« | Home | Recent Comments | Categories | »

When your business is lading shit, you buy good shovels.

Posted on February 2nd, 2011 at 21:48 by John Sinteur in category: Pastafarian News

[Quote]:

The new 185,000-square-foot Church of Scientology International Dissemination and Distribution Center is a one-of-a-kind printing and production facility. It houses manufacturing, distribution and administration all under one roof and is manned entirely by Church staff members. This new Center generates dissemination materials for the more than 9,000 Scientology Churches, Missions and affiliated groups worldwide, enabling these organizations to meet the unprecedented demand for Scientology services and programs.

The anchor of the printing plant is a custom-built 121-ton web press. Among other materials, it prints Church magazines in 15 languages, with a global circulation of millions. The press accommodates these diverse needs with the capability to automatically switch print jobs from one language to another. It prints at a rate of 55,000 pages per hour.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Couldn’t they have put that land and all those materials to better use? Like as a landfill?

Cartoon

Posted on February 2nd, 2011 at 21:23 by John Sinteur in category: Cartoon


Write a comment

A harrowing, historic week in Egypt

Posted on February 2nd, 2011 at 21:21 by John Sinteur in category: Great Picture

[Quote]:

They have been days of chants and chaos, bloodshed mixed with moments of breathtaking solidarity between the protesters and the soldiers sent to subdue them. The flame of social unrest that first flickered in Tunisia has spread to Egypt, culminating with the announcement Tuesday by President Hosni Mubarak that after three decades in power, he would not run for another term. The clashes left government buildings in ashes, stores ransacked, and an economy teetering. Cairo’s international airport teemed with Americans and other foreigners trying to flee; Egypt’s tourism industry froze. At Cairo’s Liberation Square, Mubarak’s announcement was met with jeers and calls for an immediate resignation. Pro-Mubarak forces struck back, attacking the protesters in waves. The country of 80 million, rich in history but bereft of personal freedoms, awaits the next stage. Collected here are images from the last week focusing inside Egypt. — Lloyd Young (45 photos total)


23
Protesters pray in front of an Egyptian army tank in Liberation Square in Cairo Saturday, Jan. 29. In several parts of the city, confrontation gave way to camaraderie as protesters and soldiers shared water bottles and stories. (Lefteris Pitarakis/Associated Press) #


Write a comment

Al Jazeera English Blacked Out Across Most Of U.S.

Posted on February 2nd, 2011 at 12:10 by Paul Jay in category: News

[Quote]:

Other than in a handful of pockets across the U.S. – including Ohio, Vermont and Washington, D.C. – cable carriers do not give viewers the choice of watching Al Jazeera. That corporate censorship comes as American diplomats harshly criticize the Egyptian government for blocking Internet communication inside the country and as Egyptattempts to block Al Jazeera from broadcasting.

The result of the Al Jazeera English blackout in the United States has been a surge in traffic to the media outlet’s website, where footage can be seen streaming live. The last 24 hours have seen a two-and-a-half thousand percent increase in web traffic, Tony Burman, head of North American strategies for Al Jazeera English, told HuffPost. Sixty percent of that traffic, he said, has come from the United States.

Al Jazeera English launched in the fall of 2006, opening a large bureau on K Street in downtown Washington, but has made little progress in persuading cable companies to offer the channel to its customers.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. No such thing as “corporate censorship”. To be censorship, it has to be directed by the government. This is a business decision. Except for a handful of news junkies, I don’t think anyone would watch daily. There are many reasons cable companies don’t carry one station or another like the fees they charge, their ability to attract viewers and advertisers, etc. It’s all business, though, and it’s a very tough business. If the carrier doesn’t think they’ll make money on it, they simply won’t buy it. If their coverage is good, though, this big event in Egypt might help Al Jazeera English sell their product to more carriers … but I doubt it. Internet traffic is not only irrelevant to this, it is idiotic to compare the tastes of internet users to that of cable TV users.

  2. “No such thing as ‘corporate censorship’” says Rob. Perhaps the 309,000 hits on google, replete with more than enough examples, may lead to a rethink. As for the definition of “censorship”, government censorship is only one of many different types. Wikipedia alone has 9 varieties (sounds like a breakfast cereal) and links for even more.

  3. If Joe Blow Cable Company does not subscribe to or purchase the Al Jazeera English Channel, that is NOT censorship. That is freedom, Irene. Cable companies are free to choose what services they provide to their subscribers. Their subscribers are free to choose another service or none at all if they’re not happy about it.

    I do not buy corporate censorship. If media is afraid to say or do something because they may lose ad dollars or customers, that’s a problem. They can take those dollars and customers and full responsibility for their actions or they can say or do what they want and accept the consequences. It’s their choice. That’s not censorship.

  4. I like the way you wriggle when in a tight corner. Kind of reminds me of …say … how Fox News might handle this topic. Obfuscation will not bury the facts, Rob. Corporate censorship exists in everyday life in, at least, the Western world. At the risk of repeating myself – for thousands of examples of this – try google.

  5. I was with Rob until he said that I could switch cable services. Then I realized that my municipality has given one cable company a local monopoly (like most cities in the US). Government-granted monopolies prevent the free market from being free. Is that the same as government censorship? Not necessarily, but it can have the same end effect.

    Then again, maybe there’s satellite TV. I’m not sure. I’m one of those internet-using people.

  6. I’d settle for one example, Irene, but they’re all the same, aren’t they? Some whiny constituency cries because they’re not getting what THEY want so they claim censorship. If Al Jazeera English Channel wants to be picked up by cable companies, it’s up to them to convince said cable companies they have something to offer that they and their subscribers want. They haven’t. This is Business 101, not censorship.

    Stay with me, Sig. I didn’t say other “cable” services, I said other services or none at all. We don’t have a right to cable TV. That said, I don’t think DirecTV carries it, either, although I’ve never looked. That’s what I have.

    You all know that cable and satellite services have a process where subscribers can request channels be added to the packages. If enough requests are received requesting a channel, it will be considered. I have no specifics as to why the Al Jazeera English Channel isn’t carried by more services but I’m certain there is no sinister conspiracy going on because there’s a much easier explanation.

  7. “Blackout” suggests covering up what used to be there.

    Do you think there was much demand for Al Jazeera until this week from customers? I don’t think so. Does it make any business sense to carry it if there’s no demand?

  8. Rob, forget about cable companies for the moment. What I am referring to and have been all the time, are your two initial blanket statements.

    1. No such thing as “corporate censorship”.
    2. To be censorship, it has to be directed by the government.

    Both of these are incorrect at any number of levels. For further details including much more than one example (which are multi-varied in their nature) see my earlier posts.

  9. I stand by both of those statements, Irene. You did not cite one example. You referred me to Google. I’m not going to sift through all of them but I’ll pick one. They’re basically all the same. One of the samples is of WalMart filtering lyrics on music CDs they sell. That alarmed consumers and artists, alike. There is and always was an alternative, though, wasn’t there? Can you think of what it is, Irene? Consumers shouldn’t buy music CDs at WalMart and artists shouldn’t sell music CDs to WalMart. Ahh, but consumers want those low, low prices and artists want those sales.

    While we’re on the subject of altering music, I’ll give you a warning now. Don’t buy music from WalMart, Time-Life, Columbia House, or BMG. They all shorten songs or buy the shorter 45rpm version so they can fit more songs on a CD but the worst thing they do is use the version of a song that didn’t make it onto the album. Yes, they buy outtakes at a discount but they can still claim it’s by the “original artist”. iTunes also has altered versions of songs in their inventory but I think that’s because the task of verifying original material is just too daunting. Anything current is fairly safe from alteration but older material is a mishmash.

  10. Rob, I’m seeing a heavy Fox News influence in your line of non-reasoning.

    “You referred me to Google. I’m not going to sift through all of them but I’ll pick one. They’re basically all the same.”

    Do you see anything intrinsically wrong with this comment? If not, good luck to you.

  11. Stop with the Fox News, Irene. I don’t watch Fox News but I suppose you’re trying to insult me. You have offered nothing here. I have yet to see you cite one example. All you did was refer me to Google and Wikipedia. Of course, I’m sure you went to the Wikipedia definition of “Corporate Censorship” where you encountered the very first statement, “This article has multiple issues.”. When I made the case against corporate censorship in the post here about cable carriers and Al Jazeera English, you told me to “forget about cable companies”. You have nothing to offer. Corporate censorship doesn’t exist. If you think it does, prove it. Tell us how it works and cite one example of corporate censorship in action. One. Can you? Bet you can’t.

  12. Quote:

    Many people may be against censorship, at least in theory. Today, however, corporate censorship is everywhere, and it effects everyone. The deliberate restriction of undesirable information is arguably a right of the corporation, at least in the framework of a modern capitalist society.

    If a company’s reason-to-be is to make and increase profits, ideals such as freedom of expression and the free sharing of ideas, are by nature, a conflict with the aim of the business entity. Some ideas and some forms of expression will eventually conflict with the character, desires, and motives of the company. With the power to dictate the flow of information to some extent, why wouldn’t a business direct that content to suit its own needs? As corporations, particularly in America, have grown into massive conglomerates in many sectors, the effects of corporate censorship on society have expanded as well.

    Corporate Censorship of Music

    The corporate censorship of music is one that affects the majority of the population, although few people are aware of it. A small percentage of recordings are provided for the consumer in most stores, and on most radio stations. To find any music beyond what is conventionally provided, and marketed as popular, a consumer would have to visit independent music outlets, listen to independent radio stations, or learn about different artists from independent magazines, either online or in print. Larger corporations, whether a store such as Best Buy, or the media conglomerates which own most of commercial radio, only display and play the conventionally-agreed upon recordings.

    What is the result of this form of censorship by corporations? Art becomes stifled. People do not have direct access to a range of inspiration, creativity, and expression. Some voices are never heard, while others are incessantly heard by everyone. This is a great power of a large company. To influence what is heard, and even what is created.

    If Wal-Mart, which at one point was responsible for as much as ten percent of album sales, only puts conventional music on its shelves, the message is sent to artists, that unconventional music will not sell. An independent artist, creating music that is not mainstream, will face many challenges without the support of business conglomerates. The consumer, interested in discovering the voices of art, that are “behind the curtain” will also face many challenges.

    http://www.suite101.com/content/what-is-corporate-censorship-a219038#ixzz1D01EJlPm

  13. If you’re a consumer and WalMart doesn’t sell the music you want, get it somewhere else. There are lots of outlets, not to mention the one we’re using right here. If you are an artist and WalMart doesn’t want to sell your CDs, find another outlet. There are many, many, many. WalMart is just as free to carry the types of music they want to sell as they are to carry the brands of baked beans they want to sell. It is not censorship, it is freedom. WalMart represents 10% of sales at the most. Maybe you can find what you want in the other 90%. Try again, Paul.

    “To find any music beyond what is conventionally provided, and marketed as popular, a consumer would have to visit independent music outlets, listen to independent radio stations, or learn about different artists from independent magazines, either online or in print.”

    That’s the real complaint. People don’t want to do that. Tehy want information delivered unto them. It’s not WalMart’s responsibility to inform the public of every CD they don’t carry.

  14. I get the feeling that this is almost pointless, but here are some examples –

    1. In another blatant example of corporate political censorship, the multibillion-dollar Walt Disney entertainment company has told its subsidiary, Miramax Film Corp., not to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11, the latest film by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore, in North America. Disney’s actions are part of an intensifying campaign by US ruling circles to censor or silence all opposition to the Bush administration’s “global war on terror.”

    2. Cell Phone Radiation Facts & the Dangers of Corporate Censorship
    http://www.suite101.com/content/cell-phone-radiation-facts–the-dangers-of-corporate-censorship-a291090

    3. About a dozen examples here
    http://mostlywater.org/new_morality_police_corporate_censors_flex_their_muscles

    4. A PDF article here examining, in depth, three examples of corporate censorship.
    http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=terence_lau

    Rob, you may claim that “Corporate censorship doesn’t exist,” yet EVERY search engine disagrees with you. They all throw up a multitude of examples. And Rob, I would never try and insult you. In fact, I’d go so far as to say you certainly are a shining wit, as my friend, the late Reverend Spooner used to say.

    BTW How old are you Rob? With comments like – “Can you? Bet you can’t.” I get the impression that you have a bit more growing to do.

  15. Number 1 – Moore found another distributor. Everyone exercising their rights, including Miramax. Freedom wins.

    On Number 2, cell phone radiation? Seriously? My cell phone had a warning on the packaging but I don’t know if it’s required. The information is widely available. It’s not censorship if the cell phone manufacturer doesn’t publicize it.

    On Number 3, the guy’s website was reinstated. Even if you don’t believe it was a bad call, he was free to go to another bank. Look in the phone book. There are lots of banks. The Dixie Chicks case backfired but it wasn’t censorship, either. Radio stations are free to play whatever they want.

    On Number 4, nothing there, either. If I rent billboard space and don’t like your ad, I can decline. Not censorship.

    Like I said, these are all the same. In every case, the crybaby has other options but they’re usually inconvenient or expensive or whatever.

    The search engine component to your comment doesn’t work, Irene. Go to your favorite one and search for “ghost” or “God”. You’ll find a bazillion links and very specific information about them. Doesn’t mean they exist.

    We’re done now, busy ditch.

  16. Okay, wait a second, everybody.

    Rob, I won’t dispute that these companies can do what they do.

    Perhaps the question we should is if that’s a desirable situation, and if not, what (if anything) can be done about it (and if we should do something about it).

    And regardless how you feel about it – it’s probably good to keep an eye on all this.

    Gee, and this wasn’t even my post…

  17. Aw, Rob and Irene seem to enjoy sparring without the drudgery of defining what they’re arguing over. If it keeps them distracted from consuming things, why not? :-p

    @John: first, you might see if there’s a situation worth paying attention. See my comment #7: is there a there there? Is it censorship to not carry Al Jazeera when there’s little demand for it? Was Al Jazeera removed anywhere in the past 2 weeks?

  18. That’s a whole other thing, John. :) In most cases, I think it’s undesirable. The WalMarts, Microsofts, Dells, and Amazons, with their insatiable appetites for growth and their obnoxious practices of protecting their image and their message, are effectively killing off their competition. By doing so, they’re limiting all of our choices. There has been a backlash, though. WalMart is finding it increasingly difficult to put stores up. They have significant opposition wherever they go now. Microsoft has been in legislators area of scrutiny for years. If any of these corporate giants get too big, they’ll be busted up. How big is too big, though? I think they’re pretty close. The problem we’ll all have, though, is that consumer prices go way up when these giants are not around. It’s a delicate balance. We need the giants around to keep the little guys honest and we need the little guys around to keep the giants honest.

    Al Jazeera English is what I was talking about, Desiato. My former sparring partner moved it along to other areas and I unwisely obliged. There’s nothing there. If Al Jazeera English had done a better job of getting their channel carried, there’s no conversation here. They’ve had almost five years to do it.

  19. Is it censorship to not carry Al Jazeera when there’s little demand for it?

    There are some things you must do precisely because there’s little demand for it. Otherwise you might as well turn the Royal Opera House into a bingo hall, and the National Theatre into a carpet sale warehouse.

  20. “There are some things you must do precisely because there’s little demand for it.”

    That may be a great thing to do in theory but you shouldn’t force anyone, specifically the private sector, to do it. Those cable channels that do carry Al Jazeera are in communities that have a substantial Arab population. They want it and they get it.

    Who owns the Royal Opera House and the National Theatre?

  21. “I get the feeling that this is almost pointless” and I was 100% correct when i wrote that.

    “Number 1 – Moore found another distributor.” Therefore it’s not corporate censorship? Seriously Rob!
    The remainder of your so-called refutations are as equally meaningless. None of them hold water. You can’t keep stating black is white incessantly. It may work for Fox on some people but it definitely won’t work here. Even your search engine attempt falls into the same category – I wrote ” They all throw up a multitude of examples”. Try it yourself – Just type in “examples of corporate censorship” and start reading. These definitely do exist, hundreds of thousands of them and no amount of gainsaying is going to alter that fact. You might get a shock.
    Instead of the sophistry you continue to employ, try logic. It works.

    PS Don’t bother replying because we both know it would be a waste of time.

    PPS I am stopping here so as not to have John ban me.

Cracking the Scratch Lottery Code

Posted on February 2nd, 2011 at 10:26 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote]:

The trick itself is ridiculously simple. (Srivastava would later teach it to his 8-year-old daughter.) Each ticket contained eight tic-tac-toe boards, and each space on those boards—72 in all—contained an exposed number from 1 to 39. As a result, some of these numbers were repeated multiple times. Perhaps the number 17 was repeated three times, and the number 38 was repeated twice. And a few numbers appeared only once on the entire card. Srivastava’s startling insight was that he could separate the winning tickets from the losing tickets by looking at the number of times each of the digits occurred on the tic-tac-toe boards. In other words, he didn’t look at the ticket as a sequence of 72 random digits. Instead, he categorized each number according to its frequency, counting how many times a given number showed up on a given ticket. “The numbers themselves couldn’t have been more meaningless,” he says. “But whether or not they were repeated told me nearly everything I needed to know.” Srivastava was looking for singletons, numbers that appear only a single time on the visible tic-tac-toe boards. He realized that the singletons were almost always repeated under the latex coating. If three singletons appeared in a row on one of the eight boards, that ticket was probably a winner.


Write a comment

Cartoon

Posted on February 2nd, 2011 at 10:13 by John Sinteur in category: Cartoon


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. That’s the race, isn’t it?

Microsoft Spying on Internet Explorer Users Google Searches in Order to Enhance Bing Search Engine

Posted on February 2nd, 2011 at 6:21 by John Sinteur in category: Google, Microsoft

[Quote]:

Has Microsoft been spying on the Google searches of Internet Explorer users in order to use the data to enhance their own Microsoft Bing search engine, to make it more competitive with Google? According to Google, who claims to have caught MS watching their own IE users, tapping their Google searches and using the information gleaned from those searches to make their Bing searches more accurate.

According to Google, by manually seeding their Google search results with false data, they have caught Microsoft copying their data. They compare it to someone cheating on an exam by looking over someone else’s shoulder.

[Quote]:

By now, you may have read Danny Sullivan’s recent post: “Google: Bing is Cheating, Copying Our Search Results” and heard Microsoft’s response, “We do not copy Google’s results.” However you define copying, the bottom line is, these Bing results came directly from Google.

I’d like to give you some background and details of our experiments that lead us to understand just how Bing is using Google web search results.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. MS’s spying versus Google’s spying. What’s the point?