|
Monday, September 2, 2002
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Monday, September 2, 2002
started 9/2/2002; 2:06:00 AM - last post 9/2/2002; 3:12:45 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Monday, September 2, 2002 
9/2/2002; 6:06:00 AM (reads: 5637, responses: 3)
|
|
That and more 
| | Ed Cone: If journalism is the first draft of history, then blogging is sometimes the first draft of journalism. |
How much?
| | Now let's say your station gets popular, and you've got 500 people per hour tuned in. You play 15 songs an hour. That's 7500 song streams per hour. The royalties are $.0007 per stream. That's $5.25 per day. Multiply that by 365 days per year and you've got $1916.25/year. |
| | Am I right here? That seems low for the CARP fees, but still a loss for Live365, if they're bothering to keep up with the CARP rules (and it's not clear that they are). |
Question:
| | What's a patch? I ask because Scott says this: |
| | If Other World's product was actually a modified version of iDVD, if Other World was itself redistributing Apple's software, then Apple has a case that Other World was violating its copyright (though not that Other World was violating the DMCA -- see below). But that's not what a "patch" typically is; usually it's a piece of code that a user installs that modifies how a program functions. |
| | If Other World was distributing a separate piece of software that users can install that interacts with iDVD then I don't see how this violates Apple's copyright. If that's a violation of the DMCA then every single software "add-on", every single software program that interacts with another software program, is in violation of the DMCA. And that's patently absurd. But this |
| | I always thought a patch was something added to a program itself, so it becomes part of the program. Apache stands for a patcy server. |
| | Is this thing Apple's complaining about a patch, or a separate program — an add-on of some kind? And is an add-on a violation of the iDVD's license, or of copyright? That's not clear to me, either. |
Where?
Found
Fuzzle
| | I don't know what software makes this puzzle. Looks like Flash, but I'm not sure. |
| | I just know I can't wait to show my kid in the morning |
Belabor Day
| | I want to start by saying I don't want this post to be about who said what, or even why. I want it to be about a word. |
| | When I read through the dozens of postings and comments on all this, it's clear to me that what Shelley had in mind in the first place was not just to flag an offense, but to make us (or at least me) think about we're saying. |
| | Dictionary.com -
n. 1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. 2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
n : discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex. |
| | Merriam-Webster Online -
Function: noun.
Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)
Date: 1968
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex |
| | I said specific statements were sexist, or more properly, examples of sexism. Why? Because they made generalized statements of social behavior based on sex. |
| | Cute, funny, offhand, stupid, silly, friendly, joking, brilliant, clever, demeaning, exploring, explaining -- whatever the basis of the statement, when there is generalization based on sex, this promotes stereotypes in social roles. |
| | My initial response was If we can't generalize about sex, what fun can we possibly have with it? Fun was what I was after in my precipitating post, the sub-obvious context of which was a trialogue between Dawn, Moxie and myself. Fun was also the spirit in which I wrote my own follow up, playing off of Mike Golby's. |
| | But Shelley dismisses the fun defense. If you're generalizing about a gender, you're being sexist.That's clearly her point. And there are two dictionaries, right here, that qualify sexism with the verbs promote and foster. Not exactly the same as generalize, but close enough for Shelley, and also for the point I want to make, after thinking about the subject for awhile. |
| | Which is this: sexism is a lousy word. It's so imprecise that it's too easily applied. Any joke about gender conceivably "promotes" or "fosters" sexual stereotypes, and is therefore "sexist." Compare "sexist" to "bigoted," "prejudiced," "intolerant" and other words from the same box of labels. The rest are a lot more specific, precise and meaningful. |
| | That's why I think sexist is meaningless except as an epithet. It's something akin to name-calling: a dismissive expression of anger or contempt that says more about the accuser than the accused. That's why I'm sorry Shelley used it. But I don't fault her; I fault the word. |
| | What would have happened if sexist had not been available as a word? I don't know what Shelley would have said, but I'm sure it would have been more penetrating and precise, and would have invited less defensive dialog from all sides. |
| | In looking around for other ist words that tend to be used as epithets, I inevitably came to racism and racist. Does it say about race what sexism says about gender? Well, no. Here's Merriam-Webster: |
| | Function: noun
Date: 1936
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective |
| | Not quite parallel. First, racism is an older word. (Which suprised me: I thought it dated from the Sixties.) Second, it's much more precise and meaningful. While it may involve a "behavior" or an "attitude" that "fosters" or "promotes," it is also something more than that. It is a very specific belief. A racist believes one race is superior to others. |
| | Perhaps some day sexist will mean the same kind of thing, or something just as precise. When I look up sexism on Google, I find some encouragement that we may be headed in that direction. This definition, for example, is much more specific than either of the two dictionaries: |
| | Sexism, set of attitudes and behaviours towards people that judge or belittle them on the basis of their gender, or that perpetuate stereotypical assumptions about gender roles. |
| | This definition also raises a question: When I wrote about "male kinda shit that seems to comprise 5/4 of the blog world," was I trying to perpetuate something, or to make fun of it? |
| | If I succeeded at the former, I failed at the latter. |
Spot maintenance
| | I've found a way to make Jaguar survive sleep between locations (such as my desk — where there are no less than nine devices and networks plugged into the monitor, FireWire, USB, power, Ethernet and speaker jacks — and my lap, when I'm sitting outside, in the living room or up on the roof, jacked into the Net by wi-fi). |
| | Unplug and replug everything only when the laptop is awake. |
| | Early on, OS X couldn't handle losing and regaining the Ethernet connection during sleep, but that problem cleared up by 10.1.5, which was highlly forgiving about stuff (other than the FireWire drive, for obvious reasons) being plugged and unplugged during sleep. |
| | So hey: it's not a hard adjusment to make. I'm just wondering now if I'm the only one making it. |
discuss
|
|
Dave Winer - Re: Sunday, September 1, 2002
9/2/2002; 10:20:46 AM (reads: 587, responses: 1)
|
|
|
Doc, it could be that a proper response to "Sexist!" is "Yeah, so what." In my humble opinion, unless the statement somehow limits someone, it's harmless. And if it expresses something that's true about you, it's interesting to people who care about you. As you know I care about what makes you tick because you and I are different sorts of people.
The political correctness of the 70s, that SP espouses, was a concentration camp for personality. A place to break out of, not a place to make home. Let's explore the differences between and within genders, and try not to let the stoppers stop it.
BTW, I spent yesterday with three children ranging in age from 6 to 8. Two girls, one boy. Don't even try to tell me there's no diff betw girls and boys.
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Sunday, September 1, 2002
9/2/2002; 5:32:57 PM (reads: 678, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Viva la difference!, the French cliché goes. I agree with it. And I agree with you about saying "so what" to an instrument of political correction, which is what "sexist" is, regardless of its sanction by vague dictionary definitions.
But I'm a word guy. I love linguistics. What I wrote this morning was mostly about words, not politics (beyond the fact that politics has made "sexism" a shitty word).
I expressed my opinion on the politics of the matter when I agreed with what Glenn Reynolds said about the Left's lost sense of humor:
it's really the whole Left that went wrong, shifting its focus from Abbie Hoffman's pranks to Andrea Dworkin's prudery over the course of a decade -- a decade in which, surprise, the Left lost its popular support.
Of course there are a few pranks left on the Left. Michael Moore has raised them to an art form. But somehow even his fun stuff remains unpersusasive except to the declining ranks of the faithful. Which is a lot more sad than funny.
discuss
|
|
Ryan Irelan - Live365
9/2/2002; 7:12:45 PM (reads: 1040, responses: 0)
|
|
|
As far as I can tell the numbers are correct, but they will only lose money if everyone draws that much listenership. I also thought there was a limit to the amount of listeners one could have at any given time, but I'm not sure.
I'm sure it'll work much like insurance does; premiums pay for the few with large claims, or in this case, everyone pays for the small percentage that actually draws a large listening audience, thus allowing Live365 to pay the fees.
Ryan
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
