Possibly the most fascinating …
Possibly the most fascinating Ebert review ever (read through to the end): http://tinyurl.com/4znebf
Possibly the most fascinating Ebert review ever (read through to the end): http://tinyurl.com/4znebf
Media and internet legal scholar Susan Crawford has an update on white spaces on her blog:
Today, with Congress in recess, leaving less room for last-minute-Lucy-with-the-football lobbying gambits, the FCC appears to be poised to release a report saying the white spaces can be used without necessarily causing interference to existing broadcasts.
If you’re unfamiliar with the issue, she has a brief introduction to white spaces in the article. A few weeks ago, we also had a video from the People’s Production House that described the issue in non-technical terms. In short- there are a lot of frequencies that will become available when the digital television transition occurs next year and there is a lot of interest from certain entities with deep pockets in keeping them locked away. This report from the FCC is potentially a step in the right direction.
In case you were confused, the studio just changed the name of Tarantino’s next movie from “Inglorious Bastards” to “Inglorious Basterds”.
The World’s Tallest Obama Supporter: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Michelle_Obama_not_actually_all_that_tall.html
Turns out it wasn’t a random passenger clicking in morse code that caused the Qantas jet to dive [via BBC]:
The ATSB said its inquiries had found a fault in a computer unit that detects the angle at which the plane is flying.
Somehow I’d suspected it wouldn’t be consumer electronics. Of course, the fact that they even considered it means that something is wrong.
Why is Barack Obama advertising on the radio in *Massachusetts*?
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:
First it was MSN. Then Yahoo. And now WalMart. WalMart closed down its DRM-laden music service and told its customers that their DRM servers would be switched off, making the music they purchased unusable in the long run.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before but there were an outcry and WalMart has now said the DRM servers will stay powered. Just as MSN and Yahoo did in the past.
Video and eBook DRM- you’re up next!
Financial news headlines today obsolete in minutes. The Dow surged 200 points in the past few minutes, but headlines say “losses extended”.
Ars Technica is reporting that American Airlines and Delta announced this week that they would block “inappropriate” sites on their in-flight WiFi service.
As recently as last month, they had left the matter up to the good judgment of their customers. It seems like the judgment of their customers has crashed with the economy and is no longer trustworthy.
As Jacqui at Ars Technica points out, travelers have always been able to bring video porn and “men’s magazines” on to the plane- it has always been up to their “good judgment”. The Internet changes nothing- except the ease with which the gatekeepers can control access to content.
Keep in mind, the problem here is not porn (nor it is the theoretical hazard of WiFi on a plane). The problem is: who gets to decide which site gets blocked. What is inappropriate? Of course, this problem will blow up in their face when the service enters the mainstream. Expect some genius to set up a web site where people can submit legitimate web sites that were blocked by AA and Delta- which will then become a PR fiasco for the airlines. They will have inadvertently blocked a competitor, or a detractor or the ACLU or the NAACP or something much simpler, and will be faced with the wrath of a thousand blogs, with the mainstream media not far behind.
In anticipation of that day, the inaugural Think About the Children Award goes to Delta and American Airlines! This award is reserved for those entities that, in the name of protecting children, use a sledgehammer to thread a needle.
Yesterdays story about Australian officials blaming a wireless mouse and other consumer electronics for severe problems in their avionics left me very confused. Either they were looking for an easy scapegoat or there is something seriously wrong with airline security.
In 2004, the FCC was considering lifting the ban on wireless devices in airplanes. However, in March of 2007 the FCC terminated that effort. This was their statement:
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules prohibit the use of cellular phones using the 800 MHz frequency and other wireless devices on airborne aircraft. This ban was put in place because of potential interference to wireless networks on the ground. […]
The FCC determined that the technical information provided by interested parties in response to the proposal was insufficient to determine whether in-flight use of wireless devices on aircraft could cause harmful interference to wireless networks on the ground. Therefore, it decided at this time to make no changes in the rules prohibiting in-flight use of such devices.
The question is- in an environment where 4 ounces of liquid are deemed unsafe for travel, you would think the heavy-handed TSA would have banned cell phones and wireless mice a long time ago.
I’m not suggesting that they do that- in fact, I want someone to call Qantas and the Australian Transport Safety Board’s bluff. Or prove them right and take the entire airline industry down- because which suit wants to travel without their cell phone, laptop or PDA?
(Also: Scienceline investigates why you have to turn off your iPod at take off and landing.)