Exactly. This was a case of poor planning. Not that hard to go, "okay, let's make sure that gmail isn't taken in all the major NA and European countries. Oh, dude in Germany? Well, let's make him an offer."
Something tells me they could have made an early offer that both parties would have been happy with - I mean, dude could make millions just by luck of naming something with a letter. But instead, Google just goes ahead with it and tries to fix it after the fact. Not necessarily evil, just crappy planning and then a desperate attempt to fix it.
I wonder if they even tried the carrot before they used the stick. Maybe they made an offer and the guy wanted more. No excuse for what they're doing, but I'm curious.
Though part of me really wants to see what Bill's going to do once he's completely done with Microsoft. In that dual Steve Jobs-Bill Gates interview earlier this year (or 2006, I forget, very recent), the thing Jobs said he liked about Gates was that "he doesn't want to be the richest man in the graveyard."
I really want to see if he maintains that image Steve has of him as a man. I hope so.
Probably because AT&T is shitty - which means they need the money, which means they're willing to let Apple do whatever they wanted.
Verizon/T-Mobile/et. al may have wanted a little more control on what the iPhone could or could not do. At least that's how I'm reading between the lines of Apple's PR stuff. It's very possible I'm wrong.
People who do citizenship legitimately are practically being shit on because a group of people want to jump the line.
Yes, we need those people to work the farms, the low-wage pay. But we need the ones who go through the paperwork and years of waiting and struggle just as much, if not more than those who just follow where the work is.
If I had mod points, you'd get 'em. Hit the nail right on the head. We're coming in to the first generation whose formative music listening years are raised through Myspace (ugh), LimeWire and iTunes. It's really not much more complicated than that.
I love the idea of a flat tax. I'm just not sure about the feasibility of it.
Sure, if we just have a national income tax of, let's say 10% just to make the math easier, then the people who make $1,000/year pay $100, and the people who make $10,000 pay $1,000. So, the richer pay more, the poorer pay less, but everyone's paying a fair share in accordance to their earnings.
So, yeah, it's a great concept. But A) Congress will never do it because some loopholes are nice in their minds, and B) IANAAccountant/Economist. I really don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.
The thing about internet radio/podcasting is that you have to be looking for something specific, or know in a general sense what it is you're wanting.
Sometimes, you just want to turn on a station. Maybe you'll get talk. Maybe you'll get some new music, a local band putting out something. Maybe you'll even get a radio drama (I just finished producing one this semester).
But the idea is that, with radio, you and possibly a number of others near you are listening to the same thing. And that sense of community, specifically within a physical space, is powerful.
Falsehood is falsehood. Falsehood in journalism is every bit as bas as falsehood in politics.
In politics, it's damaging because of the power such things have. But we also expect them to lie. That's what they do.
In journalism, it's damaging because journalism - be it print, broadcast, or documentary - is meant to peel back the bullshit of politics. We're supposed to trust these people to give it to us straight, because we know politicians are, have been, and always will be, full of shit.
So if we can't trust the watchdogs, how are we ever going to be able to make an informed decision on electing better politicians and smacking down and out the ones that are full of egregious lies and fabrications?
Image. If he's worried about that, he looks like a businessman, which, well, regardless of how you feel about him, would be contradictory to the way he presents his message.
So, appearing like a non-businessman makes good business sense for him.
And it reminds me why I dropped the only marketing class I ever took within the first week.
Dude, politically-based != partisan. The Fog of War documentary, for example. Just basically an interview with Robert McNamara with supplemental interviews. That's a political documentary.
Just because he hits out at Republicans and Democrats doesn't mean he's suddenly right.
even if it's not 100% accurate
We should hold documentaries to the same factual accountability as we do journalists. But maybe we already do, these days, and I'm just behind the times.
Then he should make another fucking Canadian Bacon and stay out of documentaries.
Politically-based documentaries used to be about presenting the argument, presenting the sides, and maybe your take on it, but aspiring to present both arguments in as equal a light as possible.
Now? It's all about getting your agenda out. Your fucking talking points with amusing editing and post-production to make it flashy and sexy for the audiences to swallow. How is this different than our faulty intel reports on WMDs? "It gets us talking," don't it? It also causes damage.
George Clooney got his message out in Good Night, and Good Luck, without ever having to distort anything, because he made a biopic with artistic license. The whole point of documentaries is that those licenses are not to be used, that reality and facts are good enough to tell its own story.
Mod parent and his/her brothers and sisters. Getting sick of this "you're either with one or the other" bullshit.
Michael Moore is a pretentious hack. Every time I want to see his smirking face like he's teaching the world a thing or two I want to gouge my eyes out.
Every time I hear Ann Coulter talk about the liberal media bias I want to light something on fire and throw myself in it.
So which am I, fucktard GP? Right or Wrong? Left or Right?
I'm a goddamn self-critical thinking American who realizes we've fucked up but also realizes that distorting the truth in a documentary is probably the worst thing you could ever do for the industry. You want to present an opinion - cool, say it's your fucking opinion. But saying right is left and the sky is actually a pretty shade of lime and presenting that as not coming from you, but coming from facts is the lowest thing you could do in documentary journalism. It's as bad as any (insert ideology) media bias and worse for the hard-working true blue documentarians who want to present both sides of an issue but are shown that doing that isn't sexy enough, that they won't get the respect they so richly deserved by allowing both sides to speak and letting the audience decide, or by presenting their opinion and letting the audience decide whether it's right or wrong.
Moore makes me as sad and pissed off for my America as any other partisan lobby-owned political hack.
I'm almost about ready to make a purchase and it's going to be one of the newer Ericssons simply based on its menu system and OS. I'm tired of waiting forever because I can text faster than the OS can handle, and having to dig through twelve layers of menus only to find what I was looking for was five menus back.
Though if anyone else knows of a better one at a good price point, I'm all ears.
Slashdot Mirror
(and no, newbie, "RPG" does _not_ stand for "role playing game.")
Oh, really? Like Lord of the---aw.
Yeah, he says that now, after he got attacked and won the case.
Something tells me they could have made an early offer that both parties would have been happy with - I mean, dude could make millions just by luck of naming something with a letter. But instead, Google just goes ahead with it and tries to fix it after the fact. Not necessarily evil, just crappy planning and then a desperate attempt to fix it.
I wonder if they even tried the carrot before they used the stick. Maybe they made an offer and the guy wanted more. No excuse for what they're doing, but I'm curious.
I really want to see if he maintains that image Steve has of him as a man. I hope so.
Verizon/T-Mobile/et. al may have wanted a little more control on what the iPhone could or could not do. At least that's how I'm reading between the lines of Apple's PR stuff. It's very possible I'm wrong.
I hate this fucking simulation.
Yes, we need those people to work the farms, the low-wage pay. But we need the ones who go through the paperwork and years of waiting and struggle just as much, if not more than those who just follow where the work is.
It's a trick. Get an axe.
If I'm going to jump from one evil to another, I'd rather jump to the evil who has the balls to do Street Maps and the Summer of Code.
Let's not believe something's happening just because we really really want it to.
If I had mod points, you'd get 'em. Hit the nail right on the head. We're coming in to the first generation whose formative music listening years are raised through Myspace (ugh), LimeWire and iTunes. It's really not much more complicated than that.
Sure, if we just have a national income tax of, let's say 10% just to make the math easier, then the people who make $1,000/year pay $100, and the people who make $10,000 pay $1,000. So, the richer pay more, the poorer pay less, but everyone's paying a fair share in accordance to their earnings.
So, yeah, it's a great concept. But A) Congress will never do it because some loopholes are nice in their minds, and B) IANAAccountant/Economist. I really don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Could you remind me what I pay you people for? Honestly, throw me a bone, here.
Okay, I'll cop to it. Robot threesome.
Sometimes, you just want to turn on a station. Maybe you'll get talk. Maybe you'll get some new music, a local band putting out something. Maybe you'll even get a radio drama (I just finished producing one this semester).
But the idea is that, with radio, you and possibly a number of others near you are listening to the same thing. And that sense of community, specifically within a physical space, is powerful.
It's very easy to say it stands up to scrutiny when you just as quickly dismiss what's presented as character assassination.
In politics, it's damaging because of the power such things have. But we also expect them to lie. That's what they do.
In journalism, it's damaging because journalism - be it print, broadcast, or documentary - is meant to peel back the bullshit of politics. We're supposed to trust these people to give it to us straight, because we know politicians are, have been, and always will be, full of shit.
So if we can't trust the watchdogs, how are we ever going to be able to make an informed decision on electing better politicians and smacking down and out the ones that are full of egregious lies and fabrications?
So, appearing like a non-businessman makes good business sense for him.
And it reminds me why I dropped the only marketing class I ever took within the first week.
Just because he hits out at Republicans and Democrats doesn't mean he's suddenly right.
even if it's not 100% accurate
We should hold documentaries to the same factual accountability as we do journalists. But maybe we already do, these days, and I'm just behind the times.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html - here you go. Educate yourself on the man.
Note: These are the same people who wrote this - no fans of the current president.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/
Michael Isikoff, co-writer of the MSNBC piece, also wrote this.
There're your specifics, sir. The man is not a true documentarian, and makes the whole practice look worse than Geraldo Rivera journalism.
Politically-based documentaries used to be about presenting the argument, presenting the sides, and maybe your take on it, but aspiring to present both arguments in as equal a light as possible.
Now? It's all about getting your agenda out. Your fucking talking points with amusing editing and post-production to make it flashy and sexy for the audiences to swallow. How is this different than our faulty intel reports on WMDs? "It gets us talking," don't it? It also causes damage.
George Clooney got his message out in Good Night, and Good Luck, without ever having to distort anything, because he made a biopic with artistic license. The whole point of documentaries is that those licenses are not to be used, that reality and facts are good enough to tell its own story.
Michael Moore is a pretentious hack. Every time I want to see his smirking face like he's teaching the world a thing or two I want to gouge my eyes out.
Every time I hear Ann Coulter talk about the liberal media bias I want to light something on fire and throw myself in it.
So which am I, fucktard GP? Right or Wrong? Left or Right?
I'm a goddamn self-critical thinking American who realizes we've fucked up but also realizes that distorting the truth in a documentary is probably the worst thing you could ever do for the industry. You want to present an opinion - cool, say it's your fucking opinion. But saying right is left and the sky is actually a pretty shade of lime and presenting that as not coming from you, but coming from facts is the lowest thing you could do in documentary journalism. It's as bad as any (insert ideology) media bias and worse for the hard-working true blue documentarians who want to present both sides of an issue but are shown that doing that isn't sexy enough, that they won't get the respect they so richly deserved by allowing both sides to speak and letting the audience decide, or by presenting their opinion and letting the audience decide whether it's right or wrong.
Moore makes me as sad and pissed off for my America as any other partisan lobby-owned political hack.
A test on girls isn't fair because no matter what answer you give, it'll be wrong.
Though if anyone else knows of a better one at a good price point, I'm all ears.
(not when it's 110 degrees)