The funnier part about this for me being that it just started raining here a bit after 2+ years of severe drought. And the Statesman was up for sale until Cox pulled them off the market recently. Maybe they saw the rain coming and saw a way to make money for the struggling paper thus the new campaign.
Ok the restrictions on the other portions make no sense but I would like to expand on part of the rationale on the officials:
As an official everything you say is scrutinized on the field and items on social networks could lend fuel to the fire. Think of innocuous statements such as "Can't believe I have to go to Oakland this week" and how people could construe that statement to mean the official has something against the Raiders and that he will make calls against them. Then you combine that statement with a blown call and you could see the NFL with a PR nightmare on it's hands not to mention a high chance of being sued (knowing it may not go far).
Now that being said, I think an outright ban on using social media is wrong. There are certain things that shouldn't be talked about (interaction with coaches, players, dislikes of certain areas or teams, stuff like that) but a lot of what can be said on a social network could be beneficial and certainly couldn't hurt the NFL. I update my facebook and twitter regularly with the games I am going to (i.e. "off to work XXX vs YYY 8th grade game) but I never make commentary about what happened in the game, with coaches, players or even other officials.
As for Hochuli's apology, the NFL should be applauding him for that. Due to their policies of keeping officials away from the press and fans, the officials are the most insulated members of the NFL. For him to come out and admit he was wrong adds a human face to the official and allows people to remember that the officials are human and maybe let people cut them a bit more slack.
If they broadband companies want this money so bad, why doesn't the government earmark the money for the intended purpose then, and only then, when the companies delivered the promised broadband they get paid. It's how the rest of the world works, most of us even pay a month in advance on our telco stuff just to prove we deserve to keep it on. Of course the downfall of this would be government oversight and determining the standards and we know how well government does THAT.
So why do we have the music industry running around like crazy saying that if music is available for free no one can make any money?
Hey Mike, can we be fair here? Its not the music industry saying they can't make money with free music its the recording industry that can't/won't figure out a way to make money off of free. The musicians and touring elements seem to be figuring out the new business models, the record labels are just hanging on as long as they can.
For those who are saying she should be tried for murder, let me try this on you: Lets say Jane and Joe are dating. Joe cheats and the couple breaks up. Jane kills herself over the break up. Do we charge Joe with murder, or manslaughter or even assiting suicide? No we don't, because while the situation is tragic the actions of Joe, while possibly reprehensible, didn't actually take the life of Jane. It was a suicide, and no matter what drove her to it, she took her life so it can't be murder.
So, to make it reflect more what happened in the referenced case, what if Joe used a fake profile on myspace, facebook, et al to arrange his trysts? Could he be charged with the computer fraud for violating the TOS and by that violation eventually caused Jane's suicide? Seems a stretch even there but I bet if you looked you could find a situation just like that and no one was charged with anything.
The case is tragic but I feel like this prosecution is all about legal theater (a DA's take on "protecting the children"). Maybe it would be better off if this case was used as a catalyst to improve help lines and other resources so that people don't commit suicide.
Re: Re: This simplistic view is getting really tir
Ok, let my provide another simplistic view of how this system could work for other "entertainment professionals":
For example, say I am a song writer and I write a song for NIN and Reznor. Now, in the old system I would get royalties based on sales and whatnot. In a new system I sell them the song for a set fee (I can probably figure out what this fee should be with relative certainly) and a limited license. In addition I offer my services to "consult" with them at a set hourly rate to make any changes and modifications to the song.
NIN and Reznor get a song they can make $1.6 million (or more off of) and I get paid upfront for my work. The better part being that I don't have to wait for royalties to come in, I am paid upfront and if someone makes me an offer I don't like I can hold on to the song until someone does.
See, simple and profitable and no one is even out of a job.
Flying car nothing, I want the hovercraft I was promised as a child. To glide along the road with a smooth ride, no more avoiding debris (I hope) and not having to feel every little dip and pothole. This is what I was promised as a kid and I want it!
Why are we spending all this time to stop people from gambling? Why not just tax the snot out of it and let people do what they will? Will people stop going to Vegas/Tahoe because of this? Unlikely. Just tax the earnings and put the money to something useful and move on.
There are plenty of broadband speed testers out there, so maybe someone needs to create a "broadband speed rating" site (similar to any of the number of gas price websites). Let users test their connection, send the data to the website and then let the telcos spin in the wind when their offerings are picked apart by their users and/or competitors
If the goal is really to insure ticket revenue, rather than shorten the light and put more people at risk, why don't you increase the fine for running the light. You can hit safety requirements and ticket revenue requirements at the same time.
On the post: New Advertising Strategy For Newspapers? They Make Great Umbrellas
Drought...
On the post: NFL: Refs Banned From Using All Social Media; Press Can't Live Tweet
As an Official...
As an official everything you say is scrutinized on the field and items on social networks could lend fuel to the fire. Think of innocuous statements such as "Can't believe I have to go to Oakland this week" and how people could construe that statement to mean the official has something against the Raiders and that he will make calls against them. Then you combine that statement with a blown call and you could see the NFL with a PR nightmare on it's hands not to mention a high chance of being sued (knowing it may not go far).
Now that being said, I think an outright ban on using social media is wrong. There are certain things that shouldn't be talked about (interaction with coaches, players, dislikes of certain areas or teams, stuff like that) but a lot of what can be said on a social network could be beneficial and certainly couldn't hurt the NFL. I update my facebook and twitter regularly with the games I am going to (i.e. "off to work XXX vs YYY 8th grade game) but I never make commentary about what happened in the game, with coaches, players or even other officials.
As for Hochuli's apology, the NFL should be applauding him for that. Due to their policies of keeping officials away from the press and fans, the officials are the most insulated members of the NFL. For him to come out and admit he was wrong adds a human face to the official and allows people to remember that the officials are human and maybe let people cut them a bit more slack.
On the post: Have Your Say: Should Mike Speak At SXSW?
I'll vote
On the post: Is Obama's Broadband Plan Anything More Than A Free Gift To Incumbent Providers?
Why not put the cart after the horse
On the post: Trent Reznor Gives People A Reason To Buy Latest CD Even Though It's Free Online
Recording not music
Hey Mike, can we be fair here? Its not the music industry saying they can't make money with free music its the recording industry that can't/won't figure out a way to make money off of free. The musicians and touring elements seem to be figuring out the new business models, the record labels are just hanging on as long as they can.
On the post: If Lori Drew Is Guilty, So Are Most Internet Users
Other Examples
So, to make it reflect more what happened in the referenced case, what if Joe used a fake profile on myspace, facebook, et al to arrange his trysts? Could he be charged with the computer fraud for violating the TOS and by that violation eventually caused Jane's suicide? Seems a stretch even there but I bet if you looked you could find a situation just like that and no one was charged with anything.
The case is tragic but I feel like this prosecution is all about legal theater (a DA's take on "protecting the children"). Maybe it would be better off if this case was used as a catalyst to improve help lines and other resources so that people don't commit suicide.
On the post: Reznor Grosses $1.6 Million In The First Week Of Ghosts I-IV
Re: Re: This simplistic view is getting really tir
For example, say I am a song writer and I write a song for NIN and Reznor. Now, in the old system I would get royalties based on sales and whatnot. In a new system I sell them the song for a set fee (I can probably figure out what this fee should be with relative certainly) and a limited license. In addition I offer my services to "consult" with them at a set hourly rate to make any changes and modifications to the song.
NIN and Reznor get a song they can make $1.6 million (or more off of) and I get paid upfront for my work. The better part being that I don't have to wait for royalties to come in, I am paid upfront and if someone makes me an offer I don't like I can hold on to the song until someone does.
See, simple and profitable and no one is even out of a job.
On the post: Moller Flying Car May Be Grounded Permanently
Where is my hovercraft?
On the post: Antigua Starting To Get Angry With US Playing Games Over WTO Online Gambling Ruling
Why are we wasting our time?
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Knowing What Broadband Providers Offer Will Kill Coffee Shops?
Maybe this is an opportunity...
On the post: Cities Put Revenue Over Driver Safety
More Money
On the post: Broadcasters Hope Fourth Time's The Charm For Anti-Satellite Radio Bill
From my cold dead fingers...
Next >>