How about we bash this for being a bad generalization of a poorly operationalized study?
TFA is BBC, not the science report, but it is clear that the study has some huge flaws. First, they tie kids up for one week to an accelerometer and measure their activity for that week. This has two fundamental issues: research participants change their behavior when asked to wear obvious monitors, and the one week time frame is not large enough of a sample to really see how activity is pursued.
Measuring a weeks activity and saying that exercise doesn't do anything is like exercising for two days and saying you aren't loosing weight. I know it is supposed to rest on ideals of statistical randomness, but this is a quasi-experiment with human subjects who are aware of the study. The researchers need to consider other ways to increase validity.
Speaking of validity, the use of the accelerometer to measure calories burned is a far stretch as well - any motion is considered exercise. So, fidgeting back and forth in front of your PS3 is the same as running a mile. All motion does not burn the same calories, and all motion is not exercise.
This is a sad example of policy makers reading journalists and trying to understand science. Ugh.
Have you read Card? Or Hienlien? OR Crichton closely?
Almost all science fiction is really political and sociological story telling with a veneer of gadgets and aliens that allow the author to use well-crafted hyperbolic reality to avoid the ham-fisted arguments in a political text.
Not saying you aren't right in being annoyed by the politicking of Scifi authors, but it is a pretty long-standing tradition
Nothing in your argument supports your conclusion. There is no substantiated need for a national ID - terrorists? They were from another country. Do all visiting non-citizens need a national ID? How do you work that? The spectre of security is the selling point for national ID's, and it is just a play on fear that will ultimately be used in ways that disadvantage individuals in favor of corporations and governments.
Buying security at the cost of freedom is a false proposition. At best you can rent security, and it sucks when both the freedom and the security is gone.
With modern tech it could cost astronomically, but it is simple to imagine some sort of RFID/wimax enabled ship on the card to simply track who travels where, when.
It could easily be argued for the sake of state taxes - Maryland (Virginia,Rhode Island,etc.) wants to make sure you pay the appropriate tax on the gas you burn/money you make/things you buy/packets you download in or across their state. It is just the government trying to be as efficient as possible.
I really only trust a highly inefficient government to be able to take care of people. Not sure what that says about my politics, but I have to say, I am a big fan of governmental ineptitude.
If the company does react that way, then he is better off not working for them.
I know I may come across casual and naive, but years of experience working in and with companies has told me that if they are screwing you at day 0, then every day from that point forward will be misery. In a way, your cynicism is well placed - something is wrong here. But to roll over and present your genitalia without stating something just screws you in the long run. Better to have a clear contract upfront and know where the lines are, instead of having some bureaucrat use their discretion.
The thing is, there are people and places that are fully above-board. Even in corporate America. Even corporations. The problem is when people use their psychological contracts instead of real contracts. Business is business,and you should never expect more than a written contract asserts. If all you have is someone's word, you don't have anything. If their word is truly good, they won't have a problem writing it down.
Because the tasering was easily seen as racist - it was an Iranian-American who was tasered. We whites have less to worry about, but abuse of power is like a weed - it spreads to the pretty places soon enough.
Think of it this way - the US will have people moving from the coasts, inland. Coastal areas are high-income and high-rent. What this means is that the affluent should start caring about global warming. NYC is in deep trouble (pun intended) if water levels raise 5 feet.
I just did a search for "John Stewart" on Google video...
~320 videos, mostly from the daily show. so what I don't get is if Conedy Central is cracking down, why on youtube, but not the company that owns youtube.
Incidentally, google video has copywritten stuff on it, so that is not what made you tybe successful. I think the easy embedding made you tube the winner in the online video market.
If you RTFA, the researcher did a content analysis process that has been used for decades to ascertain the amount of coverage on 'issues v image' where issues are defined as those topics that are on a partiy's or candidate's platform. The definition of substance is right there in TFA.
The problem is that social scientests efine things in TFA that they publish, and journalists try to make them look intereting when they are bounded conversations about specific variables. However, in this case,The Daily Show covered less marketing adn more real news. Go them!
P.S. Wish I could use my mod points to skew this discussion..
I would too, but I want to join in.
I am a student at NC State, working on a doctorate in Adult Learning. I don't kow this guy, but what he is doing is crap. 'extra time to prepare?' 'my intellectual property?' 'why free music download a myth and a lie?' (all quotes from TFA) This guy comes across as selfish and an agenda pusher. The time is only extra if he sees his job as talking in front of a room, rather than helping students learn. His slides are his IP, sure, but the ideas he present sin class - a sophomore level Communications class - are a bunch of other people's thoeries. What if they charged him for the right to teach the stuff? From TFA, he feels burned by people using his materials to teach elsewher. If a powerpoint presentation took him that much intellectual energy and time, he may want to reconsider being an academic. Nice push of FUD, coming from a professor no less, about the cost of digital products.
This guy has a skewed version of what education is. He is a great example of the 'little empereor' syndrome where faculty think they rule the world because they can make 18-24 year olds jump throgh hoops in order to get a degree.
You have some good points, but I want to point out that I am an American citizen, and the idea that the sentiment in this thread is anti-american Euro-crap is ridiculous. I agree with most of the posts attacking the assertions that we PREFER 2 week vacations over more vacation time and I am a US citizen. I don't think this is about america sucking, but about the fact that american corporate culture does take advantage of individuals, and the government tends to make things easier for corporations to do that.
Your point about afording to travel outside the country is very relevant. Even moreso when one considers that to travel from Kansas to New York City one crosses as much space as it would take to cross at least six diferent nations in Europe. Our geography makes international travel more difficult, which means that fewer people do it.
YOu prefer two weeks vacation? The last time I worked for someone else - 2001 - I had 4 weeks vacation and I took every damn minute of it.
I'm sorry, again. we prefer 2 weeks vacation?? How do you think this is preference and not that companies offer a choice between two weeks vacation or no job? It's not a cultural preference. It's corporations mistreating thier people.
But Eco-Challenge does have to do with the subject. Burnett was the producer for the televised event, and I believe managed the overall event as well. The GP was harkening back to mark burnett days when competition was about physical skill and strategy, not economic cunning and general ass-baggery.
1. think "category killer" (ie Wal-Mart, Target, Dick's Sporting, Starbucks)
2. think "xbox 360 + HD tv" (ie Microsoft)
3. think "convenience of sitting at home and playing great looking massively multiplayer games": (ie couch potato)
4. think "out of business in 6 months"
I do strategy consulting, and although your cautions later in this post are worthwile, the comments at teh beginning are just fud. First, the cafe is a service business, not retail, and that puts a heavier premium on the customer experience. With that in mind, category breakers are not as deadly because expereinces work best when they are cutomized or localized. Lots of good advice has come from this discussion on making an environemtn that works for your area. I would take a look at Pine and Gilmore's The experience economy for ideas about creating customer experiences. It can give some insight into the process and logic of it.
As for the doom of out-of-house entertainment, we are still going to movies and live shows. There is a draw to being in a shared place. Even basement-dwelling MMORP-ers like to intereact with real humans face to face. Figure out how to make an environment that is appealing to heavy gamers as well as casual players and you can get your loyal clientelle. Heck, that loyal clientelle can be part of the draw for other gamers.
The best advice for any new business is be cofident in your actions, but do your homework first. Know your operating costs and startup costs. Like the parent said, know your break even point, know necessary number of player-hours you need, know your metrics intensely. And keep good records - not just financials, but keep records on what games are getting played, when you are busy, how much income comes from what demographics. Knowin what is happenign in your business in the first year makes decision making in hard times much easier.
I fully expect a new color level to be released in September. Red won't be scary eough by then. Maybe threat level black 'you are either a terrorist or dead (or both) right now'. Or threat level brown 'everyone is shitting thier pants around here'
JOn Stewart is, IMO, an excelletn interviewer. He does a great job with people he agrees with and people he doesn't. He asks for people to help him understand and in many cases his interviews with those who are politically conservative are more poignant than funny. He is not afraid to challenge them, but he does not attack.
Of course, the segment pieces are designed to take people's words out of context and make them look stupid - I am prety sure that Stewart himself has said he can't believe people still take interviews with them.
Colbert's most amazing piece of work is that he got Congressmen and women to do interviews and those are sometimes very ridiculous. I can't imagine he will get to finish his 'better know a distric' segment.
Colbert is a satire-in-action of Bill O'Reilly. The character he plays on his show is ridiculous, outlandish and inclined to malapropisms and statements that are complimentary but actually comedic jabs.
Colbert is actually very funy not in what he says, but the fact that he has created this outlandish character. I don't think that he really thought that his wikipedia piece would have an impact - however, his core audience seems to like to feel part o the joke, and react the way the mindless and/or soulless O'Reilly-bots respond when he tries to usehis powers.
If Colbert is an ass, its because he is modelling his source material well.
All that happened is that people were forced to relenquish almost all thier personal property and subjected to strenuous search. Granted its in the UK, but the Fifth Amendment in the US does talk about the cictzens right to not be deprived of property IANAL, but being only allowed to travel under condition of relenquishing almost all possesions into protective custody feels like an arguable top to a slipery slope.
The issue that is upsetting about this is that the strongest argument I have heard so far is that the goverments are acting in order to be percieved as responsive. I have yet to find a rational argument for enacting measures to prevent an attack that we have already thwarted. I hear people say "better safe than sorry", but I really think that Safe and Sorry are not as dichotimous as many believe. It's not a matter of either drinking breast milk and packing in plastic baggies OR getting blown up. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities that can occur and I am frustrated about how the government and media reacts as if the only possibility is death if we do not give into every security endeavor of the US gov't
The big mistake you are making here is believing the media companies in thier false assertion (enforced with technology) that music or movies are different in different places in the world.
Just because there may be no law about exporting - which allofmp3.com asserts they are within the law - does not mean that it is illegal or unethical. The US has no law against the import of music, Russia has no law against export, so the transit is within the law.
The issue with allofp3.com is not the same as torrents, it is a bigger issue: how do we have soveriegn nations with diffefent laws coexist on the web without balkanizing the internet? Philosophers predictied teh end of hte nation-state with the advent of the internet, and what we are seeing is either that or the demise of our happy, open, universal internet
Alright. I'm fed up with copyright advocates saying that there would be 'less material produced' if there was no copyright. Bull. there would be less corporate-planned and marketed, low-entertainment/high revenue crap, yes. But art would not suffer froma lack of copyright. Artists do not create in order to get more revenue. Artists create because of an internal drive.
one of the biggest lies told to us by the RIAA et al. is that artists and media companies are the same. Its a horrible lie. Media companies exploit artists, and then they try to take audiences and make them consumers. The idea that those that listen or watch are consuming media is as fundamentally flawed as the idea that artists are primarily motivated to make a buck
I realize that artists do enjoy making money, and that people are willing to pay a fair rate for the convenience of accessing art. But the big issue I have with all the xIAA bullshit is that ity is an attempt to make art a business. Art doesn't need to be a business, and when art is managed with economic concerns as the first concern, then art suffers, and diminishes.
Art would be fine with no copyright. IT would be differnet, and not overwhelmed by poor coprorate philosophies.
Have you been reading the issues people have brought up here? Identity theft is too easy when your 'credit card' is something you leave on EVERYTHING YOU TOUCH. It's not about privacy and the government - its about privacy and companies, financial security and thieves. What happens once your id is stolen here? You need to get new fingerprints?
It amazes me how people think that because it doesn't currently overlap with government databases, we should have no worries about its abuse and misapplication.
You should worry beacuse point number 1 and 3 are unable to occur. (Unable in the 'free market' that will exist)
First, your connection will suffer because not everyone will pay the extortion. So you may want ot go to the website for your aunt becuase the family reunion is coming up. Oh No! its taking 3 minutes to open the page (I guess you could go to the Johnson family reunion page, they payed the extortion fee and are easier to access. Free Market family Reunions!!)
Second, when, when, when did companies ever eat a cost they couldn't pass on to thier customers? This process would be the bullet-to-the-heart for free website access and applications. Youtube would be $1 for crappy videos of kids lip-synching, google would be $.25 per search, blogs would charge monthly subscriptions. The companies would have to do it, in order to not go under. Stakeholders would have a fit if companies just ate thier cost like that.
So, the problem is that the vision you put forward is the telco's lie that consumers will not be hit, but rather a utopia of access, speed and content will rain down upon us for the colluded prices they see fit.
Slashdot Mirror
How about we bash this for being a bad generalization of a poorly operationalized study?
TFA is BBC, not the science report, but it is clear that the study has some huge flaws. First, they tie kids up for one week to an accelerometer and measure their activity for that week. This has two fundamental issues: research participants change their behavior when asked to wear obvious monitors, and the one week time frame is not large enough of a sample to really see how activity is pursued.
Measuring a weeks activity and saying that exercise doesn't do anything is like exercising for two days and saying you aren't loosing weight. I know it is supposed to rest on ideals of statistical randomness, but this is a quasi-experiment with human subjects who are aware of the study. The researchers need to consider other ways to increase validity.
Speaking of validity, the use of the accelerometer to measure calories burned is a far stretch as well - any motion is considered exercise. So, fidgeting back and forth in front of your PS3 is the same as running a mile. All motion does not burn the same calories, and all motion is not exercise.
This is a sad example of policy makers reading journalists and trying to understand science. Ugh.
Have you read Card? Or Hienlien? OR Crichton closely?
Almost all science fiction is really political and sociological story telling with a veneer of gadgets and aliens that allow the author to use well-crafted hyperbolic reality to avoid the ham-fisted arguments in a political text.
Not saying you aren't right in being annoyed by the politicking of Scifi authors, but it is a pretty long-standing tradition
Nothing in your argument supports your conclusion. There is no substantiated need for a national ID - terrorists? They were from another country. Do all visiting non-citizens need a national ID? How do you work that? The spectre of security is the selling point for national ID's, and it is just a play on fear that will ultimately be used in ways that disadvantage individuals in favor of corporations and governments.
Buying security at the cost of freedom is a false proposition. At best you can rent security, and it sucks when both the freedom and the security is gone.
With modern tech it could cost astronomically, but it is simple to imagine some sort of RFID/wimax enabled ship on the card to simply track who travels where, when.
It could easily be argued for the sake of state taxes - Maryland (Virginia,Rhode Island,etc.) wants to make sure you pay the appropriate tax on the gas you burn/money you make/things you buy/packets you download in or across their state. It is just the government trying to be as efficient as possible.
I really only trust a highly inefficient government to be able to take care of people. Not sure what that says about my politics, but I have to say, I am a big fan of governmental ineptitude.
If the company does react that way, then he is better off not working for them.
I know I may come across casual and naive, but years of experience working in and with companies has told me that if they are screwing you at day 0, then every day from that point forward will be misery. In a way, your cynicism is well placed - something is wrong here. But to roll over and present your genitalia without stating something just screws you in the long run. Better to have a clear contract upfront and know where the lines are, instead of having some bureaucrat use their discretion.
The thing is, there are people and places that are fully above-board. Even in corporate America. Even corporations. The problem is when people use their psychological contracts instead of real contracts. Business is business,and you should never expect more than a written contract asserts. If all you have is someone's word, you don't have anything. If their word is truly good, they won't have a problem writing it down.
x60 pen does have an eraser.
Because the tasering was easily seen as racist - it was an Iranian-American who was tasered. We whites have less to worry about, but abuse of power is like a weed - it spreads to the pretty places soon enough.
And the English teachers smiled because he spelled the word 'lite' correctly.
Think of it this way - the US will have people moving from the coasts, inland. Coastal areas are high-income and high-rent. What this means is that the affluent should start caring about global warming. NYC is in deep trouble (pun intended) if water levels raise 5 feet.
I just did a search for "John Stewart" on Google video...
~320 videos, mostly from the daily show. so what I don't get is if Conedy Central is cracking down, why on youtube, but not the company that owns youtube.
Incidentally, google video has copywritten stuff on it, so that is not what made you tybe successful. I think the easy embedding made you tube the winner in the online video market.
If you RTFA, the researcher did a content analysis process that has been used for decades to ascertain the amount of coverage on 'issues v image' where issues are defined as those topics that are on a partiy's or candidate's platform. The definition of substance is right there in TFA.
The problem is that social scientests efine things in TFA that they publish, and journalists try to make them look intereting when they are bounded conversations about specific variables. However, in this case,The Daily Show covered less marketing adn more real news. Go them!
P.S. Wish I could use my mod points to skew this discussion..
I would too, but I want to join in.
I am a student at NC State, working on a doctorate in Adult Learning. I don't kow this guy, but what he is doing is crap. 'extra time to prepare?' 'my intellectual property?' 'why free music download a myth and a lie?' (all quotes from TFA) This guy comes across as selfish and an agenda pusher.
The time is only extra if he sees his job as talking in front of a room, rather than helping students learn.
His slides are his IP, sure, but the ideas he present sin class - a sophomore level Communications class - are a bunch of other people's thoeries. What if they charged him for the right to teach the stuff? From TFA, he feels burned by people using his materials to teach elsewher. If a powerpoint presentation took him that much intellectual energy and time, he may want to reconsider being an academic.
Nice push of FUD, coming from a professor no less, about the cost of digital products.
This guy has a skewed version of what education is. He is a great example of the 'little empereor' syndrome where faculty think they rule the world because they can make 18-24 year olds jump throgh hoops in order to get a degree.
You have some good points, but I want to point out that I am an American citizen, and the idea that the sentiment in this thread is anti-american Euro-crap is ridiculous. I agree with most of the posts attacking the assertions that we PREFER 2 week vacations over more vacation time and I am a US citizen. I don't think this is about america sucking, but about the fact that american corporate culture does take advantage of individuals, and the government tends to make things easier for corporations to do that.
Your point about afording to travel outside the country is very relevant. Even moreso when one considers that to travel from Kansas to New York City one crosses as much space as it would take to cross at least six diferent nations in Europe. Our geography makes international travel more difficult, which means that fewer people do it.
YOu prefer two weeks vacation? The last time I worked for someone else - 2001 - I had 4 weeks vacation and I took every damn minute of it.
I'm sorry, again. we prefer 2 weeks vacation?? How do you think this is preference and not that companies offer a choice between two weeks vacation or no job? It's not a cultural preference. It's corporations mistreating thier people.
But Eco-Challenge does have to do with the subject. Burnett was the producer for the televised event, and I believe managed the overall event as well. The GP was harkening back to mark burnett days when competition was about physical skill and strategy, not economic cunning and general ass-baggery.
1. think "category killer" (ie Wal-Mart, Target, Dick's Sporting, Starbucks) 2. think "xbox 360 + HD tv" (ie Microsoft) 3. think "convenience of sitting at home and playing great looking massively multiplayer games": (ie couch potato) 4. think "out of business in 6 months"
I do strategy consulting, and although your cautions later in this post are worthwile, the comments at teh beginning are just fud. First, the cafe is a service business, not retail, and that puts a heavier premium on the customer experience. With that in mind, category breakers are not as deadly because expereinces work best when they are cutomized or localized. Lots of good advice has come from this discussion on making an environemtn that works for your area. I would take a look at Pine and Gilmore's The experience economy for ideas about creating customer experiences. It can give some insight into the process and logic of it.
As for the doom of out-of-house entertainment, we are still going to movies and live shows. There is a draw to being in a shared place. Even basement-dwelling MMORP-ers like to intereact with real humans face to face. Figure out how to make an environment that is appealing to heavy gamers as well as casual players and you can get your loyal clientelle. Heck, that loyal clientelle can be part of the draw for other gamers.
The best advice for any new business is be cofident in your actions, but do your homework first. Know your operating costs and startup costs. Like the parent said, know your break even point, know necessary number of player-hours you need, know your metrics intensely. And keep good records - not just financials, but keep records on what games are getting played, when you are busy, how much income comes from what demographics. Knowin what is happenign in your business in the first year makes decision making in hard times much easier.
I fully expect a new color level to be released in September. Red won't be scary eough by then. Maybe threat level black 'you are either a terrorist or dead (or both) right now'. Or threat level brown 'everyone is shitting thier pants around here'
JOn Stewart is, IMO, an excelletn interviewer. He does a great job with people he agrees with and people he doesn't. He asks for people to help him understand and in many cases his interviews with those who are politically conservative are more poignant than funny. He is not afraid to challenge them, but he does not attack.
Of course, the segment pieces are designed to take people's words out of context and make them look stupid - I am prety sure that Stewart himself has said he can't believe people still take interviews with them.
Colbert's most amazing piece of work is that he got Congressmen and women to do interviews and those are sometimes very ridiculous. I can't imagine he will get to finish his 'better know a distric' segment.
Colbert is a satire-in-action of Bill O'Reilly. The character he plays on his show is ridiculous, outlandish and inclined to malapropisms and statements that are complimentary but actually comedic jabs.
Colbert is actually very funy not in what he says, but the fact that he has created this outlandish character. I don't think that he really thought that his wikipedia piece would have an impact - however, his core audience seems to like to feel part o the joke, and react the way the mindless and/or soulless O'Reilly-bots respond when he tries to usehis powers.
If Colbert is an ass, its because he is modelling his source material well.
All that happened is that people were forced to relenquish almost all thier personal property and subjected to strenuous search. Granted its in the UK, but the Fifth Amendment in the US does talk about the cictzens right to not be deprived of property IANAL, but being only allowed to travel under condition of relenquishing almost all possesions into protective custody feels like an arguable top to a slipery slope.
The issue that is upsetting about this is that the strongest argument I have heard so far is that the goverments are acting in order to be percieved as responsive. I have yet to find a rational argument for enacting measures to prevent an attack that we have already thwarted. I hear people say "better safe than sorry", but I really think that Safe and Sorry are not as dichotimous as many believe. It's not a matter of either drinking breast milk and packing in plastic baggies OR getting blown up. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities that can occur and I am frustrated about how the government and media reacts as if the only possibility is death if we do not give into every security endeavor of the US gov't
The big mistake you are making here is believing the media companies in thier false assertion (enforced with technology) that music or movies are different in different places in the world.
Just because there may be no law about exporting - which allofmp3.com asserts they are within the law - does not mean that it is illegal or unethical. The US has no law against the import of music, Russia has no law against export, so the transit is within the law.
The issue with allofp3.com is not the same as torrents, it is a bigger issue: how do we have soveriegn nations with diffefent laws coexist on the web without balkanizing the internet? Philosophers predictied teh end of hte nation-state with the advent of the internet, and what we are seeing is either that or the demise of our happy, open, universal internet
Alright. I'm fed up with copyright advocates saying that there would be 'less material produced' if there was no copyright. Bull. there would be less corporate-planned and marketed, low-entertainment/high revenue crap, yes. But art would not suffer froma lack of copyright. Artists do not create in order to get more revenue. Artists create because of an internal drive.
one of the biggest lies told to us by the RIAA et al. is that artists and media companies are the same. Its a horrible lie. Media companies exploit artists, and then they try to take audiences and make them consumers. The idea that those that listen or watch are consuming media is as fundamentally flawed as the idea that artists are primarily motivated to make a buck
I realize that artists do enjoy making money, and that people are willing to pay a fair rate for the convenience of accessing art. But the big issue I have with all the xIAA bullshit is that ity is an attempt to make art a business. Art doesn't need to be a business, and when art is managed with economic concerns as the first concern, then art suffers, and diminishes.
Art would be fine with no copyright. IT would be differnet, and not overwhelmed by poor coprorate philosophies.
But the number of close friends dropped 30% - from "about three to two"(from TFA). We all lost almost one whole friend due to the internet !!!
Have you been reading the issues people have brought up here? Identity theft is too easy when your 'credit card' is something you leave on EVERYTHING YOU TOUCH. It's not about privacy and the government - its about privacy and companies, financial security and thieves. What happens once your id is stolen here? You need to get new fingerprints?
It amazes me how people think that because it doesn't currently overlap with government databases, we should have no worries about its abuse and misapplication.
You should worry beacuse point number 1 and 3 are unable to occur. (Unable in the 'free market' that will exist) First, your connection will suffer because not everyone will pay the extortion. So you may want ot go to the website for your aunt becuase the family reunion is coming up. Oh No! its taking 3 minutes to open the page (I guess you could go to the Johnson family reunion page, they payed the extortion fee and are easier to access. Free Market family Reunions!!) Second, when, when, when did companies ever eat a cost they couldn't pass on to thier customers? This process would be the bullet-to-the-heart for free website access and applications. Youtube would be $1 for crappy videos of kids lip-synching, google would be $.25 per search, blogs would charge monthly subscriptions. The companies would have to do it, in order to not go under. Stakeholders would have a fit if companies just ate thier cost like that. So, the problem is that the vision you put forward is the telco's lie that consumers will not be hit, but rather a utopia of access, speed and content will rain down upon us for the colluded prices they see fit.