even seen it happen for the tiniest of things, like a flat tire.
More lanes provide better flow of traffic under ideal conditions; however, one hiccup and it doesn't seem to matter how many lanes you have.
Racemic mixtures are not decompsed anything. They are mixtures of "mirror-image" molecules. A completely racemized mixture is one with equal numbers of "left" and "right" members. Presence of both will not prevent you from using one or the other.
Look at you set of hands, one is racemic "left" and the other is racemic "right". You have a completely racemized mixture of hands. This does not deny you use of your left hand.
If amino acid procduction is industrial, usually you get (depending on the process) a mixture of the two racimic (D and L) formations that an amino acid can take. They are mirror images of each other.
Why is this important, well on planet Earth, almost all amino acids involed in life are of type L. (Metorites and non-living processes contribute the majority, if not all, of the D racemes discovered today)
Why only L-amino acids? Today we do not "know" with 100% certainty, but the theory is a living system, for whatever reason, started producing L-amino acids, which unbalanced the ratio. Other living systems (or perhaps the same one) which harvestd these L-amino acids survived and thrived in this L-amino acid rich environment while those that required D-amino acids may have never existed or may have died out due to competition.
I have to be so conservative, but the technique that is currently in use is probably much more effective.
When I enter power facilities in Mexico, there are always plenty of friendly guards on the ground and in towers carrying around machine guns. Somehow, I find this to be much more effective than webcams.
Why is there the assumption that if an idea is sufficently bizzare, it has a greater possibility of success?
Most (if not all) of the achievements around us today come from the refinement of previously successful solutions.
Let's take a look at a much simpler system which is already available: camera monitoring against shoplifting.
Camera systems in most stores are intended to prevent shoplifting, but often fail due to lack of human observers to interpert the tape. Even when there are people to observe, these system often lack people to act prior to the departure of the shoplifter (and so shoplifting is still a problem even in monitored stores)
These systems do work well in providing proof that the person was shoplifting, provided that the person was caught (usually by other means)
Assuming that we can teach software to recogonize a shoplifting event, we might be able to put more manpower on catching the shoplifter. But it will always be done "after the fact." To "pre-emptively" catch shady shoppers would be so outrageous that I sudder to think of the consequences.
Eventually, the shoplift catchers will prioritize what they will act on and what they will allow to be taken. Just like police who "only" stop cars traveling 10 or 15 MPH over the speed limit.
When I worked for a univeristy that had such keys, we could never get them replicated. Well, that was until we put a piece of colored tape over the "warning" message and wrote the room number of the key on the tape.
After that, there was never a problem.
Now that innovation!
Mabye this is what they kept talking about during all of those trials.
Well, I can see your point (as I once had it in the past myself) but to have that point you may be missing out on the techniques that (sometimes) favor the class based approach.
You only pay for instantiation (setting up of classes) once, at the time of the class's creation. I have seen many projects fail to keep often used classes around, or worse, design a system that demands the recreation of often used duplicates.
Most of the time this is due to fresh java talent leveraging their accumulated problem solving skills in ways that subtly or overtly casue maintainability or performance issues in Java.
Other times it is for various other pressures on the code (ie. management doesn't care, but wants it out NOW!)
My point is that there may be two markets of web code. That which is suitable for the quick demo, test, one-off, which doesn't need to scale or handle monstrous punishment, and that which is written from the outset with scalability, maintainability, etc... in mind. Rarely will a site fall completely into one of these endpoints of the spectrum, but you get the idea.
Code for a quick knock-off requires a language with a quick return on investment. This is why there are still people using sh/csh/ksh for install scripts, admin routines, etc. Php is not as coarse as these primitive examples, but unless more books talk about scaling PHP and improving code maintainability, PHP will constantly be open to critisim common to nearly all forms of scripted code.
Code on the other end of the spectrum lives in a different environment, and comparing the two is just about as difficult as comparing the wages of "the average worker" in two countries on opposite sides of the world.
Although ther article seems to rable on with some nifty bits of data, there's very little analysis. Still it's fun to see how people can bend this new tool to their uses.
Is it any revelation that many easily accessable net games watch their chat channels turn into forums for trash-talk, profanity, or non-game purposes (like pointed questions about age/sex/location, net-dating, cyber-sex, political forums, etc.)? If the author isn't aware of this, it seems that the X-Box is his first foray into the world of online chat. Games chat channels only tend to have a bit more, umm... reference in determining how you will be derided.
Yes it's cool that now it's voice, and I'm sure that many others will be suprised and entrigued by the ongoings which previously was known to a smaller audience. Still, if anyone is suprised that younger gamers have foul mouths, or that veteran vs newbie tensions arise, I'd be flabbergasted.
I would think that after all of the legal (and pseduo-legal) stuff that gets posted and referenced here at ./, nearly everyone would realize that in legal circles, "Brief" is a technical term neither describing the length of the document, nor the time it takes to read one.
Or should I just make an analogy to a brief COBOL program?
If you actually go out and buy a racing bicycle (not a Toy-It-Is(TM) *uffy) from a bicycle shop, and ride it say, ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK, you can get these coparable figures.
:)
16 MPH in coasting, with only occasional peddling, and no too hard at that.
20 MPH sustained pedaling, a bit of work, but you CAN do it for 15+ min.
30 MPH peak, short burst only, appx 1 min..
And this is in Houston, where the humidity seldom drops below 90% and tempatures tend to be hot.
Of course, (ra-ta-ta-ta!) you mileage may vary! (rimshot)
Most people go into a bike shop, try a bike or two, and leave with a mountain bike. On my old mountain bike, I could never get it above 16 MPH. There are too many factors slowing you down. The big nobby tires are great for providing a bit of comfy suspension, but they kill you with rolling resistance. The generally heavier frames are built to withstand generally heavier use (like jumping or riding on the rough at speed) and that slows you down too. Those fat cushy seats are great for sitting on top of your bike (as if it were a chair) but are uncomfortable for bending over your bike (which will give you an extra couple of MPH due to less wind resistance).
That said, road bikes (aka racing bikes) also have their weaknesses. The extremely high pressure in the tires (mine are 128 PSI - no typo there!) make flats and blowouts much more common. They tend to cost more than a mountain bike of comparable quality, and although I ride mine on the streets, some streets are rough enough to qualify for offroad terrain.
Let's all take a step back, and take a deep breath.
Remember that this is Mozillaquest.
Keep breathing.... KEEP BREATHING!!!
(read some of the past articles if you don't already know, or better yet... don't).
Oh, so we are supposed to feel pity that a giant media conglomerate which has pushed independant artist so far off the scope that they are now considered "fringe elements" has lost their artifical means of sustaning a monopoly by producing other people's content in a form that is not easily distributed, copied, or transfered without degradation in quality.
Damn those pesky technology people. If only they would cooperate with media we could have a world safe from pirating. A world where all content was digitally watermarked by it's coporate owner, where strong encryption hampered any means to use or distribute it without royalty, where media that was not guarded would be automatically destroyed if it slightly resembled copyrighted material (like media containing text, graphics, or video).
Brings to mind those annoying "Please Move Away from the Car" talking car alarms. While attending college some years back, they were first coming into the market.
Now I've never had the inclination to mess with somebody elses car before, but after hearing that on a particularly stressful day, I couldn't resist kicking it's tire.
Funny thing was a number of my classmates saw me, and later told me in class that the alarm was annoying enough that they were thinking of doing something to the car themselves.
I saw "The Hidden Fortress" and thought it was great.
The Criterion Collection has cleaned up the film with a better transfer than currently exists on most reel films of that age.
The REALLY sad thing was that the special fetaures included an interview with George Lucas. I mean, I had just watched the film, and was still reeling from how much of it was ripped into "Star Wars", and although George starts out acknowledging the influence, soon there's George backpedaling and claiming that the films are not really the same film.
If I made one of the most successful films of our generation based on the work of Kurosawa, one of the best directors ever, I would at least be a bit more respectful. Nobody claims that their modern Shakespeare adaption isn't really the same thing as "Much Ado About Nothing" or is a different film altogether.
So media has been promoting and distributing it's goods without the use of technology?
I'm not saying that media is "cutting-edge" but it's not like media has shunned technology.
Look at DVDs, CDs, Television, Ditigal Television, Radio, Internet Radio (Simulcast), Alternative Sound Channels (big in bi-lingual areas), Flat-screen televisions, Portable CD players, Portable Cassette players, MIDI, Eight-Track Cassettes, Vinly Records, Motion picture cameras, 8mm Movie Cameras, 35mm Camera, Photography, Solid-state radios, Vacuum-tube radios, E-books, Online News Centers, API-wire, and Prinitng presses. (I know I've missed many)
Mabye I have a bit broader definition of technology and media, but you can argue that media didn't exist without technology, unless you consider hand-copied manuscripts and books to be the central core of all media.