Here I go taking off-topic bait, but I...just...can't...help myself...
I'm stretching my memory back to a couple mass comm law classes that I had to endure, so I'm sure someone can fill in the finer points a little better than I. The restrictions placed on radio and broadcast television are based on the concept of "limited spectrum." In the cases of radio and television, there are only so many stops on the frequency spectrum that are useful for broadcast over the airwaves without interference. In order to be useful, there must only be one radio or television broadcast at a given point on the spectrum in a given geographical region. Do you think the television and radio companies would line up and wait their turn for a place on the spectrum? No, they would set up shop and try to broadcast over their competitors, causing chaos on all frequencies and probably nuking neighborhood children caught in the middle of escalating signal strength wars. So, in order to actually make the spectrum useful and eliminate predatory practices, the spectrum must be regulated. In steps the FCC.
So, now we have a limited number of broadcasters in any given region. We still have competitors lined up and willing to broadcast on these frequencies. So, how do we decide who gets to broadcast? Do we play first come, first serve? Highest bidder? Do we farkle for it? No, we go by content. What content? Content that is in the PUBLIC INTEREST. And here is where the 1st amendment argument breaks down. The 1st amendment is fine for an unlimited spectrum. You are free to set up a newspaper and distribute your views to your heart's content. You can stand on a soapbox and yell your views. The spectrum is limited only by your message, talent, money, abilities, volume of your voice, number of people that walk by, etc. Your voice will be heard in the public forum and examined in the marketplace of ideas and accepted or rejected based on its merits. With a limited spectrum, the standard is the PUBLIC INTEREST. Public airwaves, public interest. See?
So, who decides what is in the public interest? The public of course! Who is the public? You, for one. Reverend Donald Wildmon for another. How do you excercise your voice as a member of the public to determine what is in your best interests? You make your view known to the FCC. Of course, keep in mind that you may be overruled by the vast majority of people who don't find it in the public interest for their children to hear George Carlin's seven dirty words. But, hey, you always have cable. Less limited spectrum, less limited regulation. Tivo George Carlin, and thumb your nose at the FCC.
I'm with you. I spent my summers and weekends working my way through college working for a small contracting business. We did home remodels and other small jobs. So, I finally get my degree and start working only to discover that the construction business was a much more satisfying (if not entirely financially rewarding) line of work.
Now I want to grow up to be a specialty furniture maker and spend my time in my garage.
They'll pay for it the same way movie theaters pay for the films that they show. Through the snackbar. I don't know about you, but when I sit down to work at my computer, I usually grab a coffee or soda. Have you seen the prices of airport coffees and sodas?
I can follow orders like any other "soldier" in the company. But what I hate - really hate - is when I am asked to follow these orders blindly with no explanation. Tell me the Why of things. This will inform my future decisions. It will stop me from bringing the same types of issues to you all the time to await your royal decision. It keeps us from being at each other's throats all the time because we are both completely convinced that the other is a moron. And it is a good way to get your workers on track, thinking about the larger picture, aiming the company at that wonderful new mission statement that we had to learn about in a 2-hour meeting.
Also, it is a good way to start grooming your employees for their own management positions. Start training them for the broader view so that they will, in turn, be able to successfully guide their future employees and their little patch of company battlefield. Unless, of course, you are one of those that is so desparate to cling to your job that you are threatened by your own employees. If that's the case, I'd argue that you don't need to be in the position in the first place.
Hmm. It also looks like the educational version is under ongoing development. At least according to Pitsco. FWIW, on their page selling software they say they are expecting a native OS X version in June 2004.
SharkJumper
Enter a website into its search engine and it will pull up snapshots of the website from several time periods. Looks like they've been getting into some other media, too, since last I looked.
This judge is probably safe working here in Oklahoma. A few months before the national do not call registry was implemented, Oklahoma implemented their own state registry. So, the judge is surrounded by a state full of people that this decision won't affect.
The computer display produces 3D images by sending a slightly different image to the right eye and the left eye at once by bending them in different angles
They'll park for free until you choose a host. However, they also place ads on their parked pages. That didn't bother me since they charge USD 8.95/yr (or less depending on the number of years) for registration.
Exactly. The enforcement policy in my dorms, regardless of the problem, was to tape up the offendor with book-binding tape, and send them down the elevator (we were on the 9th floor). When they finally came back up after a half hour or so, they seemed to have gotten the message. Mind the litigious ones, though.
It's thought that one of the differences between talking on the cell phone and talking to a person in the car is that the person in the car is responding to the same sensory cues as you, as well as responding to sensory cues from you.
So, when you are concentrating on merging onto a 5-lane freeway, your passengers 1) see the impending traffic pile-up, 2) notice the look of concentration on your face, and 3) shut up so you can concentrate on your driving.
The guy on the other end of the cell phone has no such cues and therefore keeps on yapping and distracting you.
Of course, I tend to go against this logic, myself. It does sometimes affect my concentration to be talking with passengers in the car. This is why I will not be getting a cell phone in my car.
Incorporating computers in an English class may give you the opportunity to examine the ways in which technology affects our thought processes and therefore our communication.
One earlier poster said to completely disallow AOLisms. I suppose this means things like LOL or RTFM, etc. I would tend to disagree. Allowing these types of things â" in fact, encouraging them â" gives you a chance to examine them. It's a fact of life that computers are changing the way we communicate and even order our thoughts.
These changes are very recent phenomena but they open up the discussion for other technological changes in the way we communicate. For instance, you could trace the development of different types of "literature" through various technological innovations. It may be difficult to think of oral tradition as a technological innovation (or even literature), but there were very organized methods necessary to transfer a body of knowledge from one generation to the next. When the written word came along, it began to formalize language, providing more structure to our communications and eventually ordering the way we form the thoughts in our head. When the printing press came along, we are suddenly dealing with mass-communication and all of the new rules and structures that come with it.
These are all innovations in the long history of communication and literature, but you can take the computer, a piece of technology for which they've witnessed the development, and use it to point to and compare with these other innovations. Then, choose pieces of literature that illustrate literary concepts from each of these technological ages.
You might check out Orality & Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word by Walter J Ong. You could try Life On The Screen by Sherry Turkle. These point to ways that technology affects communication and culture.
This would make software advertisements look a lot more like prescription drug adverts. A sunny day. Flowers blooming. People smiling. A dog catching a frisbee. A woman jogging. Announcer enthusiastically suggesting, "Ask your doctor if Zeraflax is right for you!"
And, even though I don't have a clue what Zeraflax is, who wouldn't want a prescription for flowers blooming on a sunny day?
If the side effects are that my dog can now catch a frisbee, I'm buying it whether it's software or drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention a movie critic.
SharkJumper
This technology was used extensively in the late 80s by Mr. Subliminal on SNL.
SharkJumper
You're going to need more hands.
Here I go taking off-topic bait, but I...just...can't...help myself...
I'm stretching my memory back to a couple mass comm law classes that I had to endure, so I'm sure someone can fill in the finer points a little better than I. The restrictions placed on radio and broadcast television are based on the concept of "limited spectrum." In the cases of radio and television, there are only so many stops on the frequency spectrum that are useful for broadcast over the airwaves without interference. In order to be useful, there must only be one radio or television broadcast at a given point on the spectrum in a given geographical region. Do you think the television and radio companies would line up and wait their turn for a place on the spectrum? No, they would set up shop and try to broadcast over their competitors, causing chaos on all frequencies and probably nuking neighborhood children caught in the middle of escalating signal strength wars. So, in order to actually make the spectrum useful and eliminate predatory practices, the spectrum must be regulated. In steps the FCC.
So, now we have a limited number of broadcasters in any given region. We still have competitors lined up and willing to broadcast on these frequencies. So, how do we decide who gets to broadcast? Do we play first come, first serve? Highest bidder? Do we farkle for it? No, we go by content. What content? Content that is in the PUBLIC INTEREST. And here is where the 1st amendment argument breaks down. The 1st amendment is fine for an unlimited spectrum. You are free to set up a newspaper and distribute your views to your heart's content. You can stand on a soapbox and yell your views. The spectrum is limited only by your message, talent, money, abilities, volume of your voice, number of people that walk by, etc. Your voice will be heard in the public forum and examined in the marketplace of ideas and accepted or rejected based on its merits. With a limited spectrum, the standard is the PUBLIC INTEREST. Public airwaves, public interest. See?
So, who decides what is in the public interest? The public of course! Who is the public? You, for one. Reverend Donald Wildmon for another. How do you excercise your voice as a member of the public to determine what is in your best interests? You make your view known to the FCC. Of course, keep in mind that you may be overruled by the vast majority of people who don't find it in the public interest for their children to hear George Carlin's seven dirty words. But, hey, you always have cable. Less limited spectrum, less limited regulation. Tivo George Carlin, and thumb your nose at the FCC.
SharkJumper
I'm with you. I spent my summers and weekends working my way through college working for a small contracting business. We did home remodels and other small jobs. So, I finally get my degree and start working only to discover that the construction business was a much more satisfying (if not entirely financially rewarding) line of work.
Now I want to grow up to be a specialty furniture maker and spend my time in my garage.
SharkJumper
Hmm. I'm thinking Dostoevsky, in the Notes from the Underground sense.
SharkJumper
I wouldn't worry about it. The current plan is to throw Neptune in the black hole as an appeasement offering long before it gets to us.
Crap. A perfectly good chance to make a Uranus joke, and I missed it.
It would actually be pretty neat if we could standardize the instructor review systems in a manner similar to amazon's book reviews..
Or like Ebay's buyer/seller reviews, thus giving the teacher a nice opportunity to respond.
Student: Test wasn't shipped on time. Professor never explained my low grade. Don't purchase education from this professor!!!!! FFFFFFFFFF-------!!!
Professor: Student was late to class and never returned emails. Never received payment. Responsibility for education rests on student!!!!!!!
SharkJumper
They'll pay for it the same way movie theaters pay for the films that they show. Through the snackbar. I don't know about you, but when I sit down to work at my computer, I usually grab a coffee or soda. Have you seen the prices of airport coffees and sodas?
SharkJumper
Amen. (couldn't resist)
Why? Why? Why?
I can follow orders like any other "soldier" in the company. But what I hate - really hate - is when I am asked to follow these orders blindly with no explanation. Tell me the Why of things. This will inform my future decisions. It will stop me from bringing the same types of issues to you all the time to await your royal decision. It keeps us from being at each other's throats all the time because we are both completely convinced that the other is a moron. And it is a good way to get your workers on track, thinking about the larger picture, aiming the company at that wonderful new mission statement that we had to learn about in a 2-hour meeting.
Also, it is a good way to start grooming your employees for their own management positions. Start training them for the broader view so that they will, in turn, be able to successfully guide their future employees and their little patch of company battlefield. Unless, of course, you are one of those that is so desparate to cling to your job that you are threatened by your own employees. If that's the case, I'd argue that you don't need to be in the position in the first place.
SharkJumper
Sign up fast!
SharkJumper
Hmm. It also looks like the educational version is under ongoing development. At least according to Pitsco. FWIW, on their page selling software they say they are expecting a native OS X version in June 2004. SharkJumper
FYI and a bit OT:
The Wayback Machine
Enter a website into its search engine and it will pull up snapshots of the website from several time periods. Looks like they've been getting into some other media, too, since last I looked.
SharkJumper
It comes from the same place as those 1500 free hours that you have to use within 60 days.
SharkJumper
I remember that computing was supposed to make our lives paperless. I never had so many stacks of paper sitting around before I got a computer.
SharkJumper
If Fox really DID want to sue for things like this, there would be plenty of evidence to be brought to the stand:
Simpsons swipes at Fox
I wouldn't try to get out of jury duty for that case.
I nominate this guy
SharkJumper
This judge is probably safe working here in Oklahoma. A few months before the national do not call registry was implemented, Oklahoma implemented their own state registry. So, the judge is surrounded by a state full of people that this decision won't affect.
Oklahoma Don't Call Registry
SharkJumper
The computer display produces 3D images by sending a slightly different image to the right eye and the left eye at once by bending them in different angles
AAAH! MY EYES! IT'S BENDING MY EYES!!
I use godaddy.com
They'll park for free until you choose a host. However, they also place ads on their parked pages. That didn't bother me since they charge USD 8.95/yr (or less depending on the number of years) for registration.
This may be evidence, if not proof:
ipoding.com
Exactly. The enforcement policy in my dorms, regardless of the problem, was to tape up the offendor with book-binding tape, and send them down the elevator (we were on the 9th floor). When they finally came back up after a half hour or so, they seemed to have gotten the message. Mind the litigious ones, though.
It's thought that one of the differences between talking on the cell phone and talking to a person in the car is that the person in the car is responding to the same sensory cues as you, as well as responding to sensory cues from you.
So, when you are concentrating on merging onto a 5-lane freeway, your passengers 1) see the impending traffic pile-up, 2) notice the look of concentration on your face, and 3) shut up so you can concentrate on your driving.
The guy on the other end of the cell phone has no such cues and therefore keeps on yapping and distracting you.
Of course, I tend to go against this logic, myself. It does sometimes affect my concentration to be talking with passengers in the car. This is why I will not be getting a cell phone in my car.
SharkJumper
Incorporating computers in an English class may give you the opportunity to examine the ways in which technology affects our thought processes and therefore our communication.
One earlier poster said to completely disallow AOLisms. I suppose this means things like LOL or RTFM, etc. I would tend to disagree. Allowing these types of things â" in fact, encouraging them â" gives you a chance to examine them. It's a fact of life that computers are changing the way we communicate and even order our thoughts.
These changes are very recent phenomena but they open up the discussion for other technological changes in the way we communicate. For instance, you could trace the development of different types of "literature" through various technological innovations. It may be difficult to think of oral tradition as a technological innovation (or even literature), but there were very organized methods necessary to transfer a body of knowledge from one generation to the next. When the written word came along, it began to formalize language, providing more structure to our communications and eventually ordering the way we form the thoughts in our head. When the printing press came along, we are suddenly dealing with mass-communication and all of the new rules and structures that come with it.
These are all innovations in the long history of communication and literature, but you can take the computer, a piece of technology for which they've witnessed the development, and use it to point to and compare with these other innovations. Then, choose pieces of literature that illustrate literary concepts from each of these technological ages.
You might check out Orality & Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word by Walter J Ong. You could try Life On The Screen by Sherry Turkle. These point to ways that technology affects communication and culture.
This would make software advertisements look a lot more like prescription drug adverts. A sunny day. Flowers blooming. People smiling. A dog catching a frisbee. A woman jogging. Announcer enthusiastically suggesting, "Ask your doctor if Zeraflax is right for you!"
And, even though I don't have a clue what Zeraflax is, who wouldn't want a prescription for flowers blooming on a sunny day?
If the side effects are that my dog can now catch a frisbee, I'm buying it whether it's software or drugs.
SharkJumper