Free Range Graphics strikes again
The flash-video mavens at Free Range Graphics, those
folks that brought you the Meatrix, are back with another joint slamming PVC. Either they've got some
more money for this campaign or their skills are improving - this video
really stands out above their previous work. I suspect there is
uneasiness at the Vinyl Institute this week.
(spotted at sustainablog)
[/media]
Atom 1.0 Feed seems to be working in Wordpress
Applying this patch to a default installation of Wordpress 2.0.3 results in a valid Atom 1.0 feed, at least for the simple cases I tried against the Feed Validator. The progress of this patch can be tracked on the WP Trac - here's hoping that it or something similar makes it into 2.1.
[/media/weblogs]
Sat, 16 Jul 2005
Applying this patch to a default installation of Wordpress 2.0.3 results in a valid Atom 1.0 feed, at least for the simple cases I tried against the Feed Validator. The progress of this patch can be tracked on the WP Trac - here's hoping that it or something similar makes it into 2.1.
[/media/weblogs]
Corporate Blogging Policies
I thought it might be interesting to see what's going on with corporate blog policies, now that such things have been around for a little while. Initial findings:
IBM's policy is a recent one that has had a chance to benefit from Sun, Microsoft, and others having had such policies in action for a while.
from Groove's policy: "The more we live it, the more that we'll learn from it, and the more that we'll learn through it as we're engaged in conversations with our customers. And thus, the sooner that we'll be able to improve our products and services based upon what we learn."
Sun's blogging policy (via Tim Bray): "Fortunately, if you're writing about a product that a lot of people are using, or are waiting for, and you know what you're talking about, you're probably going to be interesting."
good policy advice from a Forrester researcher
The Southwest Florida Herald Tribune has a policy a bit different than than what's standard for the above mentioned IT companies:
[/media/weblogs]
Sat, 02 Oct 2004
I thought it might be interesting to see what's going on with corporate blog policies, now that such things have been around for a little while. Initial findings:
IBM's policy is a recent one that has had a chance to benefit from Sun, Microsoft, and others having had such policies in action for a while.
from Groove's policy: "The more we live it, the more that we'll learn from it, and the more that we'll learn through it as we're engaged in conversations with our customers. And thus, the sooner that we'll be able to improve our products and services based upon what we learn."
Sun's blogging policy (via Tim Bray): "Fortunately, if you're writing about a product that a lot of people are using, or are waiting for, and you know what you're talking about, you're probably going to be interesting."
good policy advice from a Forrester researcher
The Southwest Florida Herald Tribune has a policy a bit different than than what's standard for the above mentioned IT companies:
"Web log postings will meet the same standards of journalism expected for articles published in the pages of the newspaper. This includes the same standards for objectivity, sourcing and ultimate accuracy.
An editor must review entries written by the blogger/reporter before being posted live online.
Unlike traditional blogs, the newspaper version will not allow readers to post their responses unedited. The blogger can choose to post responses sent to him or her. An editor must also review these entries."
[/media/weblogs]
2004 US Presidential Debate Litmus Test
Media reactions to Thursday's debate between Kerry and Bush provide a great way to judge the reactors, since the truth of the matter -- that Bush stunk and Kerry delivered -- was so painfully obvious. The following reactions are not direct quotes, they are paraphrases based on memory.
As partisans go, I'm not that dedicated; I agree with Kerry on 50% of
the issues, and Bush 0%. But it was clear to me that only one of the
guys looked and acted like a president, and it wasn't the one who Gore
beat four years ago. The Globe's suspension of judgement on its front-page is a reasonable
stance; its editorial judgements can be found within the paper.
The BBC's assertion of equivalence, on the other hand,
is a real shame.
In its defense, the Herald has no reputation left to damage with its partisan nonsense.
[/media]
Wed, 28 Jul 2004
Media reactions to Thursday's debate between Kerry and Bush provide a great way to judge the reactors, since the truth of the matter -- that Bush stunk and Kerry delivered -- was so painfully obvious. The following reactions are not direct quotes, they are paraphrases based on memory.
| Media outlet | reaction | meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Boston Globe | The debate happened | We would hate to appear biased by pointing out that Bush stunk, so let's stick to the obvious on the front page |
| BBC radio | it was a draw | We are so terrified of appearing partisan that we will assert that both performances were equal. |
| Boston Herald | Bush stands his ground | We back Republicans regardless of their merit |
In its defense, the Herald has no reputation left to damage with its partisan nonsense.
[/media]
Why the delay, MSNBC?
Listening out one ear to the convention via MSNBC, and noticing that they've got a significant delay compared to the other networks in the office - well over a second. What's up with that? The speed of light while signals bounce from Boston to wherever to satellites back to Boston? Or are they worried that Ms. Heinz will swear like a sailor and get the FCC on their case?
[/media]
Mon, 02 Feb 2004
Listening out one ear to the convention via MSNBC, and noticing that they've got a significant delay compared to the other networks in the office - well over a second. What's up with that? The speed of light while signals bounce from Boston to wherever to satellites back to Boston? Or are they worried that Ms. Heinz will swear like a sailor and get the FCC on their case?
[/media]
Whither the o-log?
Had a great chat today about the potential uses and abuses of weblogs for small nonprofits and grassroots organizers. A couple key points:
Most people have no idea what a 'weblog' (or worse, 'blog') is. This is not news. What I hadn't fully grasped is that, for those few members of society who have an idea what such a thing might be, ideas of 'what-I-ate-for-breakfast' and 'picture-of-my-cat' predominate. Naturally, people with such an understanding think you're crazy if you suggest that weblog technology could be helpful with their serious work. Maybe another moniker along the lines of k-log is in order? Either way, this is an issue to keep in mind when spreading the gospel.
Second point: weblog-type functionality serves a crucial role in helping uninformed visitors assess the vitality of a website, and by extension the project represented by the site. A great static site might have been built 4 years ago and left to languish, but a simply designed site that features regular updates on the activities of the project proves that the lights are on and somebody's home. Given that there are way more projects happening than I can ever be aware of, much less participate in, I am much more likely to look closer if I can be confident that there's something going on worth my while. Before weblog tools started to take over the web, these functions were often served by publicly accessible archives of an email list, but putting regular updates directly on the website reduces the effort required of the visitor and gives a project a better opportunity to craft the messages.
[/media/weblogs]
Sun, 01 Feb 2004
Had a great chat today about the potential uses and abuses of weblogs for small nonprofits and grassroots organizers. A couple key points:
Most people have no idea what a 'weblog' (or worse, 'blog') is. This is not news. What I hadn't fully grasped is that, for those few members of society who have an idea what such a thing might be, ideas of 'what-I-ate-for-breakfast' and 'picture-of-my-cat' predominate. Naturally, people with such an understanding think you're crazy if you suggest that weblog technology could be helpful with their serious work. Maybe another moniker along the lines of k-log is in order? Either way, this is an issue to keep in mind when spreading the gospel.
Second point: weblog-type functionality serves a crucial role in helping uninformed visitors assess the vitality of a website, and by extension the project represented by the site. A great static site might have been built 4 years ago and left to languish, but a simply designed site that features regular updates on the activities of the project proves that the lights are on and somebody's home. Given that there are way more projects happening than I can ever be aware of, much less participate in, I am much more likely to look closer if I can be confident that there's something going on worth my while. Before weblog tools started to take over the web, these functions were often served by publicly accessible archives of an email list, but putting regular updates directly on the website reduces the effort required of the visitor and gives a project a better opportunity to craft the messages.
[/media/weblogs]
The Revolution will not be Televised
Over New Year's weekend I was in San Francisco and saw that The Revolution will not be Televised was screening. It didn't fit into our schedule and I was bummed to miss it, but things turned out for the best and I got to see both the film and a lively debate last night in Cambridge.
The film shows a Chavez who is a dedicated servant of his country's lower class, who enjoys loyal support from his officials and the poorer people. We see thousands of notes written to Chavez, asking his help with personal and community problems. It is also striking how seriously the poor have embraced the new constitution; everyone seems to have a copy and know it by heart. In contrast, the elites and the media they control (including all television channels other than the one owned by the state) are shown to be almost rabid in their contempt for Chavez, his policies, and his supporters. We see a neighborhood meeting of the wealthy, who are instructed to keep an eye on their servants as they may be sympathetic to Chavez, and are encouraged to learn how to use handguns and to expect that their use will soon be necessary. The elite-led opposition looks even worse when it stages its military coup, in which Chavez is made to surrender from his palace to prevent it from being bombed by the military. The newly-installed elites - primarily older white men, in contrast to the diversity of Chavez' officials - are shown celebrating as they officially dissolve the national assembly, supreme court, and other democratic institutions.
As is indicated by the title, one theme of the film is the commercial media's complicity in the coup. After Chavez supporters have marched through the streets and inspired the palace guard to take the coup leaders into custody, we see Chavez' officials, inside the retaken palace, watching a commercial channel interview one of the escaped coup leaders, who insists that everything is under control and that the palace is still controlled by the new government. The US government is shown to be on the side of the coup as well - we see a clip of Colin Powell praising it as a victory for democracy.
After the film was over, a lively discussion ensued. The first to speak was a woman who identified herself as a middle-class member of the opposition. She argued that many in the opposition are sympathetic to Chavez' goals of building a fairer and more democratic society, but don't believe that Chavez is capable of achieving those goals. Others pointed out that it was very strange that someone interested in fairness and democracy would side with the wealthy elites who had engineered a military coup against a democratically elected leader.
A number of claims were made by opposition members about inaccuracies in the film, but even if all these claims were true, the basic conclusions of the film remain. Certainly the situation in Venezuela is far more complicated than is depicted in the film (no surprise there!), but I certainly did not hear anything to make me think that there was any moral justification for the coup, or that the elites who lead the anti-Chavez opposition have anything in mind but a return to the corrupt looting of the country that their predecessors have engaged in.
Some resources for further reading: the Chavez-critical Caracas Chronicles (see at least the hilarious autobiography of the writer) and the Chavez-supporting Venezuela Analysis. As one of the top five oil producers in the world, access to Venezuelan resources is high on the US list of priorities; at the same time, Venezuela has the potential to be one of the biggest victories for grassroots democracy anywhere in the world. For these reasons it seems rather important to keep our eyes on what happens there, and what the US government does or does not do to shape the situation.
Update: some reasons to suspect CIA involvement in the coup, along with more background.
[/media]
Fri, 23 Jan 2004
Over New Year's weekend I was in San Francisco and saw that The Revolution will not be Televised was screening. It didn't fit into our schedule and I was bummed to miss it, but things turned out for the best and I got to see both the film and a lively debate last night in Cambridge.
The film shows a Chavez who is a dedicated servant of his country's lower class, who enjoys loyal support from his officials and the poorer people. We see thousands of notes written to Chavez, asking his help with personal and community problems. It is also striking how seriously the poor have embraced the new constitution; everyone seems to have a copy and know it by heart. In contrast, the elites and the media they control (including all television channels other than the one owned by the state) are shown to be almost rabid in their contempt for Chavez, his policies, and his supporters. We see a neighborhood meeting of the wealthy, who are instructed to keep an eye on their servants as they may be sympathetic to Chavez, and are encouraged to learn how to use handguns and to expect that their use will soon be necessary. The elite-led opposition looks even worse when it stages its military coup, in which Chavez is made to surrender from his palace to prevent it from being bombed by the military. The newly-installed elites - primarily older white men, in contrast to the diversity of Chavez' officials - are shown celebrating as they officially dissolve the national assembly, supreme court, and other democratic institutions.
As is indicated by the title, one theme of the film is the commercial media's complicity in the coup. After Chavez supporters have marched through the streets and inspired the palace guard to take the coup leaders into custody, we see Chavez' officials, inside the retaken palace, watching a commercial channel interview one of the escaped coup leaders, who insists that everything is under control and that the palace is still controlled by the new government. The US government is shown to be on the side of the coup as well - we see a clip of Colin Powell praising it as a victory for democracy.
After the film was over, a lively discussion ensued. The first to speak was a woman who identified herself as a middle-class member of the opposition. She argued that many in the opposition are sympathetic to Chavez' goals of building a fairer and more democratic society, but don't believe that Chavez is capable of achieving those goals. Others pointed out that it was very strange that someone interested in fairness and democracy would side with the wealthy elites who had engineered a military coup against a democratically elected leader.
A number of claims were made by opposition members about inaccuracies in the film, but even if all these claims were true, the basic conclusions of the film remain. Certainly the situation in Venezuela is far more complicated than is depicted in the film (no surprise there!), but I certainly did not hear anything to make me think that there was any moral justification for the coup, or that the elites who lead the anti-Chavez opposition have anything in mind but a return to the corrupt looting of the country that their predecessors have engaged in.
Some resources for further reading: the Chavez-critical Caracas Chronicles (see at least the hilarious autobiography of the writer) and the Chavez-supporting Venezuela Analysis. As one of the top five oil producers in the world, access to Venezuelan resources is high on the US list of priorities; at the same time, Venezuela has the potential to be one of the biggest victories for grassroots democracy anywhere in the world. For these reasons it seems rather important to keep our eyes on what happens there, and what the US government does or does not do to shape the situation.
Update: some reasons to suspect CIA involvement in the coup, along with more background.
[/media]
Democrats OK, media stupid
I expected that the winners and losers in last night's Democratic debate would be found amongst the candidates, but from the first hour (which is all I had stomach for) I'd say that all of the candidates were collectively the winners, while the "reporters" asking the questions came out smelling bad.
The biggest problem was the length and meandering nature of most questions. There are many good interviews conducted as a give-and-take, in which the roles of interviewer and interviewee become blurred through the ebbs and flows of the conversation. Such an approach does not fit large moderated debates such as was held last night, as each candidate would have little enough time to speak were the total time simply divided amongst them. I found myself wishing that the timer bell that interrupted every candidate's response would be applied to the questions asked of them, preferably with a shorter timer.
Dwelling on the individual failings of the questions doesn't seem like it would be much fun, but Peter Jennings' question to General Clark about Michael Moore's description of George Bush as a "deserter" stands out. Although the facts of Bush's absence from his National Guard assignment seem that they may well fit the military's criteria for desertion, Jennings felt it necessary to say to Clark:
Off-topic: Why is it that Google keeps sites such as indymedia out of their news search, but allows one-sided crap like newsmax.com? They were the first site to come up on my search for Jennings' exact words (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/22/235131.shtml - they'll get no direct links from me). I'm not worried that Google has a "conservative bias" in the baldly partisan sense, but I have to wonder why some news sites are excluded from its idea of "news" while newsmax, full of propaganda for the cheap-labor conservatives and their friends, are included.
[/media]
I expected that the winners and losers in last night's Democratic debate would be found amongst the candidates, but from the first hour (which is all I had stomach for) I'd say that all of the candidates were collectively the winners, while the "reporters" asking the questions came out smelling bad.
The biggest problem was the length and meandering nature of most questions. There are many good interviews conducted as a give-and-take, in which the roles of interviewer and interviewee become blurred through the ebbs and flows of the conversation. Such an approach does not fit large moderated debates such as was held last night, as each candidate would have little enough time to speak were the total time simply divided amongst them. I found myself wishing that the timer bell that interrupted every candidate's response would be applied to the questions asked of them, preferably with a shorter timer.
Dwelling on the individual failings of the questions doesn't seem like it would be much fun, but Peter Jennings' question to General Clark about Michael Moore's description of George Bush as a "deserter" stands out. Although the facts of Bush's absence from his National Guard assignment seem that they may well fit the military's criteria for desertion, Jennings felt it necessary to say to Clark:
Now
that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts and I was curious to
know why you didn't contradict him.
Thanks, Peter, for
reminding us of
your patriotic values; I was beginning to suspect you were a traitor.
Off-topic: Why is it that Google keeps sites such as indymedia out of their news search, but allows one-sided crap like newsmax.com? They were the first site to come up on my search for Jennings' exact words (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/22/235131.shtml - they'll get no direct links from me). I'm not worried that Google has a "conservative bias" in the baldly partisan sense, but I have to wonder why some news sites are excluded from its idea of "news" while newsmax, full of propaganda for the cheap-labor conservatives and their friends, are included.
[/media]
slag code: