Yes, there are still a lot of things we're still waiting for. However (and I submitted this story so I may be biased), the congress and senate have their own YouTube channels. While this is by no means complete and some of these videos sound more like extended campaigns than real decision making, it's a start. YouTube has been around a long time and it's appalling to me that governments haven't been using it as a tool of transparency... instead others blatantly censor it. To me, if this is a sign of things to come, I have some faith that we are moving in the correct direction.
Lawyers for the House of Commons argue that using videos of elected representatives without permission constitutes copyright infringement and a contempt of Parliament.
You know, you have to hand it to lawyers... just when I think they are enforcing copyright on everything possible, they go and surprise the hell out of me.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.
Any reasonable person listening to NPR would recognize the built in ideological slant to NPR.
Well, call me unreasonable then because I recognize little if any slant. And I know you will say that's proof of my political leanings but I don't think it is. I listen to NPR because the rest of radio is complete and utter trash. I don't want to listen to a naked girl rub her boobs on the host on air. I'd rather listen to Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me or Sound Money... shows I can't see any liberal bias you speak of. You know in Minnesota, they have at least three different MPR stations that play music. Classical music and independent rock. Commercial free. You're also arguing against that when you argue against public radio.
One listener to NOR said it best in a letter read on the air: "Gays, Aids, and Abortion". You are guaranteed to hear at least one story on one of these subjects every freaking day.
I don't know what NOR is but I'll assume you meant NPR. I grew up listening to A Prairie Home Companion and don't recall any of those topics. I don't know what "Gays, Aids and Abortion" has to do with being liberal, they are all issues that should be addressed by anyone regardless of their political affiliation. They are current topics. Have you heard their coverage of the war in Iraq? I've found that to be very unbiased.
Throw in a story about how wonderful (insert liberal politician here) is and how evil (Insert conservative politician here) is and then add some snooty, witty, and amusing story about some obscure idiot and there you have an NPR broadcast.
You have never listened to NPR. Do you know that a lot of the affiliates switch over to BBC World News late at night? Do you find that to have a horribly liberal bias?
NPR should have their government funds cut off. Let George Soros buy it.
Do you know how much money you pay to NPR? Probably a few cents a month--if that. I don't think they would really care if they lost government funding, probably just push their pledge drive out another day. They get so little from the government and so much from listeners that would like to see any kind of news source free without ads, available everywhere in the country. Think about it, people hand money to them... they don't have to charge like Murdoch wants to.
They may present more liberal topics than conservative topics but at least they don't use verbage that tries to tell me how to think about them (a la Fox News).
I would bet that if you took a citizen from another part of the world and made them listen to NPR they would see it as pretty damn neutral.
How the parent post got moderated insightful, I'll never know.
It's difficult to keep one's head when all about one people are losing theirs, but let us have a go. First of all, some historical perspective might help. When broadcast radio arrived in the US in the 1920s, nobody could figure out a business model for it. How could one generate revenue from something that could be listened to by anyone for free? Dozens of companies were founded to exploit the new medium, and most of them folded. The problem was solved by a detergent manufacturer named Procter & Gamble, which came up with the idea of sponsoring dramatic serials: the soap opera â" and the mass market â" was born.
What you're overlooking is that newspapers have enjoyed revenues for quite sometime. Granted, they've risen and fallen, they are used to this steady income. Radio wasn't used to this income. Models like brand name advertising and recognition ensured its success. Newspapers have made money off of controlling the distribution channels of a similar model with great results, now they are staring down the barrel of a distribution model that they cannot control. They aren't used to this and they certainly aren't handling it well.
What radio saw was a controlled explosion in which they ramped up and expanded across everywhere. That's an easy thing to do because it's positive. What newspapers across the country should be doing is cutting unnecessary jobs, refactoring salaries. Being a columnist is not going to be glamorous any more. The irony is that you're going to be more widely read but be paid less. That might make a lot of people want to quit and find other work... who could blame them?
This restructuring must happen or you will die. Marketing and endorsements have been the only card you have played (Murdoch's micro charging is proof he's out of ideas) for the past decade as the internet has exploded. The recession is making this more obvious now than it was last year. You had your chance to invent the new way, now you must act or reduce your work force.
The moral is simple: eventually someone will figure out a business model that works for online news. But it may take some time, and lots of outfits will fall by the wayside in the meantime. That's capitalism for you.
You are wrong. There is an end state where no one figures out a way for the model to work. Newspapers go the way of the buffalo just like drive in theaters. You have done yourself and your kind a great disservice by theorizing this false safety net and are only further lulling them into inaction and unemployment. I am not in your business but I see it from the outside and as a customer, use this advice.
Software Engineer: I sure am kind of on the fence about Windows 8, it's too quick and responsive... I can't put my finger on it... Systems Engineer: Not enough bloat? Maybe you just miss Windows 7? Software Engineer: No, it's not that... it has the quality of that one before Windows 7... Systems Engineer: Windows XP? Software Engineer: No, there was something that happened briefly in between those two that Windows 8 feels like... Systems Engineer: I don't know what you're talking about, we need to get back to work, here are all your requirements. Software Engineer: Vivid? Vivace? Something foreign sounding... Systems Engineer: No, you idiot, shut up! Don't you remember the... Software Engineer: VISTA! *men with guns in black clothing with Gartner symbols sewn into them storm from the Gartner door near the servers and slip bags over the two engineers' heads and drag them towards the exits; they are never heard from again*
You're only supposed to use the ??? when the next step isn't obvious. Since 'Buy off legislatures to support your failing business model' has been their tactic for years, it's not a very secret step.
Actually, step three was going to be "Sacrifice Month-Old Baby Bunnies on an Altar to Baal" but there seems to be a limit on the length of the subjects for these comments...
Why? Because people 'feel entitled' to have what they want when they want it, and if they can't get it for free, 'they'll steal it.'
*A panting Michael Lynton enters his boardroom with Sony's Chairmembers* Michael Lynton: *gasping for breath* I'm sorry I'm late. But I was just down in the store and I had to confiscate this. Chairman One: Is that... is that a Blu-Ray copy of Spiderman? Michael Lynton: Yes, I had to confiscate it from a "customer"... it had it in its hand as it was leaving the store. Chairman One: The customer stole it? We have the finest security in place... Michael Lynton: No, far worse than that. The customer held up the product and said to me, 'Hey, Mr. Lynton, it's bullshit I have to pay $30 for this after paying $15 to see it in the theater.' At which point I realized that it intended to give this away through the internet to all of his friends. *pauses for seriousness* Michael Lynton: Then I tackled him and I just saved us one trillion dollars in lost profits. Chairman Two: Mr. Lynton, we might have a problem if that person paid for this copy of Spiderman. Michael Lynton: No, you don't understand, he had a shirt indicating he used the internet. If that isn't a red flag, I don't know what is. All of them are criminals just looking at us with their beady little eyes trying to figure out how to steal from us. Chairman Three: Sir, are you feeling alright? Michael Lynton: I'm feeling great, I just saved us money. You know, I saw someone on the street the other day and they were fat and pasty white and I knew then that they used the internet. So I drove them down with my car. Chairman Four: That was you on Channel Nine News last night... Michael Lynton: Oh please, grow up, this is business and business means war. Now, I think that if we act quickly we can hit the customer with viruses in the rootkit no one's found on our Blu-Ray media. The time is upon us to put an end to the customer once and for all, people. Think of your children! Wait a second, why do you all look confuse? Oh my god, you're all them... you're all cu... customers! How could I have been so blind? No wonder we are losing this war! SECURITY!
'I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet, period.'
Well then I trust you personally don't use it at all.
It's become customary to expect a somewhat limited perspective on things from old-world entertainment companies.
Relax, he's just one voice of a thousand at Sony.
Is this when we all give up hope that companies like Sony Pictures can adapt?
Frankly, I've got enough problems of my own to be concerned with their problems. It is and has been for quite sometime an adapt-or-die scenario for these guys. If they haven't figured it out, you won't see me shaking my fist up at the sky screaming "WHY!? Why couldn't you take me instead of Sony Pictures!?"
This guy should talk to his own people more often--Sony's CEO and chairman Howard Stringer said in a recent interview:
Customers will refuse to accept it unless the technology is open. Youth in particular really dislikes closed technologies, closed systems and the like. I think the failure of AOL LLC of the US is good evidence of this. When the Internet was just beginning to spread, AOL boosted its subscriber base by providing special services only to its customers. After a while, though, customers began rebelling, complaining that they weren't children. Because AOL wanted to keep them locked up in a narrow portion of the immense Internet cosmos, open technology was created. Sony hasn't taken open technology very seriously in the past. Its CONNECT music download service was a failure. It was based on OpenMG, a proprietary digital rights management (DRM) technology. At the time, we thought we would make more money that way than with open technology, because we could manage the customers and their downloads. This approach, however, created a problem: customers couldn't download music from any Websites except those that contracted with Sony. If we had gone with open technology from the start, I think we probably would have beaten Apple Inc of the US.
Instead of that kind of level headed talk we get to hear from Mr. All-My-Customers-Are-Criminals.
Ride that ship to the bottom of the sea, Michael Lynton.
I seem to recall MDY Industries taking pre-emptive legal action against Blizzard. It doesn't work as well as you might think.
Um, I'm not a lawyer and the only information I have on this topic are these two issues but I would wager that FTD is suing the BREIN over ideas right now, not money.
What's the difference? Well, if they wait for BREIN to sue them for one hundred million billion gajillion Euros, they have to now put their ideals up against that... not to say their ideals aren't sound but I am saying that the common populace and judge may not agree with them. So we have this sort of testing the waters lawsuit over some simple take down demands and if it turns out the court agrees then let BREIN try to sue them; the five golden points (or 2/5 or whatever the court agreed with) have been upheld by the court and everyone's hand is being shown. No risk of money involved.
Depending on how important/inflammable this document is, I might look into buying a cheap 20GB laptop hard drive, installing ubuntu, going to a star bucks, doing the above and then "disposing" of the drive and all media so that there are no questions.
You could probably sell the hard drive on eBay, make a few bucks. I wouldn't worry about scrubbing it tho. Nobody checks those things.
Well, I have several problems with that. One is that it is uncharacteristic of me to sell something on ebay. Especially hardware like that. This could be easily seen as odd behavior leading them to the drive. The other is that it's probably becoming common to check drives for interesting stuff when you buy them on eBay. The other is that I don't care about the money a 20GB drive would net me if I'm dealing with the law.
No, I am afraid my course of action would be to vigorously scrub the drive, take the drive apart and spot weld the platters together to make a set of ugly ass coasters with magnets attached as feet to the coaster. I would keep the set in plain view in my living room. Then one day when a guest inquired about them I could say, "Funny story..."
Assuming you & your friend are aware or desire that once this hits the internet it is forever online for all to see, you have friends across the pond. Yes, this is foreign hosting.
Assuming the document is small, you could install Xerobank (formerly TorPark) and create an account on Wikileaks and upload it to Wikileaks through the Tor onion router. Your anonymity would be assured in a hilariously sound manner.
Your website need do nothing more than link to Wikileaks and ponder how it got there.
That would be my plan of action. I would also be careful with all the machines/devices used to transfer that file.
Depending on how important/inflammable this document is, I might look into buying a cheap 20GB laptop hard drive, installing ubuntu, going to a star bucks, doing the above and then "disposing" of the drive and all media so that there are no questions. Sorry to sound like Harvey Keitel on Pulp Fiction but... when you're dealing with serious stuff...
My question is: would you host it if you were asked? How would you go about protecting the document and yourself?
It depends on who is asking me. There are maybe 5 or 6 people in my life that if they approached me with this request and said it was serious and said it had to be me hosting it, I would do it no questions ask. I would not read the document, I would stop them from explaining to me what is the document, I would do it and give them the link. I would then go directly to my lawyer and have a small chat with him. Then I would grab a glass of Chivas Regal and put on a record and take the battery out of my cell phone and relax.
Sorry buddy, Colom is not a dictator. He was elected. I'm also pretty sure UN watchgroups monitored the election.
Sorry buddy, once you authorize the murder of an innocent person opposing you, you aren't elected anymore. You're a dictator... even worse you're a murderer. Pretty sure the UN would back me on that.
Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?
Um. Can you list an example of how this case is like another? In which the "censorship" (although, I think you and others are misusing that word) was demanded?
So you are saying you don't know of anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children from porn and swear words and terrorists?
I'm a bit confused, I seem to encounter these people daily in real life and the news. And that's just in the United States! Around the world, people are passively letting their government take this role.
If we gave our government the right to censor our internet then it would be no surprise to see any other country follow suit. If the Guatemalan government had the legal right to control their content on the internet, well, I think you can see how this story might have been different. Restrict your people's ability to upload videos without them passing censorship!
I see this as a brilliant example why the internet must remain a horrible offensive waste of time instead of a government regulated squeaky clean educatin' machine. But I'm sure I'm part of the minority because people don't realize how powerful it is. It just saved Guatemala from being led by a murderer. Think about that.
Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?
Pre-Internet: President Alvaro Colom: They passed out a tape at his funeral? Quick get me a list of everyone at the funeral, I want them all in custody and tortured until we have every single one of those tapes! Gustavo Alejos: Yes, sir... well, there is one more thing... they may have mailed a copy to the United States or a press outlet here. President Alvaro Colom: Ahahahh, Gustavo, so naive. I suppose I'll have to make a phone call to the director of our postal system. He'll be quite cooperative with a little bonus this year... paid for by the people, of course!
Post-Internet: President Alvaro Colom: They passed out a tape at his funeral? Quick get me a list of everyone at the funeral, I want them all in custody and tortured until we have every single one of those tapes! Gustavo Alejos: Yeah... see... about that. Um, they kind of put it on the internet. President Alvaro Colom: The internet? Gustavo Alejos: Yeah... President Alvaro Colom: Very well, torture them until they take it down! Gustavo Alejos: Uh, it's on YouTube. Everyone's seen it. President Alvaro Colom: So... we... need to... torture everyone? *Gustavo Alejos shakes his head back and forth* Gustavo Alejos: No, I think the order you are looking for right now is 'Prepare my escape helicopter and fake passport for Colombia.' The noise outside right now with the thousands of people yelling for your death is bad. President Alvaro Colom: What did I do wrong, I was only trying to live up to Oscar Humberto Mejia's legacy!
How can you argue against something that makes it more difficult for asshat dictators to remain in power?
Hollywood has certainly taken a shine to Dick's work: Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly, Impostor, Screamers and Next have all been based on his short stories or novels.
Don't forget Paycheck and Confessions d'un Barjo ("Confessions of a Crap Artist"). As a longtime Dick fan it humors me to see his works start to explode into movies post-2000. Adding to the truth that an artist is never appreciated until he/she is dead.
The same producer (John Alan Simon) that made the purchase of "Flow My Tears" also purchased the rights to "VALIS" & "Radio Free Albemuth." These last two books are strangely related to The Man in the High Castle (kinda sequel-ish) and he may be thinking of merging the two stories into one movie?
It's also worth mentioning that "Time Out of Joint" rights have been purchased by Warner Bros.
Unfortunately for me, these movies are not really my cup of tea. Total Recall was pretty good when I was 12... never going to rewatch that again though. I didn't even find Blade Runner that great and honestly haven't bothered to watch Minority Report, Next or Paycheck. I got Scanner Darkly but just because it was more independent than the others. I just have an opposite opinion from the get-all-excited-it's-gonna-be-great folks I guess.
BMI and ASCAP have been thugs for a long time, threatening bar and club owners for licensing agreements for offering live music. For this reason, AS220 in Providence no longer allows musicians to perform any cover songs!
Um, your link brings me to a photography blog. It does have a word doc that starts out with:
NO COVERS:
AS220 has a STRICT ORIGINAL MUSIC ONLY policy! NO COVERS!
As of Nov 1, 2004 AS220 is boycotting BMI, ASCAP and SESACâ(TM)s Blanket License Policies. This means that NO music registered to any of these organizations may be performed or played on the premises. This applies to any sampled material as well.
Honestly, as a performer, I've been pleased with ASCAP. How I understand it is that a bar or establishment pays a modest price (like ~$500 a year?) and all artists can play covers without fear of legal recourse. Sounds like a great deal to me. Doesn't sound very thuggish, does it?
Your favorite bar doesn't think so. Good for them. Heck, even better for originals only bands. Too bad for bands like mine that like to work in Don't Let Me Down by The Beatles every now and then but it's not a deal breaker.
But you know what? That "stereotype" effectively describes 4 out my 5 last girlfriends, my mother, all my aunts, and a solid majority of female friends I've had over the years.
And that fifth girlfriend it didn't describe? And the solid minority that don't want that label? The 10% or whatever that have been trying to shake that which society has tried to force on them because it suits everyone else's needs?
And had your mom and aunts had the option to not follow the norm and do what they wanted to and not have to play with Barbie dolls would they be like that today? You know, like you're not popular if you don't have Barbie's accessories mentality?
I say kernel of truth be damned. I'm not your stereotypical geek and I would be sickened if I was marketed to as such.
'Della's marketing strategy sounds like it's advertising a purse. There's a level of consumer sophistication they're missing.'
If you add the level of sophistication, you might be perceived as thinking men are incapable of it. While it's socially ok to think of men as the lesser stupider sex today, I don't think that solves the problem.
If I may impart my engineer's point of view on this topic, don't divide your customers on controversial lines. The fact that you made it any different shopping as a man or woman is going to cause the public to pick apart each site with the finest toothed comb and set to you like dogs. Because it's an old battle and women have very real memories of the glass ceiling and at least some form of repression.
You aren't making an Ebonics themed site for African Americans and you aren't making a talk-over-your-head snooty themed site for Caucasian Americans. Why? Because it's a sensitive issue. Any subtle difference will cause you to catch hell. Why, I'm going to get torn apart for the adjectives I used above because I'm sure some words have baggage meaning they're slightly better or worse than others.
Are you going to make different purchase sites for Hindus, Jews, Moslems and Christians? Nope. Say it with me now: because it's a sensitive issue.
Are you going to make a homosexual themed site so that homosexuals can be distinguished between buyers that are heterosexual. Again, see above.
There's a list that goes on and on... frankly, I'm a customer. I expect to be treated the same as another customer unless I have chosen to be treated differently. And if I chose to be treated differently, you better be careful or you'll lose me as a customer. You want to make a Trek themed site to target Trek fans? Fine, but don't you dare pay for images of Scott Bakula or the deal's off.
Don't Think Pink -- What Really Makes Women Buy
Thank god a woman wrote that. If it was a man, I'm sure there would have been a march on Washington.
Why do you even start this up again? Are you really running out of marketing ideas that the only thing left is controversy? Haven't we learned our lesson time and time again?
Here's an idea if you want a marketing gimmick: pick non-sensitive topics. When a popular super hero movie comes out, make good guy versus bad guy themes and always allow the customer to go to the regular site? Or make generic themes that have no conflict at the center?
And it's got unlimited space. Strangely enough, some people are adamant about keeping their works out of this library. And I say they have the right to insure the internet forgets about them when they die. This poor soul seems to understand what's going on.
With a grand total of 311,673 gamerpoints, Xbox Live User Stallion83 has won more in-game achievements than any other player. Indeed, he's earned the full 1000 gamerpoints for no less than 204 of the 437 games he's played on his Xbox 360, a Herculean accomplishment of time, effort and, in a great many cases, skill. And yet, as the URL of his website, www.1milliongamerscore.com makes perfectly clear, Stallion83's quest for numerical glory is not even halfway done.
People love recognition. And you're making this published online? Finally, something you can look at at the end of a day spent gaming and feel some sort of achievement (no matter how small).
Hats off to you, Stallion83. I somehow envy and pity you at the same time.
Hell, I myself am guilty of this on the very site we are communicating on (reminds me, need to go moderate to keep that running total).
Brilliant move on Microsoft's part (can I say that here?). Certainly not original but ingenious to add an additional level of addiction.
I'm not sure what I was doing wrong earlier today but I just got home, did the same exact thing I was doing earlier today the search results are different. I don't know if this has to do with Google's outage or what but I seriously Googled for five minutes shortly after five o'clock looking for his book's site and could not find it. Heck, I couldn't even find the illegal copies he was talking about.
Regardless, I am never 'trolling' or intend to troll. I stand by all my other statements and still find nothing about this book when I search for his name on Morgan Kaufmann's search site! For the love of god, how can you expect Google to get it right if your publisher can't? Here are the only search returns his last name (not even the search string or book title) gave on that link:
Peter C. Wayner The Power of Candy-Coated Bits.
Peter C. Wayner Technology for Anonymity: Names by other Nyms.
Peter C. Wayner Money Laundering: Past, Present and Future.
Peter C. Wayner Content-Addressable Search Engines and DES-like Systems.
Daniel P. Huttenlocher, Peter C. Wayner Finding convex edge groupings in an image.
Mr. Wayner, I am profusely sorry I do not understand your business but suspect that may be a problem inherent to it. You should really get a new publisher for that book if you can and if not, be more careful with you who you allow to publish your works that you depend on for income a decade after they are published! I would like you to know that I do not gain any more money than what I get when I initially sell my code... and you don't see me on Slashdot asking uninformed people like myself how I can make that produce fruit until 75 years after I die.
Aside from that, I still stand by all my prior statements!
And lastly, for the record, I have violated no copyright law since college! Not for five years!
(1) get another job, (2) sue people, or (3) invent some magic spell?
directly to understanding:
I don't think that people are out to screw me personally.
The temptation to save a few dollars by grabbing a free copy of the textbook is very understandable to me.
?
I think there's just something plain broken about the search engine results.
Ok, I was going to see if you have metadata tags for search engines but.... I can't find your book on your publishers site even. When I search for it nothing matching your description comes up. How can you expect Google and Yahoo! to index your pages when your publisher can't? I'm not attacking you but I just spent five minutes trying to find your book by going to your publisher and going to Amazon but since you're not the main author, I'm having a really really hard time!
If you got sent to Catholic school you automatically got a better education than you would have in public screwal.
I don't think your lawsuit would go anywhere.
I didn't know what "holocaust" meant until I was a Freshmen in a public high school. I had never heard of the Spanish conquistadors in the new world from the point of view of a Native American. I didn't know what Hindu or Buddhist meant and the worst part was I didn't wanna. The list goes on.
Oh yeah, my math was top notch... aside from that I was a righteous asshole with the moral high ground in everything. It took me several years to unlearn a lot of things and to learn a whole lot more after kindergarten through eighth grade. Take it from someone who's been on both sides: acceptance, tolerance and culture are goddamn important.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.
I can assure you that Obama is not following that. Just look at the copyright treaty that is classified do to "national security" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10195547-38.html
Yes, there are still a lot of things we're still waiting for. However (and I submitted this story so I may be biased), the congress and senate have their own YouTube channels. While this is by no means complete and some of these videos sound more like extended campaigns than real decision making, it's a start. YouTube has been around a long time and it's appalling to me that governments haven't been using it as a tool of transparency ... instead others blatantly censor it. To me, if this is a sign of things to come, I have some faith that we are moving in the correct direction.
Lawyers for the House of Commons argue that using videos of elected representatives without permission constitutes copyright infringement and a contempt of Parliament.
You know, you have to hand it to lawyers ... just when I think they are enforcing copyright on everything possible, they go and surprise the hell out of me.
Finally, news where I can actually stand up proudly and say take a page from the United States on this one, Canada:
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.
Any reasonable person listening to NPR would recognize the built in ideological slant to NPR.
Well, call me unreasonable then because I recognize little if any slant. And I know you will say that's proof of my political leanings but I don't think it is. I listen to NPR because the rest of radio is complete and utter trash. I don't want to listen to a naked girl rub her boobs on the host on air. I'd rather listen to Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me or Sound Money ... shows I can't see any liberal bias you speak of. You know in Minnesota, they have at least three different MPR stations that play music. Classical music and independent rock. Commercial free. You're also arguing against that when you argue against public radio.
One listener to NOR said it best in a letter read on the air: "Gays, Aids, and Abortion". You are guaranteed to hear at least one story on one of these subjects every freaking day.
I don't know what NOR is but I'll assume you meant NPR. I grew up listening to A Prairie Home Companion and don't recall any of those topics. I don't know what "Gays, Aids and Abortion" has to do with being liberal, they are all issues that should be addressed by anyone regardless of their political affiliation. They are current topics. Have you heard their coverage of the war in Iraq? I've found that to be very unbiased.
Throw in a story about how wonderful (insert liberal politician here) is and how evil (Insert conservative politician here) is and then add some snooty, witty, and amusing story about some obscure idiot and there you have an NPR broadcast.
You have never listened to NPR. Do you know that a lot of the affiliates switch over to BBC World News late at night? Do you find that to have a horribly liberal bias?
NPR should have their government funds cut off. Let George Soros buy it.
Do you know how much money you pay to NPR? Probably a few cents a month--if that. I don't think they would really care if they lost government funding, probably just push their pledge drive out another day. They get so little from the government and so much from listeners that would like to see any kind of news source free without ads, available everywhere in the country. Think about it, people hand money to them ... they don't have to charge like Murdoch wants to.
They may present more liberal topics than conservative topics but at least they don't use verbage that tries to tell me how to think about them (a la Fox News).
I would bet that if you took a citizen from another part of the world and made them listen to NPR they would see it as pretty damn neutral.
How the parent post got moderated insightful, I'll never know.
It's difficult to keep one's head when all about one people are losing theirs, but let us have a go. First of all, some historical perspective might help. When broadcast radio arrived in the US in the 1920s, nobody could figure out a business model for it. How could one generate revenue from something that could be listened to by anyone for free? Dozens of companies were founded to exploit the new medium, and most of them folded. The problem was solved by a detergent manufacturer named Procter & Gamble, which came up with the idea of sponsoring dramatic serials: the soap opera â" and the mass market â" was born.
What you're overlooking is that newspapers have enjoyed revenues for quite sometime. Granted, they've risen and fallen, they are used to this steady income. Radio wasn't used to this income. Models like brand name advertising and recognition ensured its success. Newspapers have made money off of controlling the distribution channels of a similar model with great results, now they are staring down the barrel of a distribution model that they cannot control. They aren't used to this and they certainly aren't handling it well.
... who could blame them?
What radio saw was a controlled explosion in which they ramped up and expanded across everywhere. That's an easy thing to do because it's positive. What newspapers across the country should be doing is cutting unnecessary jobs, refactoring salaries. Being a columnist is not going to be glamorous any more. The irony is that you're going to be more widely read but be paid less. That might make a lot of people want to quit and find other work
This restructuring must happen or you will die. Marketing and endorsements have been the only card you have played (Murdoch's micro charging is proof he's out of ideas) for the past decade as the internet has exploded. The recession is making this more obvious now than it was last year. You had your chance to invent the new way, now you must act or reduce your work force.
The moral is simple: eventually someone will figure out a business model that works for online news. But it may take some time, and lots of outfits will fall by the wayside in the meantime. That's capitalism for you.
You are wrong. There is an end state where no one figures out a way for the model to work. Newspapers go the way of the buffalo just like drive in theaters. You have done yourself and your kind a great disservice by theorizing this false safety net and are only further lulling them into inaction and unemployment. I am not in your business but I see it from the outside and as a customer, use this advice.
Software Engineer: I sure am kind of on the fence about Windows 8, it's too quick and responsive ... I can't put my finger on it ... ... it has the quality of that one before Windows 7 ... ... ... ...
Systems Engineer: Not enough bloat? Maybe you just miss Windows 7?
Software Engineer: No, it's not that
Systems Engineer: Windows XP?
Software Engineer: No, there was something that happened briefly in between those two that Windows 8 feels like
Systems Engineer: I don't know what you're talking about, we need to get back to work, here are all your requirements.
Software Engineer: Vivid? Vivace? Something foreign sounding
Systems Engineer: No, you idiot, shut up! Don't you remember the
Software Engineer: VISTA!
*men with guns in black clothing with Gartner symbols sewn into them storm from the Gartner door near the servers and slip bags over the two engineers' heads and drag them towards the exits; they are never heard from again*
You're only supposed to use the ??? when the next step isn't obvious. Since 'Buy off legislatures to support your failing business model' has been their tactic for years, it's not a very secret step.
Actually, step three was going to be "Sacrifice Month-Old Baby Bunnies on an Altar to Baal" but there seems to be a limit on the length of the subjects for these comments ...
Why? Because people 'feel entitled' to have what they want when they want it, and if they can't get it for free, 'they'll steal it.'
*A panting Michael Lynton enters his boardroom with Sony's Chairmembers* ... is that a Blu-Ray copy of Spiderman? ... it had it in its hand as it was leaving the store. ... ... ... you're all cu ... customers! How could I have been so blind? No wonder we are losing this war! SECURITY!
Michael Lynton: *gasping for breath* I'm sorry I'm late. But I was just down in the store and I had to confiscate this.
Chairman One: Is that
Michael Lynton: Yes, I had to confiscate it from a "customer"
Chairman One: The customer stole it? We have the finest security in place
Michael Lynton: No, far worse than that. The customer held up the product and said to me, 'Hey, Mr. Lynton, it's bullshit I have to pay $30 for this after paying $15 to see it in the theater.' At which point I realized that it intended to give this away through the internet to all of his friends.
*pauses for seriousness*
Michael Lynton: Then I tackled him and I just saved us one trillion dollars in lost profits.
Chairman Two: Mr. Lynton, we might have a problem if that person paid for this copy of Spiderman.
Michael Lynton: No, you don't understand, he had a shirt indicating he used the internet. If that isn't a red flag, I don't know what is. All of them are criminals just looking at us with their beady little eyes trying to figure out how to steal from us.
Chairman Three: Sir, are you feeling alright?
Michael Lynton: I'm feeling great, I just saved us money. You know, I saw someone on the street the other day and they were fat and pasty white and I knew then that they used the internet. So I drove them down with my car.
Chairman Four: That was you on Channel Nine News last night
Michael Lynton: Oh please, grow up, this is business and business means war. Now, I think that if we act quickly we can hit the customer with viruses in the rootkit no one's found on our Blu-Ray media. The time is upon us to put an end to the customer once and for all, people. Think of your children! Wait a second, why do you all look confuse? Oh my god, you're all them
'I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet, period.'
Well then I trust you personally don't use it at all.
It's become customary to expect a somewhat limited perspective on things from old-world entertainment companies.
Relax, he's just one voice of a thousand at Sony.
Is this when we all give up hope that companies like Sony Pictures can adapt?
Frankly, I've got enough problems of my own to be concerned with their problems. It is and has been for quite sometime an adapt-or-die scenario for these guys. If they haven't figured it out, you won't see me shaking my fist up at the sky screaming "WHY!? Why couldn't you take me instead of Sony Pictures!?"
This guy should talk to his own people more often--Sony's CEO and chairman Howard Stringer said in a recent interview:
Customers will refuse to accept it unless the technology is open. Youth in particular really dislikes closed technologies, closed systems and the like. I think the failure of AOL LLC of the US is good evidence of this. When the Internet was just beginning to spread, AOL boosted its subscriber base by providing special services only to its customers. After a while, though, customers began rebelling, complaining that they weren't children. Because AOL wanted to keep them locked up in a narrow portion of the immense Internet cosmos, open technology was created. Sony hasn't taken open technology very seriously in the past. Its CONNECT music download service was a failure. It was based on OpenMG, a proprietary digital rights management (DRM) technology. At the time, we thought we would make more money that way than with open technology, because we could manage the customers and their downloads. This approach, however, created a problem: customers couldn't download music from any Websites except those that contracted with Sony. If we had gone with open technology from the start, I think we probably would have beaten Apple Inc of the US.
Instead of that kind of level headed talk we get to hear from Mr. All-My-Customers-Are-Criminals.
Ride that ship to the bottom of the sea, Michael Lynton.
I seem to recall MDY Industries taking pre-emptive legal action against Blizzard. It doesn't work as well as you might think.
Um, I'm not a lawyer and the only information I have on this topic are these two issues but I would wager that FTD is suing the BREIN over ideas right now, not money.
... not to say their ideals aren't sound but I am saying that the common populace and judge may not agree with them. So we have this sort of testing the waters lawsuit over some simple take down demands and if it turns out the court agrees then let BREIN try to sue them; the five golden points (or 2/5 or whatever the court agreed with) have been upheld by the court and everyone's hand is being shown. No risk of money involved.
What's the difference? Well, if they wait for BREIN to sue them for one hundred million billion gajillion Euros, they have to now put their ideals up against that
Depending on how important/inflammable this document is, I might look into buying a cheap 20GB laptop hard drive, installing ubuntu, going to a star bucks, doing the above and then "disposing" of the drive and all media so that there are no questions.
You could probably sell the hard drive on eBay, make a few bucks. I wouldn't worry about scrubbing it tho. Nobody checks those things.
Well, I have several problems with that. One is that it is uncharacteristic of me to sell something on ebay. Especially hardware like that. This could be easily seen as odd behavior leading them to the drive. The other is that it's probably becoming common to check drives for interesting stuff when you buy them on eBay. The other is that I don't care about the money a 20GB drive would net me if I'm dealing with the law.
..."
No, I am afraid my course of action would be to vigorously scrub the drive, take the drive apart and spot weld the platters together to make a set of ugly ass coasters with magnets attached as feet to the coaster. I would keep the set in plain view in my living room. Then one day when a guest inquired about them I could say, "Funny story
Assuming the document is small, you could install Xerobank (formerly TorPark) and create an account on Wikileaks and upload it to Wikileaks through the Tor onion router. Your anonymity would be assured in a hilariously sound manner.
Your website need do nothing more than link to Wikileaks and ponder how it got there.
That would be my plan of action. I would also be careful with all the machines/devices used to transfer that file.
Depending on how important/inflammable this document is, I might look into buying a cheap 20GB laptop hard drive, installing ubuntu, going to a star bucks, doing the above and then "disposing" of the drive and all media so that there are no questions. Sorry to sound like Harvey Keitel on Pulp Fiction but
My question is: would you host it if you were asked? How would you go about protecting the document and yourself?
It depends on who is asking me. There are maybe 5 or 6 people in my life that if they approached me with this request and said it was serious and said it had to be me hosting it, I would do it no questions ask. I would not read the document, I would stop them from explaining to me what is the document, I would do it and give them the link. I would then go directly to my lawyer and have a small chat with him. Then I would grab a glass of Chivas Regal and put on a record and take the battery out of my cell phone and relax.
Sorry buddy, Colom is not a dictator. He was elected. I'm also pretty sure UN watchgroups monitored the election.
Sorry buddy, once you authorize the murder of an innocent person opposing you, you aren't elected anymore. You're a dictator ... even worse you're a murderer. Pretty sure the UN would back me on that.
Um. Can you list an example of how this case is like another? In which the "censorship" (although, I think you and others are misusing that word) was demanded?
So you are saying you don't know of anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children from porn and swear words and terrorists?
I'm a bit confused, I seem to encounter these people daily in real life and the news. And that's just in the United States! Around the world, people are passively letting their government take this role.
85% of Chinese reportedly desire it. "Elected" governments keep pushing for it. Talk about a trap.
If we gave our government the right to censor our internet then it would be no surprise to see any other country follow suit. If the Guatemalan government had the legal right to control their content on the internet, well, I think you can see how this story might have been different. Restrict your people's ability to upload videos without them passing censorship!
I see this as a brilliant example why the internet must remain a horrible offensive waste of time instead of a government regulated squeaky clean educatin' machine. But I'm sure I'm part of the minority because people don't realize how powerful it is. It just saved Guatemala from being led by a murderer. Think about that.
Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?
... well, there is one more thing ... they may have mailed a copy to the United States or a press outlet here. ... paid for by the people, of course!
... see ... about that. Um, they kind of put it on the internet. ... ... we ... need to ... torture everyone?
Pre-Internet:
President Alvaro Colom: They passed out a tape at his funeral? Quick get me a list of everyone at the funeral, I want them all in custody and tortured until we have every single one of those tapes!
Gustavo Alejos: Yes, sir
President Alvaro Colom: Ahahahh, Gustavo, so naive. I suppose I'll have to make a phone call to the director of our postal system. He'll be quite cooperative with a little bonus this year
Post-Internet:
President Alvaro Colom: They passed out a tape at his funeral? Quick get me a list of everyone at the funeral, I want them all in custody and tortured until we have every single one of those tapes!
Gustavo Alejos: Yeah
President Alvaro Colom: The internet?
Gustavo Alejos: Yeah
President Alvaro Colom: Very well, torture them until they take it down!
Gustavo Alejos: Uh, it's on YouTube. Everyone's seen it.
President Alvaro Colom: So
*Gustavo Alejos shakes his head back and forth*
Gustavo Alejos: No, I think the order you are looking for right now is 'Prepare my escape helicopter and fake passport for Colombia.' The noise outside right now with the thousands of people yelling for your death is bad.
President Alvaro Colom: What did I do wrong, I was only trying to live up to Oscar Humberto Mejia's legacy!
How can you argue against something that makes it more difficult for asshat dictators to remain in power?
I didn't even find Blade Runner that great and honestly haven't bothered to watch Minority Report, Next or Paycheck.
HEATHEN! EVERYBODY, GET YOUR PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!
I'm right here waiting. I'm unarmed except for my imagination.
Which is more valuable to me than MICHAEL BAY'S "SPLOSIONS" (based on Philip K. Dick's "The Man in the High Castle").
Hollywood has certainly taken a shine to Dick's work: Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly, Impostor, Screamers and Next have all been based on his short stories or novels.
Don't forget Paycheck and Confessions d'un Barjo ("Confessions of a Crap Artist"). As a longtime Dick fan it humors me to see his works start to explode into movies post-2000. Adding to the truth that an artist is never appreciated until he/she is dead.
... never going to rewatch that again though. I didn't even find Blade Runner that great and honestly haven't bothered to watch Minority Report, Next or Paycheck. I got Scanner Darkly but just because it was more independent than the others. I just have an opposite opinion from the get-all-excited-it's-gonna-be-great folks I guess.
The same producer (John Alan Simon) that made the purchase of "Flow My Tears" also purchased the rights to "VALIS" & "Radio Free Albemuth." These last two books are strangely related to The Man in the High Castle (kinda sequel-ish) and he may be thinking of merging the two stories into one movie?
It's also worth mentioning that "Time Out of Joint" rights have been purchased by Warner Bros.
Unfortunately for me, these movies are not really my cup of tea. Total Recall was pretty good when I was 12
BMI and ASCAP have been thugs for a long time, threatening bar and club owners for licensing agreements for offering live music. For this reason, AS220 in Providence no longer allows musicians to perform any cover songs!
Um, your link brings me to a photography blog. It does have a word doc that starts out with:
NO COVERS: AS220 has a STRICT ORIGINAL MUSIC ONLY policy! NO COVERS!
As of Nov 1, 2004 AS220 is boycotting BMI, ASCAP and SESACâ(TM)s Blanket License Policies. This means that NO music registered to any of these organizations may be performed or played on the premises. This applies to any sampled material as well.
Honestly, as a performer, I've been pleased with ASCAP. How I understand it is that a bar or establishment pays a modest price (like ~$500 a year?) and all artists can play covers without fear of legal recourse. Sounds like a great deal to me. Doesn't sound very thuggish, does it?
Your favorite bar doesn't think so. Good for them. Heck, even better for originals only bands. Too bad for bands like mine that like to work in Don't Let Me Down by The Beatles every now and then but it's not a deal breaker.
If you know anyone who can help BA Dave in his plight, please contact him.
Number of certified lawyers that read Slashdot: 5.
Number who actually give a shit: 1.
Paging Ray Beckerman alias NewYorkCountryLawyer.
But you know what? That "stereotype" effectively describes 4 out my 5 last girlfriends, my mother, all my aunts, and a solid majority of female friends I've had over the years.
And that fifth girlfriend it didn't describe? And the solid minority that don't want that label? The 10% or whatever that have been trying to shake that which society has tried to force on them because it suits everyone else's needs?
And had your mom and aunts had the option to not follow the norm and do what they wanted to and not have to play with Barbie dolls would they be like that today? You know, like you're not popular if you don't have Barbie's accessories mentality?
I say kernel of truth be damned. I'm not your stereotypical geek and I would be sickened if I was marketed to as such.
'Della's marketing strategy sounds like it's advertising a purse. There's a level of consumer sophistication they're missing.'
If you add the level of sophistication, you might be perceived as thinking men are incapable of it. While it's socially ok to think of men as the lesser stupider sex today, I don't think that solves the problem.
... frankly, I'm a customer. I expect to be treated the same as another customer unless I have chosen to be treated differently. And if I chose to be treated differently, you better be careful or you'll lose me as a customer. You want to make a Trek themed site to target Trek fans? Fine, but don't you dare pay for images of Scott Bakula or the deal's off.
If I may impart my engineer's point of view on this topic, don't divide your customers on controversial lines. The fact that you made it any different shopping as a man or woman is going to cause the public to pick apart each site with the finest toothed comb and set to you like dogs. Because it's an old battle and women have very real memories of the glass ceiling and at least some form of repression.
You aren't making an Ebonics themed site for African Americans and you aren't making a talk-over-your-head snooty themed site for Caucasian Americans. Why? Because it's a sensitive issue. Any subtle difference will cause you to catch hell. Why, I'm going to get torn apart for the adjectives I used above because I'm sure some words have baggage meaning they're slightly better or worse than others.
Are you going to make different purchase sites for Hindus, Jews, Moslems and Christians? Nope. Say it with me now: because it's a sensitive issue.
Are you going to make a homosexual themed site so that homosexuals can be distinguished between buyers that are heterosexual. Again, see above.
There's a list that goes on and on
Don't Think Pink -- What Really Makes Women Buy
Thank god a woman wrote that. If it was a man, I'm sure there would have been a march on Washington.
Why do you even start this up again? Are you really running out of marketing ideas that the only thing left is controversy? Haven't we learned our lesson time and time again?
Here's an idea if you want a marketing gimmick: pick non-sensitive topics. When a popular super hero movie comes out, make good guy versus bad guy themes and always allow the customer to go to the regular site? Or make generic themes that have no conflict at the center?
And it's got unlimited space. Strangely enough, some people are adamant about keeping their works out of this library. And I say they have the right to insure the internet forgets about them when they die. This poor soul seems to understand what's going on.
With a grand total of 311,673 gamerpoints, Xbox Live User Stallion83 has won more in-game achievements than any other player. Indeed, he's earned the full 1000 gamerpoints for no less than 204 of the 437 games he's played on his Xbox 360, a Herculean accomplishment of time, effort and, in a great many cases, skill. And yet, as the URL of his website, www.1milliongamerscore.com makes perfectly clear, Stallion83's quest for numerical glory is not even halfway done.
People love recognition. And you're making this published online? Finally, something you can look at at the end of a day spent gaming and feel some sort of achievement (no matter how small).
Hats off to you, Stallion83. I somehow envy and pity you at the same time.
Hell, I myself am guilty of this on the very site we are communicating on (reminds me, need to go moderate to keep that running total).
Brilliant move on Microsoft's part (can I say that here?). Certainly not original but ingenious to add an additional level of addiction.
I'm not sure what I was doing wrong earlier today but I just got home, did the same exact thing I was doing earlier today the search results are different. I don't know if this has to do with Google's outage or what but I seriously Googled for five minutes shortly after five o'clock looking for his book's site and could not find it. Heck, I couldn't even find the illegal copies he was talking about.
Regardless, I am never 'trolling' or intend to troll. I stand by all my other statements and still find nothing about this book when I search for his name on Morgan Kaufmann's search site! For the love of god, how can you expect Google to get it right if your publisher can't? Here are the only search returns his last name (not even the search string or book title) gave on that link:
Mr. Wayner, I am profusely sorry I do not understand your business but suspect that may be a problem inherent to it. You should really get a new publisher for that book if you can and if not, be more careful with you who you allow to publish your works that you depend on for income a decade after they are published! I would like you to know that I do not gain any more money than what I get when I initially sell my code ... and you don't see me on Slashdot asking uninformed people like myself how I can make that produce fruit until 75 years after I die.
Aside from that, I still stand by all my prior statements!
And lastly, for the record, I have violated no copyright law since college! Not for five years!
(1) get another job, (2) sue people, or (3) invent some magic spell?
directly to understanding:
I don't think that people are out to screw me personally.
The temptation to save a few dollars by grabbing a free copy of the textbook is very understandable to me.
?
I think there's just something plain broken about the search engine results.
Ok, I was going to see if you have metadata tags for search engines but .... I can't find your book on your publishers site even. When I search for it nothing matching your description comes up. How can you expect Google and Yahoo! to index your pages when your publisher can't? I'm not attacking you but I just spent five minutes trying to find your book by going to your publisher and going to Amazon but since you're not the main author, I'm having a really really hard time!
If you got sent to Catholic school you automatically got a better education than you would have in public screwal.
I don't think your lawsuit would go anywhere.
I didn't know what "holocaust" meant until I was a Freshmen in a public high school. I had never heard of the Spanish conquistadors in the new world from the point of view of a Native American. I didn't know what Hindu or Buddhist meant and the worst part was I didn't wanna. The list goes on.
... aside from that I was a righteous asshole with the moral high ground in everything. It took me several years to unlearn a lot of things and to learn a whole lot more after kindergarten through eighth grade. Take it from someone who's been on both sides: acceptance, tolerance and culture are goddamn important.
Oh yeah, my math was top notch