stargeek
From MichaelFrom MichaelFrom Michael 01/22/2004 11:06 PM You just wrong, and I be tryin' to right you .. brilliant, streetsmart debate .. From Michael has a lot more .. is truly a work of art .. Margaret Cho just rocks margaretcho.com/blog/frommichael.htm This is a GrokNews Entry: (what is grok?)From MichaelGrok Headline matches for From Michael"Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball:
|
||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||
Marc's bit......
I go way back with this dude - like 20 years.
weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujh
uf.asp
track this
site | 5 links
news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=476469track this site | 5 links
alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=4830_0_3_0_C
track this
site | 4 links
Hanging out around the convention, I've encountered a number of the Republican faithful who aren't delegates. They warm up to me when they don't find horns or a tail. Talking to them, I discover they're like many people who call themselves Republicans but aren't really Republicans. At least not in the radical-right way that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Co. have defined Republicans.Link (Thanks, Alfie!)I asked one man who told me he was a "proud Republican," "Do you think we need strong laws to protect our air and water?"
"Well, sure," he said. "Who doesn't?"
I asked whether women should have equal rights, including the same pay as men.
"Absolutely," he replied.
"Would you discriminate against someone because he or she is gay?"
"Um, no." The pause — I get that a lot when I ask this question — is usually because the average good-hearted person instantly thinks about a gay family member or friend.
free-times.com/Usual_Suspects/suspects.html
track this
site | 3 links
prisma-online.de/rga-online/person.html?pid=michael_cimino
track
this site | 2 links
michaelmoore.com/index_real.php
track this
site | 5 links
This is not a fluke folks. This guy is for real. Take a look at what he just posted......
I just returned from my trip to the Bay Area. I was there for three days and had an opportunity to stop in and see a number of companies doing very interesting things. In addition, I had a keynote "fireside chat" at the Always-On Conference, hosted by Larry Lessig and Steve Jurvetson. It went very well, but it takes some getting used to, having real time blogging going on while you are on stage.
On this trip I focused a fair amount on the converging living room. There are major efforts underway to bring together the television entertainment system, computer management, communications and broadband Internet to offer a multifaceted and richer consumer experience. Many small entrepreneurs and large companies alike are pursuing this vision. The vision is not new, but the thing I observed that has gained greater traction is providers increasingly building their solutions around broadband access. There are efforts to offer broadband delivered movies, concerts and other content from sources other than cable or DBS, such as Yahoo, and Netflix. More effort is being placed in using "TiVo-like" functionality and distributed intelligence to allow the user to order up a queue of content and have it delivered as you move through your choices (a-la Netflix rentals). Of course, products are looking to allow DVD copying as well. Also, the capability to pull content from your computer using WiFi and other standards is gaining ground. The progress I see is simpler interfaces and more elegant boxes that make for an easier (yet more powerful) experience for the consumer.
What does stand out, however, is how critical getting copyright and DRM issues solved in a manner that protects content but allows these developments to flourish. Clearly, the multiple standards combined with restrictive protection schemes can damper the possibilities. All this convergence will also raise interesting legal questions about how to classify certain kinds of offerings that integrate seamlessly what used to be separate and distinct services for regulatory purposes. Love to hear your thoughts on these issues.
PS: I do not mean to limit the discussion to Silicon Valley. I know there is similarly interesting work going on all over the country.
I also visited a BPL demonstration. I think the technology is promising. Getting another broadband pipe that reaches nearly all Americans is a powerful possibility and should be aggressively explored. I do think we need to exercise care to ensure proper protection against harmful interference. Notching schemes and other engineering devices can limit the risk, but more work is being done to understand these issues and explore what is possible. We have proceedings underway, as well as work in our labs, examining these issues.
Indecency
Many of you have asked me about FCC indecency enforcement and I do want to respond. A word of caution, however, I am not allowed to comment on specific cases that are pending so I will have to be general.
Our Authority: Many that oppose our efforts question what authority we have. I have heard questions about commissioners not being elected, and arguments that our actions are unconstitutional. Here is the scope:
In 1927, Congress made indecency over the public airwaves (these laws do not apply to Cable, Internet, Newspapers or Satellite) illegal. The statute reads:
"Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both"
Yes, the statute is a criminal provision. This underscores the seriousness of the statute. Congress is elected and represents the full body of the American people and the laws it passes are presumed to be reflective of the public will. Congress, having passed the law, can and has directed the FCC to enforce the law. This is where our authority (indeed our obligation) comes from.
The First Amendment: The First Amendment bars the government from infringing on speech, but the bar is not absolute. Government cannot ban indecent speech; the government can only limit its airing. The Supreme Court has said that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from such utterances. The courts have specifically held that a rule that prohibits indecent broadcasts between 6am and 10pm (hours children are said to likely be in the audience) is constitutional. So, though I respect the many that feel indecency enforcement is unconstitutional, the courts have said that it is not, and we are not at liberty to take a different view.
How We Do It: Our enforcement efforts are complaint driven. We do not listen in to broadcasts and generally do not affirmatively go after shows. We instead respond to complaints from the public. If we feel there is reason to believe the law was violated, we issue a Notice of Apparent Liability. A party is then free to challenge the NAL and show why the incident is not indecent. If we agree, we drop the matter. If we do not, we will issue a fine to the broadcast company. Our enforcement efforts have picked up over the last 2 years. The main reason is a significant rise in complaints. In 2001, we received only around 111 complaints for all of television. In the first quarter of 2004, we received nearly 540,000.
"Indecency" is defined as material that describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities that are deemed patently offensive by community standards. Thus, interpretation is key as applied to specific facts. We weigh many factors of context before making a determination. It is admittedly a delicate task.
Final Thoughts: Several have suggested that the indecency enforcement effort is a Republican political crusade. The facts belie this characterization. The FCC is bipartisan -- it has Democrats as well as Republicans. Both have supported major indecency decisions. More pointedly, a leading advocate for more aggressive enforcement on the Commission is a Democrat, who consistently criticizes the Commission for not going far enough. My Democratic colleague has dissented from nearly every indecency decision, arguing that we should have taken a harder line through either higher fines, or even license revocation (i.e., putting a station out of business). Furthermore, the Congress has held hearings on indecency and both parties have pressed the Commission to be tougher. In fact, the House recently voted 391-22 for a ten-fold increase in indecency fines and the Senate voted 99-1 to raise fines as well. That is about as bipartisan as anything ever gets in Washington.
Finally, to put things in perspective, in my 3.5-year tenure as Chairman, there have been close to 1 million complaints from the public. These complaints have resulted in 23 NALs (by the way, only 2 involved Howard Stern programs). I cherish the First Amendment and respect the work of many artists that push the envelope. However, "anything goes" is not the law.
Last, I need to post some legal fine print on my blog limits:
FCC regulations prohibit me from hearing about or discussing certain topics that may come before me as a decisionmaker -- such as matters that deal with the particular rights of specific persons or companies. As a result, I will focus my attention in my postings on the general pros and cons of telecom policy, rather than on the whys and wherefores of individual enforcement or licensing matters. Also, to help inform others, my staff will be forwarding comments that may be relevant to open Commission proceedings to their respective public files.
I am going to jump off for now. I am traveling for the next 2 weeks and will have limited internet access, so I might not be able to write as much. I will keep checking in, however, and will pick up some of the other topics when I return.
Thanks,
Michael P.
==================
I responded with this......
Wow - how amazing to actually have a thinking man (rather than a bureaucratic bot) represent a major wing of the U.S. government - congrats!
Your instincts about convergence are true - and also true that it's not just in Silly Valley - but throughout the world - that software and services develoeprs are working together to ease the pain the end-user currently feel. That's why Tony calls it the "AlwaysOn Generation". But we're also the only industry that gets away with shipping things that don't work.
As the movement from old school to new, the old Web to Web 2.0 continues - I think you'll see more and more great examples of how standards like RSS, and new kinds of services like Technorati can turn broadband into a worldwide economic engine - we always hoped it would.
Personal publishing (like blogging) and social networking thrust the human end-users to the forefront where even Burger King and BMW now realize that it's not necessarily just about Hollywood anymore. Mobile services are exploding around the world - yet barely avaiulable here in the States, while communications and media frontiers are being pushed forward each day.
So getting all this stuff to work together, in an integrated, aggregated and highly customizable manner - is key. And Open Standards and Open Source are how we get there.
I call this the "digital lfiestyle aggregation" revolution.
:-)
Great meeting you.
You gotta give credit to Tony Perkins for getting a major U.S. government official to start blogging. His AlwaysON Network is starting to take off.
crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote03.html
track this
site | 4 links
blogs.law.harvard.edu/MichaelWatkins
track this
site | 4 links
The following phrases have been identified by the grok system as matching this entry:
