Disqus - Friends of p00ka

Re: Making of the HBO open

rockmanac — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:32:50 -0000

I get the feeling we all did. And I didn't know about that BTS until I got a link to it from my friend Jessica.

Re: 5 Ways TweetDeck Is Locking In Twitter Users

rockmanac — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:27:31 -0000

Which others do you use?

-Adam

Re: Why 140 chars is like 48K (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:23:12 -0000

Oh yeah.. There's stuff that I'm starting to put onto FriendFeed over Twitter b/c of the more lax character limit over there. And some stuff goes unsaid, too.

I've not seen the cartoon on Current. I don't have cable here. I refuse to deal with Charter. Horrible company they are.

-Adam

Re: The end of analog (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:53:08 -0000

They need an education campaign like we had!

Re: 3 Twitter apps you can't live without? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:17:33 -0000

Spymaster is driving me nuts. I don't play online RPG type games, and I really don't care to see the updates from people playing, either.

-Adam

Re: Before the storm (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:36:36 -0000

Thanks :)

I'm on the BB right now, but now 6 months after I've gotten it, I'm considering paying the ETF because, well, the browsing on it sucks, I keep losing the data connection, and well, I want a phone that correctly syncs with my iMac.

-Adam

Re: Who do the people of the NY Times follow on Twitter? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:19:35 -0000

Cool. I know a lot of people who feel that they have to follow EVERYONE who is following them. To me, it's just too much. I had been following over 300 people at one point, and many of them pointless things like the local news stations, newspapers, etc. It was just information overload in my opinion.

And I like the thought that it's a publishing environment. Now, of course, that's not to say I haven't had 140-character-at-a-time conversations on Twitter. The only problem I have is what do I tell someone when they ask me "what is twitter?" One of my profs from back at Marquette just got onto Twitter. He sent me an e-mail asking what he's supposed to do with it. I kinda get stumped by those questions b/c I guess I just use it. I post thoughts, questions, etc. Much like people have been using Facebook / MySpace status lines.

Re: Wait.. What?

rockmanac — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:50:40 -0000

Doesn't shock me. I probably have something messed up too in the system config file. I really never thought that I'd have to be processing anything other than English, since it's my personal server.

Re: Does Mashable have credibility re Twitter? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:47:05 -0000

"And I agree with rockmanac, 417 zillion followers is nothing more than ego stroking."

Thank you. I figured there had to be other people that had the same view of this as I did.

-Adam

Re: Does Mashable have credibility re Twitter? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:08:26 -0000

"Growth is nice, but also carries with it the weight of responsibility."

It comes back to that line from Spiderman... "With great power, comes great responsibility." So many times in the web 2.0 sphere we've seen companies screw the pooch on it. Twitter with the suggested users, Facebook with the beacon feature. The companies do what companies do, jump on the first chance they see to have a feature that can be, at least maybe, monetized. Honestly, I think that's what Twitter's ultimate goal is for suggested users. But, how will we ever know if they don't disclose "hey, this user has paid for placement."

I work in TV News, why do you think there are disclosure rules in place regarding VNR's? It's because without disclosing the fact that these are "reports" that are coming from a company, they can and do look like legitimate news stories, when in fact, they are thinly disguised advertisements for a particular product. If we didn't disclose the fact this came from "xyz" then we'd be trashing our credibility and integrity in the eyes of the viewing public. (Plus we'd face a HUGE FCC fine.)

Re: Does Mashable have credibility re Twitter? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:02:39 -0000

"On Twitter, I watch it fluctuate on a daily basis -- and I care. And I was
doing pretty well, I thought, until they blew out all the meaning in the
numbers."

I guess the difference has been that I never had thousands of followers, so it's made less of an impact on me. But yes, I can see how that suggested users feature would have worked to hurt someone like yourself who has worked hard to get the followers you've gotten.

I mean, I've never been the popular kid. Not in school, not in life. I thought for a minute that "hey wouldn't it be cool to have thousands of followers," but honestly, it just not that important to me. I'd rather have quality over quantity. But that's just me.

-Adam

Re: Please don’t pitate Dollhouse

rockmanac — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:43:49 -0000

Yes. And it's annoying. But there's no way it can survive in today's world. We're not gathering at 8pm on Friday to watch Dollhouse, we're watching it when we want now. Fox and NBC will figure that out, but the problem is, will it be fast enough. Joss has already proven that internet distribution works. I predict that in the near future we'll see more and more GOOD quality content distributed right to the internet. And some of it might even be from the big players, but I'll be a lot won't. And really, it's that which scares the big 4. The fact that they can't control what you see online.

Re: Please don’t pitate Dollhouse

rockmanac — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:40:10 -0000

Unfortunately, Chris, it's the way it is right now. Trust me, I'd much rather of seen Joss do this the way he did Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog. He's already proven internet can work as a distribution method.

Re: I need a girl’s opinion

rockmanac — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:07:34 -0000

Cool

-Adam

Re: I need a girl’s opinion

rockmanac — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:07:03 -0000

Thanks Vic :)

-Adam

Re: Is Your Feed Reader Becoming Boring?

rockmanac — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:28:30 -0000

No problem.

Feel free to e-mail me if you want my google name to see my shared stuff. (Or just subscribe to my FriendFeed.)

-Adam

Re: Looking to 2009

rockmanac — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:40:35 -0000

True. It has got me thinking. Obviously, since I wrote the blog post. And as we talked about. I'm just not 100% what it all means.

And yes, i still get the comments. Disqus updated their plug-in to work on 2.7.

-Adam

Re: FYI: Server changes

rockmanac — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:13:05 -0000

What's weird?

And how's the car today?

-Adam

Re: Is the panic over Detroit real? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:01:30 -0000

I'm going to have to throw "Roger and Me" into my Netflix queue, because I've never seen it.

I have a LOT of friends who are worried right now about Janesville, WI. GM was pretty much the main source of income in Janesville. Though, there's some rumors floating around that Honda might be interested in the plant because one of their suppliers is based in (I think) Beloit, WI.

But the whole region is going to be hurt by the closure of GM. Of course, Beloit still has Hormel and a host of other manufacturers, and Madison still has the state government, but even they are hurting.

Of course, it was either Racine or Kenosha, WI that had a GM engine plant that closed and that city has revived itself despite losing the plant.

-Adam

Re: More on Detroit (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:31:21 -0000

"If you've ever been to the Third World, or parts of the US that are the Third World like the South Bronx and New Orleans and (I'm told) parts of Detroit -- you owe it to yourself to find out what that's like."

There's parts of Milwaukee like that, too.

My problem with the CEOs of the big 3 is that none, let me repeat NONE, of them are willing to take the $1 a year symbolic salary that Lee Iococa did in the 80's when Chrysler was bailed out.

As for American made cars... If they would have been able to produce a cheap, non pile of junk 3 years ago when I was looking for a car, I might be driving a Chevy, Ford or Dodge right now instead of a Toyota.

-Adam

Re: Why do they give Republicans air time? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:18:41 -0000

It's not so much that it's affected by the need to make money as it is by the staff cuts that have been going on industry wide.

The level of relation to talk radio depends on the particular cable net, and what show is on, and I'm leaving it at that.

We have a fun experiment going on here. There is a daily paper that has shifted from being a daily print paper to being a daily online paper and a weekly supplement in the other in-town paper. (They have a complicated business share arrangement between the 2 papers that's been in place since the 1930's I believe.) Not sure what the result has been, so far, though.

-Adam

Re: Why do they give Republicans air time? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:19:36 -0000

"TV news long ago gave up any semblance of quality when it was shuffled off to the entertainment divisions and told to make money."

Ok.. Hold on a second. The news departments, at least at the local level, have NOT been shifted to the entertainment divisions and told to make money. For one, local stations usually don't have entertainment divisions. And second, at every station I've worked at and visited, the news departments are told to report on the news. It's the sales department's job to then go sell the ad space with-in the newscasts. Now, I'm not sure where you are at but none of the stations around here are "fluff" news all the time. In fact, most of them only have fluff news in the morning, or buried down towards the end of one of the latter blocks, and never in the "A" block of the newscast. Local news, at least in this market, tries to well, be local.

In the broadcast network realm, name one nightly evening newscast that is all fluff and entertainment? The big-3 all have other shows that carry that content but if it's even on the nightly news broadcast, it's in passing and used as a transition to break.

"The cable news outlets ("news" in name only) were created for the express purposes of making money. Hence, for example, Fox's targeting of the right-wing market."

whatever. Fox News Channel, maybe, but outlets like CNN have been about news from the start.

As for the newspapers... There problem is that people realized they could get the news for free online and the papers have not figured out how to adapt to that.

Re: Why do they give Republicans air time? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:12:46 -0000

She's afraid to go on these because she won't have her script writer there to craft her responses, and she knows that she'll come across as a nut job without him.

Re: Why do they give Republicans air time? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:11:37 -0000

Not entirely. Do we have to do sponsored events, sure, but I know that at least in the newsroom I'm in, editorial decisions are still in the hands of the news director.

Re: Why do they give Republicans air time? (Scripting News)

rockmanac — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:05:11 -0000

The provisions I'm talking about *are* still in effect. This is stuff layed out in the Communications Act of 1934, and is different from the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed in the 1980's.

Source: http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

"Communications Act of 1934:

SEC. 315. [47 U.S.C. 315] FACILITIES FOR CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC
OFFICE.
(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified
candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal
opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such
broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of
censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No
obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the
use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified
candidate on any--
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate
is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the
news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but
not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning
of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving
broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews,
news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation
imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford
reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public
importance.
(b) The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station by any person
who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his
campaign for nomination for election, or election, to such office shall not exceed--
(1) during the forty-five days preceding the date of a primary or
primary runoff election and during the sixty days preceding the date of a
general or special election in which such person is a candidate, the lowest
unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the
same period; and
(2) at any other time, the charges made for comparable use of such
Communications Act of 1934
168
station by other users thereof.
(c) For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ''broadcasting station'' includes a community antenna
television system; and
(2) the term ''licensee'' and ''station licensee'' when used with respect
to a community antenna television system mean the operator of such
system.
(d) The Commission shall prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to
carry out the provisions of this section."

Of course, after reading the full text, I guess in the context of the news setting, broadcasters would still not technically have to give coverage to an opposing party, however, if a station ran ads for one party, they'd have to run them for all parties.

You're right that they don't apply to cable news, I guess because of my job I ultimately think broadcast news, not cable. The cable guys, by the way, though do tend to follow the traditional guidelines that have been set out in things such as the Communications Act of 1934. Plus, it's good editorial policy to present both sides.

-Adam