I think you just explained why Reznor *is* breaking ground with this experiment. The artists at ReasonStation may be fantastic, but in one fell swoop Reznor has just caused a big stir. This is specifically because he is a major-label artist, and until now big-name acts haven't done this.
Small players are usually the ones that stir things up initially, but until big names that everyone knows get involved, John Q. Public doesn't have any idea of the possibilities.
Politeness is a big one. So long as I don't discuss politics with you I don't know if you are an ultra-right-wing conservative, or a bleeding heart liberal. (I can guess, but my guessing ability isn't all that great).
That's a really good point. Politeness is definitely the social lubricant that keeps us all from going homicidal at one another. I definitely wouldn't say that politics should be the most important topic of everyone's discussions. But I do seriously wonder if the topic of politics has become so charged and polarized these days that people are less willing to talk about it than they were in, say, the 1970s or 1950s. I think social cohesiveness moves a bit like a pendulum, and we're currently in one of those phases (like the late 1960s) where politics has become so extreme that to even bring it up can provoke recriminations.
In this case, the RIAA is wishing that they could run the backcatalog at a discount, while charging a premium for newest releases.
When has the music industry *EVER* done this? When have they ever discussed doing it for online music? These guys have shown over and over again that they are interested in standardized pricing for music, punctuated only by *more expensive* pricing on certain high-demand albums.
If their track record wasn't so horrendous, I'd believe that they are truly interested in coming up with flexible pricing. But they've shown us nothing to indicate that they're really serious about doing anything other than holding on to their doomed business model for as long as possible.
Cripes, this is so damn typical of the entertainment industry.
Yep, these are the guys who proclaimed that "home taping is killing music" back in the 1980, and killed off DAT in the 1990s. The MPAA cried bloody murder when VHS hit the market, but amazingly the global film industry is still quite robust.
What really cracks me up is that the RIAA had their heads so far up their asses that they had *no strategy* whatsoever for online music sales until Jobs came along and offered them a way out. Now that they have a path away from stupidity, they're trying to jack prices up again, the same way they did with CDs.
It's like they're fundamentally unprepared to realize that the landscape is changing and that they can't make the same margins they used to make per song. They have to shift their entire way of doing business, but they're so fat and happy that it's like Jabba the Hut doing the long jump.
This concentration of people who have to know politics in detail is what allows you to have those conversations. Those same people would be unable to have a in depth conversation on the merits of various corn varieties. Its what you know.
I agree 100% with your comment. It is unfortunate, however, that politics has become so confusing and complex that ordinary people are intimidated by it and want nothing to do with it. Then again, I imagine if you looked at newspapers from the early 1800s or early 1900s, you'd find that run of the mill citizens found politics confusing and annoying then, too.
His current protestations aside, Thurrott has a long history of bashing on the Mac. My thinking is that he's starting to realize that the Mac platform is moving ahead more rapidly than Windows, and may be close to achieving what he considers to be parity with Windows.
So if you make your living writing about Windows, it doesn't really do to talk about how far Apple has come with the Mac, or how it may in fact be better than Windows. You focus instead on a different opponent altogether. Microsoft has told the world that it has its sights set on Google. Everyone knows Google is the reigning champ of the consumer Internet application, and that they're trying to route around Microsoft's client OS dominance.
If you're Thurrott, you talk about how nice Apple is on the client end, giving it just enough kudos so as to not lose your credibility entirely, but you also demean the importance of Apple by focusing on Microsoft's war with Google.
Thurrott has always been a difficult guy to figure out, so my guess may be completely off. But it's the only one I can come up with that makes any sense.
I'd be intrested in seeing that list, if you have it still and don't mind sharing.
I sure wish I had it still. Actually it would likely be rather out of date, since the last time I updated it was probably around 1998. Thereafter I no longer had to answer to anyone (and had a lot fewer machines to deal with), so I dropped the list.
The days of long talks about what you believe and why is over.
In my experience as a 37 year old American, the only time I've ever engaged in long talks with people about what I believe and why were occurred during the three years I lived in Washington, DC. People inside the Beltway talk about this sort of thing all the time. You go into a bar and instead of asking someone what their sign is, you ask them who they work for and what their party affiliation is. Then you start arguing politics. It's quite fun, actually.
But even though I took a lot of PoliSci in college and have worked in the nonprofit and in federal government, the days of long talks about what I believed and why never existed outside my time in D.C.. In my experience the only people in America who are truly interested in the truly deep details of politics are people inside the Beltway, who have a much more sophisticated view of politics than you might imagine, because in order to get things done, they have to know the details.
For the rest of America, politics is unfortunately either a yawner or an excuse to shout about deeply-held beliefs without ever investigating the details. Negative attack ads have been a staple of political advertising for as long as I can remember, and they just keep getting worse, per your statement.
In my experience, most of the out of context issues usually come down to someone in management saying something like this at one time or another, "Goddammit! I don't *care* if there's some infinitesmally small chance that we'll have a security problem. I want the ability to IM, and I want it now!"
Human nature being what it is, pointing this out to the boss is likely to embarass him and make him feel like you're being a smartass. In general I find that explaining the security continuum (where at one end you have low security, low cost, and all the functionality you want, and at the other end you have high security, higher cost, and some curtailing of functionality) is helpful in coaxing them out of the mentality that security is a one-way street. In the real world, high security entails compromises, some budgetary (even if only for more sysad time) and some functional (not every new flashy network app can simply be added to the system without security analysis).
I've also found that explaining the security process in terms of priorities is helpful. I used to use a top 10 list that showed management exactly what was highest priority, what came next, and so on. This helped them realize that not all threats are equal.
His next column is obviously going to be about how:
There is only one platform that can stand toe-to-toe with Windows, and that's the combination of OS X and Java.
So he's generating buzz and dealing (he thinks) with the questions about Linux that will invariably surface when he discusses OS X and Java as competition for Windows.
He's making the summary judgement about Linux primarily so he can advance his case that OS X combined with Java is the only "real" way to get past Windows. I don't agree with his assessment of Linux, but he's obviously doing this in preparation for a (hopefully) meatier argument about OS X + Java.
You can't change the world. Not even your war of rebellion/independence, or your constitution changed the world.
I understand your point that over the long haul, history is cyclical. But I'm not so sure that the same *exact* cycles are repeated endlessly over and over again. The notion that a nation's rulers exist to serve the needs of the people is firmly entrenched in a far greater percentage of the world's population than it was 100, 500, or 1,000 years ago. The Magna Carta, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the French Revolution have had effect not only on the development of Europe and America, but on nations across the globe. The notion of hereditary leadership lives on in only a small number of marginal states.
Do I think that the United States will last in its current form forever? No. Do I think that the representative governments of Europe and the United States are the best possible forms of government? No. But I do think that on the balance as the world shrinks, representative government is becoming the de facto standard.
Perhaps it's because I'm an American, and like many Americans I have been indoctrinated to believe in the notion of progress. You may perceive my opinion as typically unsophisticated American wishful thinking, but it might help you to understand how Americans can get so hot and bothered about things like their Constitution.
In my opinion, cynicism is absurdly easy, because it requires nothing of its adherents. Optimism entails much more work, in that it contains a built-in call to work for change.
Well, I'd say it's *ironic* because one meaning of irony is:
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
To me it is incongruous that Sony, a company that owns both hardware and music branches, is unable to get the two to work in concert, when a company like Apple, which is a hardware company with no ownership of music assets, can.
Sony is between a rock and a hard place with music, and they still haven't figured a way out. While their hardware division comes up with gadgets that still err on the side of user annoyance, their music division is having problems of its own.
It is ironic that a company which ostensibly should be better at reconciling the competing interests of hardware developers and music distributors is still stumbling with this stuff.
Well put. IMHO the Star Trek franchise has for a long time been suffering from a bad case of Deus Ex Machina Disease. Just when things are getting really hairy, just play the temporal card. It also works as a means of foiling the characters just when things are going their way.
In more capable hands, the concept of temporal confusion might have been handled with much more imagination and in a more believable fashion. I mean, the Crewman Daniels dude who is supposedly from 900 years in the future is utterly incompetent. You'd think humans would have learned a few things by then.
Anyway, I for one am sick and tired of time travel in Star Trek. It's an out for the writers, because they can't consistenly come up with good story ideas, despite the wealth of opportunities in the Trek universe. Let's let Trek rest for a few years, then see if a new team can breathe some life into the old franchise.
We won't really know a thing about their business model, the utility of their products, or their strategy until they scrape together the money they need and start producing software.
If Woz and Jobs had issued a press release from their garage stating that they were going to revolutionize the microcomputer industry, would anyone have paid any attention? On the flip side, a lot of people gave numerous dot com outfits the benefit of the doubt during the bubble.
The moral of the story is: We don't know jack about what these guys will do. Let's check back after they've delivered some software.
The point is, that this would take soldiers (some of them American, as we have promised to protect S. Korea, and have troops stationed there.) out of harms way.
Agreed. Perhaps many Slashdot readers don't really understand what the DMZ is like. In the 1980s and 90s, live ambushes were a fact of life along the DMZ (they may still be, but I'm no longer in the Army so I don't have inside info about it). The North Koreans for decades have poked and prodded the border: They've sent infiltrators into South Korea, have created elaborate tunnel systems below the DMZ, and attempted to assassinate the South Korean president, among other provocations. Troops stationed along the DMZ for good reason keep an extraordinarily high state of readiness. Over 100 Americans have died along the DMZ since the armstice (I don't have figures for South Korean soldiers).
So while from the comfort of Ft. Livingroom, it's easy to say that using armed robots to patrol the DMZ is a bad idea, the soldiers on the ground are probably pretty happy about the notion. That's not to say that the robots will work as advertised, or that they should replace existing defenses. The South Korean government may be motivated by cost considerations, but if the end result is that fewer South Korean soldiers are likely to die in the line of duty, it seems worth trying out some form of automated defense.
Same papers, year in and year out. No big deal to grade these kids with an automated program.
I'm with you. But I say go further. In high school, it's the same thing. Why not automate the grading there as well? Hell, while you're at it, go down to the primary school level. I mean, the kids are all just writing about the same crap - their dogs, the family vacation, their favorite color. God, it's such a trial to actually go through this repetitive crap over and over again.
It makes differentiating people into the appropriate category so much easier when you can use a program that removes the human component. In time, we could easily replace teachers with software, which would save the teachers from the endless monotony of teaching, and would allow them to obtain more interesting jobs. Students would benefit from a more uniform curriculum, denuded of human nuance and pesky creativity.
This prof is the prophet of things to come. He's the savior of our flawed education system!
Insect-sized surveillance vehicles have been in the works for some time. I saw a pitch at the Pentagon for something similar to this in 1996 or '97. The point of a very small autonomous surveillance platform is that it can be used in tactical situations. It's not for looking at North Korean missile facilities, it's for checking out the inside of that building your platoon is about to assault.
The obvious early adopters of a tool like this would be Delta Force, because so much of their work involves forced entry. If such a vehicle existed, they'd put it through its paces before it trickled down to Special Forces and SEAL operators, and finally down to regular light infantry forces.
Do you really think Wall Street cares at all about sharing and caring?
Actually, Wall Street cares about profits. Given that Sun is trading at $4 per share right now, and given that it was trading at $30 in January of 2001, I'd say the Street doesn't have faith in Sun's ability to create future profits.
I don't know if it is by design or not, but it seems that over the past few months Sun has been trying to get itself back in the news primarily through commentary about the state of computing, the relevance of Open Source, etc.. Now that they've reached detente with Microsoft, in order to re-establish their relevance, they feel they have to attack the very parties that they should be bolstering. The impramatur they built up during their glory years means nothing to younger people in the IT crowd, and by bashing on the GPL, they're simply telling people that they just don't grok the big picture.
The only reason Linux is any better is that UNIX machines have been Internet connected by default for about 15 years while with windows its only about 8.
This is the same argument as the old saw about how simply because Windows is the dominant consumer operating system it is the target of more malware. It ignores the fact that operating systems are not all built in the same fashion. For example, what about pre-OS X versions of the Macintosh? What about OpenBSD or Bastille Linux?
These discussions about OS security tend to ignore the fact that the *NIX distro or Windows version you're using can significantly impact security. Just as all OSes are not the same in terms of usability, I think it's a gross simplification to say that they're pretty much equal in security.
Apple is trying to save money and drop prices at the same time.
That tells it all. Apple is keeping FireWire, of course. The C|Net "oh my God, we're gonna DIE" headline aside, FireWire is still a very important technology for Apple, particularly because of their investment in FireWire for DV. The distinction is in how a more nuanced Apple is handling it. In the old days Apple would have kept FireWire cabling in the box simply because they felt FireWire was a better technology.
These days Apple has a much, much firmer grip on the realities of the consumer electronics and computer markets, and decisions like this bear that out. As Oculus Habent stated, it does suck for FireWire users, but it's not a terrible burden to bear to have to buy a FireWire cable. This is a case of Apple keeping costs down in an effort to stay one step ahead of the competition.
Blogs are both good and bad for journalism
on
Apple to Buy TiVo?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First, thank you for posting this interesting trail of breadcrumbs. The news behind the news shows that reporters are often driven by the desire to scoop the competition, and so don't do their homework properly.
What's particularly interesting about this saga is that it was started by some random guy who could be your next door neighbor or someone embedded deep in Apple. Who really knows?
The sloppy reporting that followed was then exposed by aka-ed, who though not "blogging" it in the most exact sense of the term was for all intents and purposes doing just that - taking advantage of a Web forum to shed a little light on how the rumor got started.
The interplay between traditional "Big Media" players and bloggers is getting weirder and weirder every day.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you just explained why Reznor *is* breaking ground with this experiment. The artists at ReasonStation may be fantastic, but in one fell swoop Reznor has just caused a big stir. This is specifically because he is a major-label artist, and until now big-name acts haven't done this.
Small players are usually the ones that stir things up initially, but until big names that everyone knows get involved, John Q. Public doesn't have any idea of the possibilities.
That's a really good point. Politeness is definitely the social lubricant that keeps us all from going homicidal at one another. I definitely wouldn't say that politics should be the most important topic of everyone's discussions. But I do seriously wonder if the topic of politics has become so charged and polarized these days that people are less willing to talk about it than they were in, say, the 1970s or 1950s. I think social cohesiveness moves a bit like a pendulum, and we're currently in one of those phases (like the late 1960s) where politics has become so extreme that to even bring it up can provoke recriminations.
When has the music industry *EVER* done this? When have they ever discussed doing it for online music? These guys have shown over and over again that they are interested in standardized pricing for music, punctuated only by *more expensive* pricing on certain high-demand albums.
If their track record wasn't so horrendous, I'd believe that they are truly interested in coming up with flexible pricing. But they've shown us nothing to indicate that they're really serious about doing anything other than holding on to their doomed business model for as long as possible.
Yep, these are the guys who proclaimed that "home taping is killing music" back in the 1980, and killed off DAT in the 1990s. The MPAA cried bloody murder when VHS hit the market, but amazingly the global film industry is still quite robust.
What really cracks me up is that the RIAA had their heads so far up their asses that they had *no strategy* whatsoever for online music sales until Jobs came along and offered them a way out. Now that they have a path away from stupidity, they're trying to jack prices up again, the same way they did with CDs.
It's like they're fundamentally unprepared to realize that the landscape is changing and that they can't make the same margins they used to make per song. They have to shift their entire way of doing business, but they're so fat and happy that it's like Jabba the Hut doing the long jump.
I agree 100% with your comment. It is unfortunate, however, that politics has become so confusing and complex that ordinary people are intimidated by it and want nothing to do with it. Then again, I imagine if you looked at newspapers from the early 1800s or early 1900s, you'd find that run of the mill citizens found politics confusing and annoying then, too.
His current protestations aside, Thurrott has a long history of bashing on the Mac. My thinking is that he's starting to realize that the Mac platform is moving ahead more rapidly than Windows, and may be close to achieving what he considers to be parity with Windows.
So if you make your living writing about Windows, it doesn't really do to talk about how far Apple has come with the Mac, or how it may in fact be better than Windows. You focus instead on a different opponent altogether. Microsoft has told the world that it has its sights set on Google. Everyone knows Google is the reigning champ of the consumer Internet application, and that they're trying to route around Microsoft's client OS dominance.
If you're Thurrott, you talk about how nice Apple is on the client end, giving it just enough kudos so as to not lose your credibility entirely, but you also demean the importance of Apple by focusing on Microsoft's war with Google.
Thurrott has always been a difficult guy to figure out, so my guess may be completely off. But it's the only one I can come up with that makes any sense.
I sure wish I had it still. Actually it would likely be rather out of date, since the last time I updated it was probably around 1998. Thereafter I no longer had to answer to anyone (and had a lot fewer machines to deal with), so I dropped the list.
In my experience as a 37 year old American, the only time I've ever engaged in long talks with people about what I believe and why were occurred during the three years I lived in Washington, DC. People inside the Beltway talk about this sort of thing all the time. You go into a bar and instead of asking someone what their sign is, you ask them who they work for and what their party affiliation is. Then you start arguing politics. It's quite fun, actually.
But even though I took a lot of PoliSci in college and have worked in the nonprofit and in federal government, the days of long talks about what I believed and why never existed outside my time in D.C.. In my experience the only people in America who are truly interested in the truly deep details of politics are people inside the Beltway, who have a much more sophisticated view of politics than you might imagine, because in order to get things done, they have to know the details.
For the rest of America, politics is unfortunately either a yawner or an excuse to shout about deeply-held beliefs without ever investigating the details. Negative attack ads have been a staple of political advertising for as long as I can remember, and they just keep getting worse, per your statement.
Human nature being what it is, pointing this out to the boss is likely to embarass him and make him feel like you're being a smartass. In general I find that explaining the security continuum (where at one end you have low security, low cost, and all the functionality you want, and at the other end you have high security, higher cost, and some curtailing of functionality) is helpful in coaxing them out of the mentality that security is a one-way street. In the real world, high security entails compromises, some budgetary (even if only for more sysad time) and some functional (not every new flashy network app can simply be added to the system without security analysis).
I've also found that explaining the security process in terms of priorities is helpful. I used to use a top 10 list that showed management exactly what was highest priority, what came next, and so on. This helped them realize that not all threats are equal .
Best of luck to you.
There is only one platform that can stand toe-to-toe with Windows, and that's the combination of OS X and Java.
So he's generating buzz and dealing (he thinks) with the questions about Linux that will invariably surface when he discusses OS X and Java as competition for Windows.
He's making the summary judgement about Linux primarily so he can advance his case that OS X combined with Java is the only "real" way to get past Windows. I don't agree with his assessment of Linux, but he's obviously doing this in preparation for a (hopefully) meatier argument about OS X + Java.
I understand your point that over the long haul, history is cyclical. But I'm not so sure that the same *exact* cycles are repeated endlessly over and over again. The notion that a nation's rulers exist to serve the needs of the people is firmly entrenched in a far greater percentage of the world's population than it was 100, 500, or 1,000 years ago. The Magna Carta, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the French Revolution have had effect not only on the development of Europe and America, but on nations across the globe. The notion of hereditary leadership lives on in only a small number of marginal states.
Do I think that the United States will last in its current form forever? No. Do I think that the representative governments of Europe and the United States are the best possible forms of government? No. But I do think that on the balance as the world shrinks, representative government is becoming the de facto standard.
Perhaps it's because I'm an American, and like many Americans I have been indoctrinated to believe in the notion of progress. You may perceive my opinion as typically unsophisticated American wishful thinking, but it might help you to understand how Americans can get so hot and bothered about things like their Constitution.
In my opinion, cynicism is absurdly easy, because it requires nothing of its adherents. Optimism entails much more work, in that it contains a built-in call to work for change.
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
To me it is incongruous that Sony, a company that owns both hardware and music branches, is unable to get the two to work in concert, when a company like Apple, which is a hardware company with no ownership of music assets, can.
What does ironic mean to you?
It is ironic that a company which ostensibly should be better at reconciling the competing interests of hardware developers and music distributors is still stumbling with this stuff.
Well put. IMHO the Star Trek franchise has for a long time been suffering from a bad case of Deus Ex Machina Disease. Just when things are getting really hairy, just play the temporal card. It also works as a means of foiling the characters just when things are going their way.
In more capable hands, the concept of temporal confusion might have been handled with much more imagination and in a more believable fashion. I mean, the Crewman Daniels dude who is supposedly from 900 years in the future is utterly incompetent. You'd think humans would have learned a few things by then.
Anyway, I for one am sick and tired of time travel in Star Trek. It's an out for the writers, because they can't consistenly come up with good story ideas, despite the wealth of opportunities in the Trek universe. Let's let Trek rest for a few years, then see if a new team can breathe some life into the old franchise.
If Woz and Jobs had issued a press release from their garage stating that they were going to revolutionize the microcomputer industry, would anyone have paid any attention? On the flip side, a lot of people gave numerous dot com outfits the benefit of the doubt during the bubble.
The moral of the story is: We don't know jack about what these guys will do. Let's check back after they've delivered some software.
Well, at least you didn't use your Wand of Automatic Missile Fire. ;-)
Agreed. Perhaps many Slashdot readers don't really understand what the DMZ is like. In the 1980s and 90s, live ambushes were a fact of life along the DMZ (they may still be, but I'm no longer in the Army so I don't have inside info about it). The North Koreans for decades have poked and prodded the border: They've sent infiltrators into South Korea, have created elaborate tunnel systems below the DMZ, and attempted to assassinate the South Korean president, among other provocations. Troops stationed along the DMZ for good reason keep an extraordinarily high state of readiness. Over 100 Americans have died along the DMZ since the armstice (I don't have figures for South Korean soldiers).
So while from the comfort of Ft. Livingroom, it's easy to say that using armed robots to patrol the DMZ is a bad idea, the soldiers on the ground are probably pretty happy about the notion. That's not to say that the robots will work as advertised, or that they should replace existing defenses. The South Korean government may be motivated by cost considerations, but if the end result is that fewer South Korean soldiers are likely to die in the line of duty, it seems worth trying out some form of automated defense.
I'm with you. But I say go further. In high school, it's the same thing. Why not automate the grading there as well? Hell, while you're at it, go down to the primary school level. I mean, the kids are all just writing about the same crap - their dogs, the family vacation, their favorite color. God, it's such a trial to actually go through this repetitive crap over and over again.
It makes differentiating people into the appropriate category so much easier when you can use a program that removes the human component. In time, we could easily replace teachers with software, which would save the teachers from the endless monotony of teaching, and would allow them to obtain more interesting jobs. Students would benefit from a more uniform curriculum, denuded of human nuance and pesky creativity.
This prof is the prophet of things to come. He's the savior of our flawed education system!
The obvious early adopters of a tool like this would be Delta Force, because so much of their work involves forced entry. If such a vehicle existed, they'd put it through its paces before it trickled down to Special Forces and SEAL operators, and finally down to regular light infantry forces.
Actually, Wall Street cares about profits. Given that Sun is trading at $4 per share right now, and given that it was trading at $30 in January of 2001, I'd say the Street doesn't have faith in Sun's ability to create future profits.
This is the same argument as the old saw about how simply because Windows is the dominant consumer operating system it is the target of more malware. It ignores the fact that operating systems are not all built in the same fashion. For example, what about pre-OS X versions of the Macintosh? What about OpenBSD or Bastille Linux?
These discussions about OS security tend to ignore the fact that the *NIX distro or Windows version you're using can significantly impact security. Just as all OSes are not the same in terms of usability, I think it's a gross simplification to say that they're pretty much equal in security.
Hmm... . So the behavior of one cartel makes every captialist a scumbag?
Are the people at Yahoo scumbags? What about the folks who run the show at 3M? Ford? IBM? Dow-Corning? ARM Holdings?
Are there any capitalists who aren't scumbags, or is a large business automatically evil?
That tells it all. Apple is keeping FireWire, of course. The C|Net "oh my God, we're gonna DIE" headline aside, FireWire is still a very important technology for Apple, particularly because of their investment in FireWire for DV. The distinction is in how a more nuanced Apple is handling it. In the old days Apple would have kept FireWire cabling in the box simply because they felt FireWire was a better technology.
These days Apple has a much, much firmer grip on the realities of the consumer electronics and computer markets, and decisions like this bear that out. As Oculus Habent stated, it does suck for FireWire users, but it's not a terrible burden to bear to have to buy a FireWire cable. This is a case of Apple keeping costs down in an effort to stay one step ahead of the competition.
What's particularly interesting about this saga is that it was started by some random guy who could be your next door neighbor or someone embedded deep in Apple. Who really knows?
The sloppy reporting that followed was then exposed by aka-ed, who though not "blogging" it in the most exact sense of the term was for all intents and purposes doing just that - taking advantage of a Web forum to shed a little light on how the rumor got started.
The interplay between traditional "Big Media" players and bloggers is getting weirder and weirder every day.