In the mid-1990 you could get live college football on radio and sometimes video through Yahoo for free.
That all went away in the late 90's early 2000s. Rather than paying to have it (the occasional ESPN or PSN game), I lost interest in following college football all together. They could have counted on me being an avid consumer of all thing CSU Rams - now I barely look up their scores.
Simple:
90% of what the American News Media Consumer considers "news" is actually commentary. It's not that the news is biased - it's that the consumer thinks that commentary is news.
The problem with the 24-hour news cycle is that it's not all that interesting on "slow news days". It's just background noise until a plane crashes, OJ drives a slow white bronco, a volcano erupts, or a hurricane comes within 300 miles of possible land fall.
To keep the attention of the American News Media Consumer - the 24 hour news media has resulted to engaging the watcher by means of sensationalism.
If the American News Media Consumer truly wanted "unbiased" and "fair" news reporting, CSPAN would have the highest rating of any news channel.
True - the one thing you can't fault Apple for is effort put into the end-user experience. This may mean higher-costs for hardware, add-ons, software, etc....
But then Apple (traditionally) doesn't compete on price. When you buy an Apple product, you know that what it does it will do very well.
Where-as many of today's walled-media gardens are nothing more than a toll-booth - Apple's garden actually looks and smells nice.
I would have to agree with you here. It seems to me there is a subtle but important difference between gaming the market and gaming the controls of the market.
Gaming the market is chance with minor influence while gaming the controls is manipulation with minor chance.
Trying to throw Google under the bus doesn't work. They have "fun" because the culture is "Work hard, play hard" - and their workers are "always on" - even when they're off.
On the flip side, few would fault IBM or any number of other more traditional companies for their "less fun" atmosphere. Clearly what works for Google is really working for Google. Likewise what works for IBM really work for IBM.
The culture at Google enjoys the flexibility and quirky perks. The culture at IBM loves the structure.
A successful law firm probably doesn't have a lot "fun" - but the money is probably close to liquid.
The engineer working at Google would probably be willing to work at Google for less money.
The only problem is finding out that YOU don't fit into your company culture. In which case the "forced" fun is gawd awful - or the money you get paid seems to be lacking.
Sports - specifically the NFL - is exactly what I had in mind when I read the article.
I live on the East Coast - but I am from Colorado and naturally a Denver Bronco fan. I don't have cable. So I don't get to watch them very often. If they play NE - then a local bar will tend to show it.
This service would be brilliant if it proves legal. I would be able to get news/real-time sports/and watch shows on the broadcast day rather wait a day later through Hulu or other means.
Is the issue that suddenly we can't trust bloggers? (Were we ever able to?) Is the issue that bloggers need a disclaimer:
"I'm not a real blogger - I just play one on the Internet".
So a company might have a paid spokes person. Why is this bad?
Don't get me wrong - I "get" that it's a bit underhanded and morally questionable to pretend to be an independent voice when you're really just a mouthpiece.
But I *don't* get why this is a problem for the FCC.
If you open up that can of worms, then just about every PAC would run-afoul of the FCC. FoxNews in it's entirety would would have to change its business model. Now I'm no fan of FoxNews - or of PACS using dishonest names - but really - you want it to be illegal? That's a slippery slope coated with oil on Teflon.
My wife and I haven't had cable since 2001. Even with kids now we checkout DVDs form the library, and use NetFlix and Hulu.
We had a little withdrawal when broadcast TV went HD - but we still haven't purchased a HD converter box.
I do miss the NFL - but not so much that I need to pay $1000/year for it.
We are fortunate to live where FiOS (Verizon) and Cable (Cox) compete - so we do an Internet/Phone combo - but no cable.
I've noticed that many of my friends have noted via Facebook that they are trying to live sans TV or sans Cable. The idea that they are even trying it should be enough to scare the Cable companies.
Also - it should be noted that the Times owns a number of TV and radio outlest - and
"On August 25, 2006 – The company acquired Baseline StudioSystems, a leading online database and research service for information on the film and television industries for $35 million."
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the articles stance though.....
Everyone who goes to work does so for an agreed upon dollar amount. No one "has to work" for company XYZ for $x.xx dollars / hour.
Revisit those workers (union or otherwise) at 10 years on the job, 15, 20.... What do you find? Comments like "the company is making a mint on the backs of the workers"
Never mind that the worker at $40k/year has now been paid half a million dollars since he first signed the offer letter. Somehow because the company is making money, the worker is getting screwed (?)
I call it "I agreed to work for you before I knew you where going to make money off of me" syndrome. Or in the case of producers "I agreed to syndicate my shows that were collecting dust because I didn't think you were going to turn it into a Billion dollar idea".
Too bad. You got the money you demanded upfront. You're not entitled to renegotiate the past.
The real danger is the shear number of people in the defense industry with top secret and compartmental access.
It's way too easy to get a clearance - all you need to do is be programmer and apply to Lockheed Martin or any number of other contractors. At 1-2 years out of college you'll get your TS badge. And you'll be sitting with Chinese Nationals (who will also have their TS and compartmental access - one of whom will be your boss) - who speak to each other on the job about job related issues - in Chinese.
And that was back in the 90's. Since 2001 the number of jobs requiring TS clearance has exploded.
You are correct. That is the theory. And it doesn't have to be a "company" - just a widely adopted disruptive technology.
For instance. Why are we "paying" for connections at all? I know "why" - because historically everything was done via landlines. But the technology exists today to buy cheap $30 routers that can connect in ad-hoc mode.
Why not start a new network that simply requires the purchase of an ad-hoc router and build a global mesh network? Have one policy on the network - no walled gardens. Done.
"..."If I am throwing 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, so be it."...."
I found the ruling to not be all that exceptional. Basically a gag order until the trial was over - at least that's how I interpreted it.
While her response was probably dis-tasteful, I found it more angry/sarcastic than literal.
I can envision on of the lawyers objecting and become borderline argumentative and the judge coming back and basically saying "stuff it - that's my ruling - now sit down and shut up".
Of course I'm taking it out of context - but then it's brought to us out of context.
On the post: Mark Cuban: It's Okay For Broadcasters To Block Access Based On Browsers, Because They're Making Billions
Re: Re:
In the mid-1990 you could get live college football on radio and sometimes video through Yahoo for free.
That all went away in the late 90's early 2000s. Rather than paying to have it (the occasional ESPN or PSN game), I lost interest in following college football all together. They could have counted on me being an avid consumer of all thing CSU Rams - now I barely look up their scores.
-CF
On the post: Mark Cuban: It's Okay For Broadcasters To Block Access Based On Browsers, Because They're Making Billions
Re:
On the post: City Paper Mocks Competitors For 'Policies' Over Stewart/Colbert Rallies
Re:
Is it ever really possible to define what Glen Beck does?
I thought it was a parody- that just happened to have a bunch of followers who didn't "get" satire and irony.
-CF
On the post: City Paper Mocks Competitors For 'Policies' Over Stewart/Colbert Rallies
Re:
90% of what the American News Media Consumer considers "news" is actually commentary. It's not that the news is biased - it's that the consumer thinks that commentary is news.
The problem with the 24-hour news cycle is that it's not all that interesting on "slow news days". It's just background noise until a plane crashes, OJ drives a slow white bronco, a volcano erupts, or a hurricane comes within 300 miles of possible land fall.
To keep the attention of the American News Media Consumer - the 24 hour news media has resulted to engaging the watcher by means of sensationalism.
If the American News Media Consumer truly wanted "unbiased" and "fair" news reporting, CSPAN would have the highest rating of any news channel.
-CF
On the post: There's Always A Way To Compete: Competing With Google By Being Human
Re: Apple gets it.
But then Apple (traditionally) doesn't compete on price. When you buy an Apple product, you know that what it does it will do very well.
Where-as many of today's walled-media gardens are nothing more than a toll-booth - Apple's garden actually looks and smells nice.
-CF
On the post: Democrats Are From Cablevision & Republicans Are From Fox In Retransmission Fee Dispute?
Re:
-CF
On the post: Traders Convicted For Figuring Out Auto Trading Algorithm; How Is That Illegal?
Re: I'm confused...
Gaming the market is chance with minor influence while gaming the controls is manipulation with minor chance.
-CF
On the post: Is Fun No Longer Fun When It's Corporate Fun?
Forced fun vs Fun culture
Trying to throw Google under the bus doesn't work. They have "fun" because the culture is "Work hard, play hard" - and their workers are "always on" - even when they're off.
On the flip side, few would fault IBM or any number of other more traditional companies for their "less fun" atmosphere. Clearly what works for Google is really working for Google. Likewise what works for IBM really work for IBM.
The culture at Google enjoys the flexibility and quirky perks. The culture at IBM loves the structure.
A successful law firm probably doesn't have a lot "fun" - but the money is probably close to liquid.
The engineer working at Google would probably be willing to work at Google for less money.
The only problem is finding out that YOU don't fit into your company culture. In which case the "forced" fun is gawd awful - or the money you get paid seems to be lacking.
-CF
On the post: Company Claims Legal Right To Stream Broadcast TV Online; Broadcasters Disagree
Re: Re: This may have legs
I live on the East Coast - but I am from Colorado and naturally a Denver Bronco fan. I don't have cable. So I don't get to watch them very often. If they play NE - then a local bar will tend to show it.
This service would be brilliant if it proves legal. I would be able to get news/real-time sports/and watch shows on the broadcast day rather wait a day later through Hulu or other means.
I will have to follow the story.
-CF
On the post: Why Does The NY Times Rely So Often On Single Anecdote Trend Pieces Not Supported By The Data?
Re: Re:
It's a small but growing trend.
-CF
On the post: FTC Cracks Down On Marketing Firm That Put Up Fake Reviews In iPhone App Store
Re: I don't get it
-CF
On the post: FTC Cracks Down On Marketing Firm That Put Up Fake Reviews In iPhone App Store
I don't get it
Is the issue that suddenly we can't trust bloggers? (Were we ever able to?) Is the issue that bloggers need a disclaimer:
"I'm not a real blogger - I just play one on the Internet".
So a company might have a paid spokes person. Why is this bad?
Don't get me wrong - I "get" that it's a bit underhanded and morally questionable to pretend to be an independent voice when you're really just a mouthpiece.
But I *don't* get why this is a problem for the FCC.
If you open up that can of worms, then just about every PAC would run-afoul of the FCC. FoxNews in it's entirety would would have to change its business model. Now I'm no fan of FoxNews - or of PACS using dishonest names - but really - you want it to be illegal? That's a slippery slope coated with oil on Teflon.
-CF
On the post: Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt
Re:
-CF
On the post: Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
-CF
On the post: TV, Cable Companies Convincing Themselves People Don't Want To Cut The Cable
Since we're talking anecdotal evidence....
We had a little withdrawal when broadcast TV went HD - but we still haven't purchased a HD converter box.
I do miss the NFL - but not so much that I need to pay $1000/year for it.
We are fortunate to live where FiOS (Verizon) and Cable (Cox) compete - so we do an Internet/Phone combo - but no cable.
I've noticed that many of my friends have noted via Facebook that they are trying to live sans TV or sans Cable. The idea that they are even trying it should be enough to scare the Cable companies.
Also - it should be noted that the Times owns a number of TV and radio outlest - and
"On August 25, 2006 – The company acquired Baseline StudioSystems, a leading online database and research service for information on the film and television industries for $35 million."
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the articles stance though.....
- CF
On the post: DRM Strikes Again: Samsung Blu-ray Firmware Update Means No Warner Or Universal Movies
Here is me
-CF
On the post: Sense Of Entitlement? TV Show Creator Wants A Cut Of Hulu IPO Proceeds
Human Nature
Everyone who goes to work does so for an agreed upon dollar amount. No one "has to work" for company XYZ for $x.xx dollars / hour.
Revisit those workers (union or otherwise) at 10 years on the job, 15, 20.... What do you find? Comments like "the company is making a mint on the backs of the workers"
Never mind that the worker at $40k/year has now been paid half a million dollars since he first signed the offer letter. Somehow because the company is making money, the worker is getting screwed (?)
I call it "I agreed to work for you before I knew you where going to make money off of me" syndrome. Or in the case of producers "I agreed to syndicate my shows that were collecting dust because I didn't think you were going to turn it into a Billion dollar idea".
Too bad. You got the money you demanded upfront. You're not entitled to renegotiate the past.
-CF
On the post: Clueless Commentators Think That It's Possible To Stop Wikileaks
More danger from within
It's way too easy to get a clearance - all you need to do is be programmer and apply to Lockheed Martin or any number of other contractors. At 1-2 years out of college you'll get your TS badge. And you'll be sitting with Chinese Nationals (who will also have their TS and compartmental access - one of whom will be your boss) - who speak to each other on the job about job related issues - in Chinese.
And that was back in the 90's. Since 2001 the number of jobs requiring TS clearance has exploded.
-CF
On the post: Telcos Close To 'Deal' On Net Neutrality That Gives Them Everything They Want
Re: You are correct
For instance. Why are we "paying" for connections at all? I know "why" - because historically everything was done via landlines. But the technology exists today to buy cheap $30 routers that can connect in ad-hoc mode.
Why not start a new network that simply requires the purchase of an ad-hoc router and build a global mesh network? Have one policy on the network - no walled gardens. Done.
-CF
On the post: Judge Bars Reporter From Publishing Legally Obtained Factual Info, Saying She Doesn't Care If It Violates First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
I found the ruling to not be all that exceptional. Basically a gag order until the trial was over - at least that's how I interpreted it.
While her response was probably dis-tasteful, I found it more angry/sarcastic than literal.
I can envision on of the lawyers objecting and become borderline argumentative and the judge coming back and basically saying "stuff it - that's my ruling - now sit down and shut up".
Of course I'm taking it out of context - but then it's brought to us out of context.
-CF
Next >>