You see, what I'm talking about is establishing a minimal responsiblity through the federal government. I think we can all agree what kind of minimum health care every man, woman and child should have in this country. There's nothing saying the government setting the rules on how much something can cost is detrimental or would cause companies to go out of business. The simple fact is, if you want more healthcare than what the government can supply or demand the minimum of, then you buy more.
Capitalism doesn't have to die because you toss a little socialist saftey net to make sure you don't have people suffering needlessly.
And by the way, don't look at it as government dependence, look at it as community dependence. You already depend on your government for certain basics. You MUST have water for example if you plan to live in a home. The local government won't let you live in your home without it. You have to pay your water bill. Fundamentally, why should paying for healthcare be any different? You need them both to live in this world, or you run the risk of wasting away.
It amazes me that we indicate a basic need in our lives (Public Health) and when we talk about how to handle it, we know that corporations won't, churches or social groups can't and when the individual can't, there's nobody left but the community and because the government would have to get involved, you whine and say big brother shouldn't ensure for the sake of all that you can live a safe and healthy life.
So let me put the question back to you - you don't want the government involved? A) How do you propose to solve the problem of minimal health care for all guaranteed and B) Why would you want your neighbor to be sick? Why would you NOT want to get involved and make sure they aren't sick? Surely you realize that if your neighbor is sick it increases your chances that you will become sick as well. Oh wait, you don't want the government to be involved? Oh, well disband the CDC, we don't need you anymore, Bob says it's too much government involvement. So next time ebola makes it's way around you'll just die. It's okay, no big deal right? Oh wait, you think we're talking about the common cold, the flu, bronchitis? Sooner or later even the most trivial sickness left untreated becomes serious. Care for your community, if you don't, you'll regret the result.
I think you've got a great point there. I think what we need to see in America isn't Communism , it's Socialism... How anyone can presume a business has your best interests at heart, and freely gives a business the keys to effect your life at a massive scale (i.e. Healthcare) without better regulation is an incredible insult to human intelligence.
This is Google we're talking about here. They typically find more than one way of delivering the same information. Are you telling me Google won't find a way around their agreement? If they get access to China (which I grant they sort of have already) they can work from within to foster change. Lastly, This is a business. If China intends to shut you out, do an end-run around. Agree without agreeing, and go do what you want to do, while putting on a good face. It's not like Google doesn't have some of the smartest people in the world working for them right now.
Last I heard, Microsoft was ordered by China to give them the source code to Windows...did they ever comply? I seriously doubt it. Regardless they still make money in China. Google can do the same.
...now if only we can get the big-bosses at Google to say... "You know, you're paying too much for Broadband, let's give it to you for free with no graphic ads and no real latency issues and no lies about what we're really going to give you..."
God, I can't wait for that day.
Google, please enter the broadband market! Please!
And then suppose they DID give personal information and were told by the Federal Government that in the name of national security they had to say it was something else?:::head spins:::
I highly recommend that you consider that any event in history is in the public domain. Remember those sci fi stories where the japanese ended up owning Mount Vernon? Or the Jefferson Memorial? Do you feel comfortable knowing that something that happened 70 years ago just isn't yours? That someone is allowing claim to be laid over something so simple as the statistic of Bucky Dent hitting a home run? Or the stats surrounding the Red Sox's 2005 World Series? Those stats aren't yours says baseball, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Personally I say the stats aren't theirs. They freely give those stats away and have for years. Those stats are recorded and reported by fans who watched it, recorded it and in turn gave those scores to newspapers, books and many many other formats for you to enjoy. The public owns these stats. Because someone played the game, because someone provided the stadium and the equipment, because someone provided the dirt on which the game was played does not mean the own the resulting statistics.
If we allow this, we allow someone to own 2+2. And if so, I personally here and now copyright the number five, and baseball can't use it unless they give us the stats and the history that WE own. I seem to remember reading something about the baseball hall of fame, which clearly stated that the game is for the enjoyment of all the fans and the history is ours and ours alone.
Since I last checked, nobody owns history but the public. It's offensive to a sport I love and want to share with my family that you think you own a statistic that's burned into my memory, that is as much of my identity as the baseball cap I wear on my head from time to time or the blue of my eyes. It's an insult to my grandfather who once saw Grover Cleveland Alexander, and my great-grandfather who saw Cy Young pitch.
Don't get me wrong - I hate some of the stories that some of these guys put out, but you know what? Let the community decide. Another suggestion in this discussion had it right. Let Friend/Foes lists decide in a sense, but let's go this route... how about also allowing us to rate the article?
I appreciate that digg.com for example at least has an indicator for what the best and most interesting/useful articles might be, and enable a preference to apply different colors or indicators as an article goes up and down in popularity. That preserves the existing system but enables the community to evade the content if we don't want to support the submitter's "fakery".
"It's the duty and responsibility of the National Archives to preserve both content and context, and to ensure that these e-mails remain accessible for however long the retention schedules call for (which, in the case of executive communication, is not an insignificant length of time)."
It speaks of a study by 1970's graduate student Barbara Bragg about children's attention patterns. It wasn't just about Sesame Street, but the Electric Company as well. I urge you to read this, it's a great place to begin. I will find the original study and provide you a source though. I have it around somewhere.
I will see what I can do to dig references on the original study up. There were some very serious studies along this line and it was seen that small vignettes (I don't know if I'd consider them "commercials") were alot more effective, and anything that could be done to keep the eye moving around the screen to study action was a good thing, so long as there was content of worth to show.
However, I do feel that the Nickelodeon method you see now is a gross perversion of this concept and if I ignored the fact that we're discussing Sesame Street and inserted any kids show from Nick, you'd fall infinitely short of what SS & Childrens Television Workshop were trying to achieve.
Sesame Street in the beginning of the show's history -- used to focus the camera directly on the puppet speaking. Adults and Children alike would drift into a mental state, brainwaves and such that would pick up less of the content, much the same way this study indicates. Sesame Street eventually began to film their characters off to the left or the right of center, and constantly changed viewpoint and moved the camera enough to maintain interest. Is it any wonder why that same lesson needs to be learned again and again, regardless of it being vblogs or some other video presentation?
I am often suprised that the Sesame Street experiments aren't mentioned more often when people talk about Video on the web, and even more suprised when people begin to compromise those lessons learned because they intend to save bandwidth by reducing movement. It comes as no suprise to me that the focus was on a sign (which provided something to read in an active field of view) and the other technology in use around it. The Web is an active and interactive medium that people want to be constantly DOING something with. Multitasking is a requirement in a multimedia environment like that.
What's more is, why expect someone will spend 24 seconds watching the same screen when the audio is there and they can listen instead because the activity isn't crucial to watch? No movement, it's just not that important. Toss a burning building in the background, a few people screaming.. now that you'll watch. Sad but true.
Imagine you're a poor-programmer, who one day might be the next Bill Gates. The only thing standing your way is the ability to experiment and so long as you can do that on your own computer, of your own cobbled together design with your own software all you need is a net connection and you're fine, you're on track.
Enter "Earthlink" (for lack of a better handy name) who decides to embrace Intel, and says, you have put this application on your computer to use our service. If you install anything on your hard drive, or your system that could adversely effect a) our monitoring of your system and b) our beliefs regarding what is stable and what is not, you can use our fantastic DSL for $20 a month. Otherwise, you'll have to go somewhere else.
Now imagine Earthlink just purchases your local phone company, or has an exclusive partnership with them to be the only provider in town who can give you DSL.
Instant need to move, or find a new connection that will be exponetially more expensive (satellite for example) which may demand the same kind of lousy restrictions.
Instantly you turned your future Bill Gates into something else, because near Neo-Bill is unable to participate in the design of new software to the best of his ability. Congradulations unregulated ISP-nutcakes! Shesh.
On the other hand, maybe they just made money. You kill 18,000 accounts and lose 1 mil in subscription fees per month, but if they all come back they pay for the game, buy new cards to play on, etc.
Keep the game purchases up, etc. Looks like they'll make money off of this, not lose it if those people are so addicted they'll come back eh?
Are we really saying here that the fact that we somehow Evolved in 2005 was the achievement of the year? I'm all confused about what happened to our 2004 revolution...
Slashdot Mirror
You see, what I'm talking about is establishing a minimal responsiblity through the federal government. I think we can all agree what kind of minimum health care every man, woman and child should have in this country. There's nothing saying the government setting the rules on how much something can cost is detrimental or would cause companies to go out of business. The simple fact is, if you want more healthcare than what the government can supply or demand the minimum of, then you buy more.
Capitalism doesn't have to die because you toss a little socialist saftey net to make sure you don't have people suffering needlessly.
And by the way, don't look at it as government dependence, look at it as community dependence. You already depend on your government for certain basics. You MUST have water for example if you plan to live in a home. The local government won't let you live in your home without it. You have to pay your water bill. Fundamentally, why should paying for healthcare be any different? You need them both to live in this world, or you run the risk of wasting away.
It amazes me that we indicate a basic need in our lives (Public Health) and when we talk about how to handle it, we know that corporations won't, churches or social groups can't and when the individual can't, there's nobody left but the community and because the government would have to get involved, you whine and say big brother shouldn't ensure for the sake of all that you can live a safe and healthy life.
So let me put the question back to you - you don't want the government involved? A) How do you propose to solve the problem of minimal health care for all guaranteed and B) Why would you want your neighbor to be sick? Why would you NOT want to get involved and make sure they aren't sick? Surely you realize that if your neighbor is sick it increases your chances that you will become sick as well. Oh wait, you don't want the government to be involved? Oh, well disband the CDC, we don't need you anymore, Bob says it's too much government involvement. So next time ebola makes it's way around you'll just die. It's okay, no big deal right? Oh wait, you think we're talking about the common cold, the flu, bronchitis? Sooner or later even the most trivial sickness left untreated becomes serious. Care for your community, if you don't, you'll regret the result.
I think you've got a great point there. I think what we need to see in America isn't Communism , it's Socialism... How anyone can presume a business has your best interests at heart, and freely gives a business the keys to effect your life at a massive scale (i.e. Healthcare) without better regulation is an incredible insult to human intelligence.
This is Google we're talking about here. They typically find more than one way of delivering the same information. Are you telling me Google won't find a way around their agreement? If they get access to China (which I grant they sort of have already) they can work from within to foster change. Lastly, This is a business. If China intends to shut you out, do an end-run around. Agree without agreeing, and go do what you want to do, while putting on a good face.
It's not like Google doesn't have some of the smartest people in the world working for them right now.
Last I heard, Microsoft was ordered by China to give them the source code to Windows...did they ever comply? I seriously doubt it. Regardless they still make money in China. Google can do the same.
...now if only we can get the big-bosses at Google to say... "You know, you're paying too much for Broadband, let's give it to you for free with no graphic ads and no real latency issues and no lies about what we're really going to give you..."
God, I can't wait for that day.
Google, please enter the broadband market! Please!
And then suppose they DID give personal information and were told by the Federal Government that in the name of national security they had to say it was something else? :::head spins:::
I highly recommend that you consider that any event in history is in the public domain. Remember those sci fi stories where the japanese ended up owning Mount Vernon? Or the Jefferson Memorial? Do you feel comfortable knowing that something that happened 70 years ago just isn't yours? That someone is allowing claim to be laid over something so simple as the statistic of Bucky Dent hitting a home run? Or the stats surrounding the Red Sox's 2005 World Series? Those stats aren't yours says baseball, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Personally I say the stats aren't theirs. They freely give those stats away and have for years. Those stats are recorded and reported by fans who watched it, recorded it and in turn gave those scores to newspapers, books and many many other formats for you to enjoy. The public owns these stats. Because someone played the game, because someone provided the stadium and the equipment, because someone provided the dirt on which the game was played does not mean the own the resulting statistics.
If we allow this, we allow someone to own 2+2. And if so, I personally here and now copyright the number five, and baseball can't use it unless they give us the stats and the history that WE own. I seem to remember reading something about the baseball hall of fame, which clearly stated that the game is for the enjoyment of all the fans and the history is ours and ours alone.
Since I last checked, nobody owns history but the public. It's offensive to a sport I love and want to share with my family that you think you own a statistic that's burned into my memory, that is as much of my identity as the baseball cap I wear on my head from time to time or the blue of my eyes.
It's an insult to my grandfather who once saw Grover Cleveland Alexander, and my great-grandfather who saw Cy Young pitch.
What a gas!
No pun intended.
Heck I don't even think this is funny. I can't stand the name MacBook Pro. Bleh.
I think this is absolutely series. What a crappy name.
Then again this is tanamount to blacklisting.
Don't get me wrong - I hate some of the stories that some of these guys put out, but you know what? Let the community decide. Another suggestion in this discussion had it right. Let Friend/Foes lists decide in a sense, but let's go this route... how about also allowing us to rate the article?
I appreciate that digg.com for example at least has an indicator for what the best and most interesting/useful articles might be, and enable a preference to apply different colors or indicators as an article goes up and down in popularity. That preserves the existing system but enables the community to evade the content if we don't want to support the submitter's "fakery".
It's no more worse than "FUSE" as a name for a competitive Music Video Network. How I (or a kid) would connect "FUSE" with music is beyond me.
...and THUS, The Tleilaxu Masters are born unto mankind...
That's the first thing that came to mind, genetic engineering DUNE style.
Let the Tleilaxu religious furvor begin.
We can't just call this a "Nanolens" and get it over with? Nooo... we had to call it a "Superlens"...
Well...not if they actually knocked the moon out of orbit or something (of course that would probably take one hell of a bomb right? :)
Wow. Right out of Space 1999. Thank god they never went through with it.
But if you had a Macintosh... Nevermind.
"It's the duty and responsibility of the National Archives to preserve both content and context, and to ensure that these e-mails remain accessible for however long the retention schedules call for (which, in the case of executive communication, is not an insignificant length of time)."
;D
Yes, but it'll still only fit on a single tape.
Hmmm... His ideas and the idea that you are intrigued by his ideas intrigue me. Perhaps I shall give you both a job offer or invest.
I found something right off the bat that speaks to the same general issues but isn't specifically the study I was referring to. Check this out:
r ticle.cfm?id=1900
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getA
It speaks of a study by 1970's graduate student Barbara Bragg about children's attention patterns. It wasn't just about Sesame Street, but the Electric Company as well. I urge you to read this, it's a great place to begin. I will find the original study and provide you a source though. I have it around somewhere.
Cheers.
-AT
I will see what I can do to dig references on the original study up. There were some very serious studies along this line and it was seen that small vignettes (I don't know if I'd consider them "commercials") were alot more effective, and anything that could be done to keep the eye moving around the screen to study action was a good thing, so long as there was content of worth to show.
However, I do feel that the Nickelodeon method you see now is a gross perversion of this concept and if I ignored the fact that we're discussing Sesame Street and inserted any kids show from Nick, you'd fall infinitely short of what SS & Childrens Television Workshop were trying to achieve.
Sesame Street in the beginning of the show's history -- used to focus the camera directly on the puppet speaking. Adults and Children alike would drift into a mental state, brainwaves and such that would pick up less of the content, much the same way this study indicates. Sesame Street eventually began to film their characters off to the left or the right of center, and constantly changed viewpoint and moved the camera enough to maintain interest. Is it any wonder why that same lesson needs to be learned again and again, regardless of it being vblogs or some other video presentation?
I am often suprised that the Sesame Street experiments aren't mentioned more often when people talk about Video on the web, and even more suprised when people begin to compromise those lessons learned because they intend to save bandwidth by reducing movement. It comes as no suprise to me that the focus was on a sign (which provided something to read in an active field of view) and the other technology in use around it. The Web is an active and interactive medium that people want to be constantly DOING something with. Multitasking is a requirement in a multimedia environment like that.
What's more is, why expect someone will spend 24 seconds watching the same screen when the audio is there and they can listen instead because the activity isn't crucial to watch? No movement, it's just not that important. Toss a burning building in the background, a few people screaming.. now that you'll watch. Sad but true.
Oh hey RIAA do you want to tie your own noose or should we just let Australia do it for you?
That is going to suck big-time.
Imagine you're a poor-programmer, who one day might be the next Bill Gates. The only thing standing your way is the ability to experiment and so long as you can do that on your own computer, of your own cobbled together design with your own software all you need is a net connection and you're fine, you're on track.
Enter "Earthlink" (for lack of a better handy name) who decides to embrace Intel, and says, you have put this application on your computer to use our service. If you install anything on your hard drive, or your system that could adversely effect a) our monitoring of your system and b) our beliefs regarding what is stable and what is not, you can use our fantastic DSL for $20 a month. Otherwise, you'll have to go somewhere else.
Now imagine Earthlink just purchases your local phone company, or has an exclusive partnership with them to be the only provider in town who can give you DSL.
Instant need to move, or find a new connection that will be exponetially more expensive (satellite for example) which may demand the same kind of lousy restrictions.
Instantly you turned your future Bill Gates into something else, because near Neo-Bill is unable to participate in the design of new software to the best of his ability. Congradulations unregulated ISP-nutcakes! Shesh.
::::Wipewipewipewipe::::
Sorry, I sneezed on the receiver, take the picture of the galaxy again and tell me what you see in comparison....
On the other hand, maybe they just made money. You kill 18,000 accounts and lose 1 mil in subscription fees per month, but if they all come back they pay for the game, buy new cards to play on, etc.
Keep the game purchases up, etc. Looks like they'll make money off of this, not lose it if those people are so addicted they'll come back eh?
Are we really saying here that the fact that we somehow Evolved in 2005 was the achievement of the year? I'm all confused about what happened to our 2004 revolution...