You are asking me to pity the people who have no broadband, and in my pity, to grant them at least the ability to watch TV. But if we abolished the gov't's gift of the TV spectrum to the networks, that spectrum could go towards things that could benefit those people MORE than the TV currently benefits them.
How is TV good, anyway? Is it really so good as to deserve to be a special case where the gov't gives monopoly power to private interests over a public resource? If its that good, I must be missing that show.
Why does "every single houshold" need anything? I see the advantage of giving everyone access to a phone, but to TV?
Why not have access to (at least one of the following): the Internet; a mail-order video shop; a theater; a museum/art gallery; a library.
All of those are good vehicles for the distribution of art, news, and opinions (or even "shows"). You could make up or invent other distribution chanels. Unlike TV though, they don't block competition; don't subject themselves to gov't censorship; don't eat up a public resource that could be used for soemthing else that would have bigger benefits to the public.
What is TV the answer to? It grants a monopoly to certain companies to control the public airwaves. To what end? They are suppposed to be custodians of this public good, hence TV news, censorship, etc, but what a joke that is! The TV spectrum could better serve the public in other ways that could be open to competition and a wider variety of "content." If you're all hung up on the idea that you wouldn't get your "shows", I think the Inetrnet, as well as video sales, rentals, and give-aways, and other forms of distribution, offer artists and potentially businesses (potentially lucrative) outlets for their expression.
On-air TV "requires" that everyone have a TV.. "Shows" are currently defined by the business plans of the networks (fixed length, ad interruptions, specialized contracts with actors, writers, etc.). Why can't people (or businesses) make "shows" and distribute them however they want? There are many many options for distribution now (sell CDs, p2p over the net, streaming via website, rent VHS tapes, etc.). Why should the (public) TV spectrum be "set aside" for a particular business model that doesn't allow for competition?
p2p distribution of video over the Internet is the future. The airwaves are being wasted on obsolete technology. We should figure out what the TV spectrum would best be used for (wireless Internet? Cell Phones?) and then dismantle the whole shebang. Would this exceed the FCC's authority? Maybe. But it would be smart. The "broadcast flag" was dumb.
I have the opposite impression of PJ: I think she's always been very transparent in her high ethical conduct, which is something I can say for almost no one else who goes where lawsuits and money go. You, however, strike me as someone with a hidden agenda -- anti- Free Software. If that's how you feel, let's hear yourt arguments. I get annoyed by character attacks and insinuations. If I'm misreading you, I'm sorry.
You wrote: "PJ... may even have made a few bucks selling Linux insurance."
But you must've missed it back in Nov when PJ resigned from Open Source Risk Management, which is what you're clearly referring to. You really should read her reasons. It will make you feel very very guilty. That is, if you were honestly misinformed, and not trying to spread nasty rumors.
At any rate, in my mind, PJ's esaay in the link above was an amazingly inspirational act. You'll know what I mean when I say that she's a real role model, not deserving of this kind of smear.
* Level playing field for musical artists -- disincentivize massive investment in ad campaigns, encourage band competition through P2P blogsphere
* Encourage competition in the following fields:
- Attribution.com -- tries to authoritatively attribute chain of creative credit for original/derived work...
- Who can sell "IP" at the lowest price? Can the USA compete with China? 1cent books, anyone?
- What are TRUE value adds when "IP" is (almost) free? e.g., purchased CD comes with concert tickets; $500 purchase buys you a free Bar Mitzva concert...
When the printing pess was invented (before which BTW most people in Europe were illiterate, to say nothing of all the other GREAT THINGS it has given the world), the Christian Monks (who rewrote by hand all that needed to be copied) argued with the pro-press techies:
"How will the Monks make money then?! Answer me that, and I'll entertain your flights of fancy. But first, how, oh how, will the Monks make money?!?"
Looking back and having to do it all over, isn't it absurd to weigh the Monks concerns against the press?
And believe me, the people making the big IP $$ are no monks!
I imagine a time in the not-too-far future, when anyone, anywhere in the world, will have instant access to ANY audio, video, or written thing that has ever been created, INSTANTLY.
But to the owners of massive amounts of Intellectual Property (like movie studios and record companies), the way people get their music, movies, books, etc should remain the status quo, with minor adjustments to further stop copyright infringment from P2P networks, non-DRMed song files, TV signals with no "broadcast flags," etc.
Imagine what it would be like if we access everything... It would change everything in such big ways, to put it mildly. Science, the arts, research, historical knowledge would be capable of permiating our world in a way they are restrained from doing now.
It is this future that much energy is current being spent to stop. Shame on the narrow-minded! Shame on the selfish! Shame on the short-signted!
A not-so-minor correction: the GPL is a license, not a contract. Read anout the implications of that here -- by the way, one of the clearest explanations of the GPL...and no wonder, its' written by Pamela Jones based on interviews with Eben Moglen.
You point to stuff. Your client sees that you might be right. (At this point, several exchanges over a few days or weeks.) They disappear for a while, to discus with their boss. They come back to you, reassuringly telling you that they don't think it's a problem. You object. They act annoyed. The entire project was supposed to be 1 days work for $300... You see what I mean?
I often find myself just doing what the client wants if they insist. Sometimes it's harder to pull out of a project than to just try to mitigate the damage.
From my experience, though, often a web developer's clients push towards unsecure functionality because of cost/time considerations. I've been hired to add functionality to sites' existing shopping carts, for example, and when I've found and reported massive holes (a list of customers, orders, credit cards all accessable from a web page, for one), I've been met with heavy skepicism about the need to fix these holes now.
"How would anyone find that page?"
"Maybe we'll get to that once we add the international shipping feature."
etc. It gets tiring. After a while, you feel unappreciated. I'm not saying that something like this happened here, but at this point, I don't know that it DIDN'T happen...
I modded my xbox with a sodderless chip (Spider), bought a remote control, and installed XB Media Center.
Now I can play all of the movies (almost any format), mp3s, and images (slideshows with Ric Burns effects), all on my TV over my LAN (shared via SMB). All with a SLICK interface.
This is a real killer app. All told, under $200. (I hear that MS sells the Xbox as a loss-leader, profits come from game licensing.)
If you decide to do this too (which I STRONGLY recommend), you'll find literally thousands of others trying to do the hacks as you work your way through it. It's a bit of a pain to get compiled binaries of the software, and you'll wonder just how clandestine an act it all is.
In fact, the whole process has an underground, illegal feel to it. When you show your non-techie friends what you've done, they're strangely unimpressed, seeing the results as completely logical and mundane, not a leap in technology. They'll slightly mock your tales of illegality as well, thinking that you're overstating the case (how could something like this be illegal?).
The Xbox2 will no doubt, have media-playing powers, and it will be easier to set up than the Spider/XBMC. But it will come at the price of not letting you play certain files, and/or not letting you use non MS servers, and/or making you watch various ads...
Steve Ditko co-created Spider-man and other Marvel comics characters. So, of course, did Jack Kirby. My brother was on jury duty with Steve Ditko and, though he hasn't seen his share of the Spider-money, he's in good spirits about it.
Stan the Man was able to play the IP-law game and get some of his share. Others, obviously, can play the IP-law game better than him, and make even more money than him, without creating anything. Still others can't play the game for shit, and are screwed.
If IP was unregulated, some would still try to take advantage of other people's creativity. But there would be much, much wider opportunity for the small geniuses like Ditko (who currently can't make his own Spiderman adventures without draconian deals with the devils), for the barkers like Stan the Man, and for the unwashed masses of amateurs like me. In this case, who'd suffer the most? People like this.
Sell a quiet, stylish set-top computer with TV and stereo out, remote control, and wireless. This could be sort of like the MiniMac with Myth front end or a modded xBox, but this model should have lots of CPU and RAM. Build in DVD writer. Rather than emphasizing the recording TV side (this could be a Firewire add-on), emphasize the ability to easily play any format, however acquired. Quiet, cute external hard-drives could be added and daisy-chained.
Also sell cheap, stylish dumb terminals with bootable network card, and set-top box ready to serve. These could look like the new iMac, nice monitor, nice keyboard, nice mouse, but with low CPU, no HD, little RAM, etc. This way you can get away with charging a lot for the set-top, as much as or more than a good computer: it doubles as your server... just add dumb terminals, up to 10 or 20.
This is the winning combo of 2005. The MiniMac and Xbox2 are light on power, skimpy on playable formats, and not ready to serve as dumb-terminals. They discourage bigger drives, don't burn CDs/DVDs, and don't come with wireless.
"In Europe, he would have been a just lawyer, an original philosopher, a bold psychologist, an influential teacher. In Russia today, he could only be a novelist."
In some alternate universe, suprnova would have been the next indispensable web site, the next Google, the next platform for innovation, the next great leap forward for human knowledge. But in today's world, it's nothing more than hype for some new bullshit adware.
Myth TV and Tivo are all about aquiring media and playing it back later. But I already have aquired quite a bit, and it is sitting on my computer hard drive. Now, I just want to watch it on my TV from the couch. Tivo excells at recording shows off of TV. It is not good at playing my XVID files off my WIFI network. MythTV seems like maybe it could do what I want, but it's WAY overkill -- I'd want to put it on a computer with no DVD drive, no TV card, and with no Myth backend on my network, etc.
* HTTP authentication on the trackers: many BT clients allow you to authenticate through them -- this would block access to the list of sharers and to the files shared, BUT
* How would you know who to trust?
* A single infiltrator could bust up a whole sharing network
* If the web of trust doesn't scale, it's not as good a network as if could be
* The.torrent filename and/or the forum where the torrent is discussed could be a give-away, and lead to investigation
* Torrent files could point to a site like TinyURL, but with authentication needed to access the tracker URL. These sites could spring up ad-hoc
* Then, each member of a group could self-tracker ther own torrents. This could further reduce the liability for a group
* If a rat is found, passwords can be changed
* But, an ad-hock web-of-trust for each torrent seriously limits the potential for a massive number of peers, which is currently one of the best aspects of popular torrents.
But for groups who want to sahre files that aren't that popular but specialized and protected from distribution by copyright statutes -- like say a group of people who want to trade videos of old presidential debates, or of video footage of the 9/11 attacks, or of unreleased Bob Dylan songs, or of comiled translations of Nietzsche (no source of Eng translations of his complete works exist) -- this ad-hoc indirection may work:
* Each member of the group has a Tiny URL website. Torrent files point to this site, but do not redirect unless you enter a password (might require a change in the torrent protocol) -- torrents can be distributed on a single website or anywhere else
* Each torrent has a tracker hosted by a different member of the group
Google became an integral part of the web some years back.
Lately, to me at least, a similar potential became clear with Suprnova (remember when someone posted the link to Jon Stewart on CNN?).
But I fear for both of these web apps,for the same reason Real's attempt to own Internet video was bad, Apple's pitch to own web music is bad, and MS's ongoing attempts to own HTML, etc. are bad.
The ubiquity of MP3s, Bit Torrent, Mozilla, Mplayer and VLC, and Linux in general have held back these bastards as they try to make us always see things from businesses' points of view; as they try to force us to watch ads; as they try to destroy competative organizations, competative ideas, copetative desires; as they grudgingly accept technologies whose powers WE embrace, only to try to twist them into empty shells of thier possibilities.
Google's claim to not be "evil" is a very relative claim -- they don't have flashing banners and pop-ups, but they do have ads, and lots of them; they don't sell fake search results, but they do play ball with China; they have a bottom line, and they will be motivated by that. They will try to destroy the Wikipedia, for example, should that or something else one day prove to be a true threat.
"Senator Kerry and President Bush have held 11 secret meetings in the past 2 weeks, planning their next move. The agenda? More than to destroy the happiness in the world, more than to destroy the health of children, more than to spoil the innocent -- their goal is nothing less than the complete and ttal destruction of EXISTENCE ITSELF... and believe me, they will not rest until their goal is met."
-- Ronald E. Carthright, former senior advisor to John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan
Video of Presidential Debates 1960-1984
on
Don't Read My Lips
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'd like to post this to suprnova but the upload page has timed out for me in the past 2 weeks. Maybe someone can try to put it on suprnova?
I ripped these older Presidential debates from various websites. It was a pain to get them. Dowload the torrent here
or here or here
1960: JFK vs Nixon first TV debate (4 debates, only 1st one in total)
1976: Ford vs Carter (Johnson didn't debate Goldwater in '64, Humphrey didn't debate Nixon in '68, Nixon didn't debate McGovern in '72)
1980: Carter vs Reagan
1984: Reagan vs Mondale
Low quality Real Video files ripped from streamings from the web.
If you have other debates, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, Presidential and/or VP, or higher-quality of the above, PLEASE POST!
Slashdot Mirror
You are asking me to pity the people who have no broadband, and in my pity, to grant them at least the ability to watch TV. But if we abolished the gov't's gift of the TV spectrum to the networks, that spectrum could go towards things that could benefit those people MORE than the TV currently benefits them.
How is TV good, anyway? Is it really so good as to deserve to be a special case where the gov't gives monopoly power to private interests over a public resource? If its that good, I must be missing that show.
Why does "every single houshold" need anything? I see the advantage of giving everyone access to a phone, but to TV?
Why not have access to (at least one of the following): the Internet; a mail-order video shop; a theater; a museum/art gallery; a library.
All of those are good vehicles for the distribution of art, news, and opinions (or even "shows"). You could make up or invent other distribution chanels. Unlike TV though, they don't block competition; don't subject themselves to gov't censorship; don't eat up a public resource that could be used for soemthing else that would have bigger benefits to the public.
What is TV the answer to? It grants a monopoly to certain companies to control the public airwaves. To what end? They are suppposed to be custodians of this public good, hence TV news, censorship, etc, but what a joke that is! The TV spectrum could better serve the public in other ways that could be open to competition and a wider variety of "content." If you're all hung up on the idea that you wouldn't get your "shows", I think the Inetrnet, as well as video sales, rentals, and give-aways, and other forms of distribution, offer artists and potentially businesses (potentially lucrative) outlets for their expression.
On-air TV "requires" that everyone have a TV.. "Shows" are currently defined by the business plans of the networks (fixed length, ad interruptions, specialized contracts with actors, writers, etc.). Why can't people (or businesses) make "shows" and distribute them however they want? There are many many options for distribution now (sell CDs, p2p over the net, streaming via website, rent VHS tapes, etc.). Why should the (public) TV spectrum be "set aside" for a particular business model that doesn't allow for competition?
p2p distribution of video over the Internet is the future. The airwaves are being wasted on obsolete technology. We should figure out what the TV spectrum would best be used for (wireless Internet? Cell Phones?) and then dismantle the whole shebang. Would this exceed the FCC's authority? Maybe. But it would be smart. The "broadcast flag" was dumb.
I have the opposite impression of PJ: I think she's always been very transparent in her high ethical conduct, which is something I can say for almost no one else who goes where lawsuits and money go. You, however, strike me as someone with a hidden agenda -- anti- Free Software. If that's how you feel, let's hear yourt arguments. I get annoyed by character attacks and insinuations. If I'm misreading you, I'm sorry.
You wrote: "PJ ... may even have made a few bucks selling Linux insurance."
But you must've missed it back in Nov when PJ resigned from Open Source Risk Management, which is what you're clearly referring to. You really should read her reasons. It will make you feel very very guilty. That is, if you were honestly misinformed, and not trying to spread nasty rumors.
At any rate, in my mind, PJ's esaay in the link above was an amazingly inspirational act. You'll know what I mean when I say that she's a real role model, not deserving of this kind of smear.
And here Cory Doctorow of the EFF tries to convince Microsoft to create and release their own VLC-like player... A really amazing read.
* Connect 2 iPods with a Firewire chord -- iShare
* IMDB links -- "download now!"
* On-demand TV, for real, any TV show ever made
* Level playing field for musical artists -- disincentivize massive investment in ad campaigns, encourage band competition through P2P blogsphere
* Encourage competition in the following fields:
- Attribution.com -- tries to authoritatively attribute chain of creative credit for original/derived work...
- Who can sell "IP" at the lowest price? Can the USA compete with China? 1cent books, anyone?
- What are TRUE value adds when "IP" is (almost) free? e.g., purchased CD comes with concert tickets; $500 purchase buys you a free Bar Mitzva concert...
etc... More to come...
When the printing pess was invented (before which BTW most people in Europe were illiterate, to say nothing of all the other GREAT THINGS it has given the world), the Christian Monks (who rewrote by hand all that needed to be copied) argued with the pro-press techies:
"How will the Monks make money then?! Answer me that, and I'll entertain your flights of fancy. But first, how, oh how, will the Monks make money?!?"
Looking back and having to do it all over, isn't it absurd to weigh the Monks concerns against the press?
And believe me, the people making the big IP $$ are no monks!
I imagine a time in the not-too-far future, when anyone, anywhere in the world, will have instant access to ANY audio, video, or written thing that has ever been created, INSTANTLY.
But to the owners of massive amounts of Intellectual Property (like movie studios and record companies), the way people get their music, movies, books, etc should remain the status quo, with minor adjustments to further stop copyright infringment from P2P networks, non-DRMed song files, TV signals with no "broadcast flags," etc.
Imagine what it would be like if we access everything... It would change everything in such big ways, to put it mildly. Science, the arts, research, historical knowledge would be capable of permiating our world in a way they are restrained from doing now.
It is this future that much energy is current being spent to stop. Shame on the narrow-minded! Shame on the selfish! Shame on the short-signted!
A not-so-minor correction: the GPL is a license, not a contract. Read anout the implications of that here -- by the way, one of the clearest explanations of the GPL...and no wonder, its' written by Pamela Jones based on interviews with Eben Moglen.
You point to stuff. Your client sees that you might be right. (At this point, several exchanges over a few days or weeks.) They disappear for a while, to discus with their boss. They come back to you, reassuringly telling you that they don't think it's a problem. You object. They act annoyed. The entire project was supposed to be 1 days work for $300... You see what I mean?
I often find myself just doing what the client wants if they insist. Sometimes it's harder to pull out of a project than to just try to mitigate the damage.
From my experience, though, often a web developer's clients push towards unsecure functionality because of cost/time considerations. I've been hired to add functionality to sites' existing shopping carts, for example, and when I've found and reported massive holes (a list of customers, orders, credit cards all accessable from a web page, for one), I've been met with heavy skepicism about the need to fix these holes now.
"How would anyone find that page?"
"Maybe we'll get to that once we add the international shipping feature."
etc. It gets tiring. After a while, you feel unappreciated. I'm not saying that something like this happened here, but at this point, I don't know that it DIDN'T happen...
My 2 cent American.
But the staff of four includes Eben Moglen and Lawrence Lessig. These guys are TOPS. I'm sure they would make fine Supreme Court justices even.
I modded my xbox with a sodderless chip (Spider), bought a remote control, and installed XB Media Center.
Now I can play all of the movies (almost any format), mp3s, and images (slideshows with Ric Burns effects), all on my TV over my LAN (shared via SMB). All with a SLICK interface.
This is a real killer app. All told, under $200. (I hear that MS sells the Xbox as a loss-leader, profits come from game licensing.)
If you decide to do this too (which I STRONGLY recommend), you'll find literally thousands of others trying to do the hacks as you work your way through it. It's a bit of a pain to get compiled binaries of the software, and you'll wonder just how clandestine an act it all is.
In fact, the whole process has an underground, illegal feel to it. When you show your non-techie friends what you've done, they're strangely unimpressed, seeing the results as completely logical and mundane, not a leap in technology. They'll slightly mock your tales of illegality as well, thinking that you're overstating the case (how could something like this be illegal?).
The Xbox2 will no doubt, have media-playing powers, and it will be easier to set up than the Spider/XBMC. But it will come at the price of not letting you play certain files, and/or not letting you use non MS servers, and/or making you watch various ads...
Steve Ditko co-created Spider-man and other Marvel comics characters. So, of course, did Jack Kirby. My brother was on jury duty with Steve Ditko and, though he hasn't seen his share of the Spider-money, he's in good spirits about it.
Stan the Man was able to play the IP-law game and get some of his share. Others, obviously, can play the IP-law game better than him, and make even more money than him, without creating anything. Still others can't play the game for shit, and are screwed.
If IP was unregulated, some would still try to take advantage of other people's creativity. But there would be much, much wider opportunity for the small geniuses like Ditko (who currently can't make his own Spiderman adventures without draconian deals with the devils), for the barkers like Stan the Man, and for the unwashed masses of amateurs like me. In this case, who'd suffer the most? People like this.
Sell a quiet, stylish set-top computer with TV and stereo out, remote control, and wireless. This could be sort of like the MiniMac with Myth front end or a modded xBox, but this model should have lots of CPU and RAM. Build in DVD writer. Rather than emphasizing the recording TV side (this could be a Firewire add-on), emphasize the ability to easily play any format, however acquired. Quiet, cute external hard-drives could be added and daisy-chained.
... just add dumb terminals, up to 10 or 20.
Also sell cheap, stylish dumb terminals with bootable network card, and set-top box ready to serve. These could look like the new iMac, nice monitor, nice keyboard, nice mouse, but with low CPU, no HD, little RAM, etc. This way you can get away with charging a lot for the set-top, as much as or more than a good computer: it doubles as your server
This is the winning combo of 2005. The MiniMac and Xbox2 are light on power, skimpy on playable formats, and not ready to serve as dumb-terminals. They discourage bigger drives, don't burn CDs/DVDs, and don't come with wireless.
"In Europe, he would have been a just lawyer, an original philosopher, a bold psychologist, an influential teacher. In Russia today, he could only be a novelist."
In some alternate universe, suprnova would have been the next indispensable web site, the next Google, the next platform for innovation, the next great leap forward for human knowledge. But in today's world, it's nothing more than hype for some new bullshit adware.
Myth TV and Tivo are all about aquiring media and playing it back later. But I already have aquired quite a bit, and it is sitting on my computer hard drive. Now, I just want to watch it on my TV from the couch. Tivo excells at recording shows off of TV. It is not good at playing my XVID files off my WIFI network. MythTV seems like maybe it could do what I want, but it's WAY overkill -- I'd want to put it on a computer with no DVD drive, no TV card, and with no Myth backend on my network, etc.
How can we share only with people we trust?
.torrent filename and/or the forum where the torrent is discussed could be a give-away, and lead to investigation
* HTTP authentication on the trackers: many BT clients allow you to authenticate through them -- this would block access to the list of sharers and to the files shared, BUT
* How would you know who to trust?
* A single infiltrator could bust up a whole sharing network
* If the web of trust doesn't scale, it's not as good a network as if could be
* The
* Torrent files could point to a site like TinyURL, but with authentication needed to access the tracker URL. These sites could spring up ad-hoc
* Then, each member of a group could self-tracker ther own torrents. This could further reduce the liability for a group
* If a rat is found, passwords can be changed
* But, an ad-hock web-of-trust for each torrent seriously limits the potential for a massive number of peers, which is currently one of the best aspects of popular torrents.
But for groups who want to sahre files that aren't that popular but specialized and protected from distribution by copyright statutes -- like say a group of people who want to trade videos of old presidential debates, or of video footage of the 9/11 attacks, or of unreleased Bob Dylan songs, or of comiled translations of Nietzsche (no source of Eng translations of his complete works exist) -- this ad-hoc indirection may work:
* Each member of the group has a Tiny URL website. Torrent files point to this site, but do not redirect unless you enter a password (might require a change in the torrent protocol) -- torrents can be distributed on a single website or anywhere else
* Each torrent has a tracker hosted by a different member of the group
* Each tracker has HTTP authentication
* Passwords are handed out via key parties
Good idea?
Google became an integral part of the web some years back.
Lately, to me at least, a similar potential became clear with Suprnova (remember when someone posted the link to Jon Stewart on CNN?).
But I fear for both of these web apps,for the same reason Real's attempt to own Internet video was bad, Apple's pitch to own web music is bad, and MS's ongoing attempts to own HTML, etc. are bad.
The ubiquity of MP3s, Bit Torrent, Mozilla, Mplayer and VLC, and Linux in general have held back these bastards as they try to make us always see things from businesses' points of view; as they try to force us to watch ads; as they try to destroy competative organizations, competative ideas, copetative desires; as they grudgingly accept technologies whose powers WE embrace, only to try to twist them into empty shells of thier possibilities.
Google's claim to not be "evil" is a very relative claim -- they don't have flashing banners and pop-ups, but they do have ads, and lots of them; they don't sell fake search results, but they do play ball with China; they have a bottom line, and they will be motivated by that. They will try to destroy the Wikipedia, for example, should that or something else one day prove to be a true threat.
Even worse:
"Senator Kerry and President Bush have held 11 secret meetings in the past 2 weeks, planning their next move. The agenda? More than to destroy the happiness in the world, more than to destroy the health of children, more than to spoil the innocent -- their goal is nothing less than the complete and ttal destruction of EXISTENCE ITSELF... and believe me, they will not rest until their goal is met."
-- Ronald E. Carthright, former senior advisor to John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan
I'd like to post this to suprnova but the upload page has timed out for me in the past 2 weeks. Maybe someone can try to put it on suprnova?
I ripped these older Presidential debates from various websites. It was a pain to get them. Dowload the torrent here or here or here
Low quality Real Video files ripped from streamings from the web.
If you have other debates, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, Presidential and/or VP, or higher-quality of the above, PLEASE POST!