not this again...

OK, I don't want to dredge up this old argument again... really, I don't.

But in honor of its one-year anniversary, I'd just like to say that Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, agrees with me.

That is all.

this just in...

The US isn't happy with its record-breaking level of deficit spending. Apparently, waging one vaguely defined and largely unwinnable war simply isn't destroying the country's economy fast enough. Not to worry: the Pentagon has come up with another one! Beginning in 2006, Congress has earmarked additional spending to wage war on the internet.

Among their stated goals (and I'm not exaggerating) is to be able to completely control what information gets to both foreign countries and their own citizens, and the ability to "completely dominate the earth's electromagnetic spectrum". So, the US is actively developing ways to quash free speech and journalism, and as a backup plan they're figuring out how to just turn off all of those annoying "people" telling "the truth".

Am I surprised? Nope. Seems about par for the course.

discuss...

I have been informed that my use of the term " 'net " is incorrect and annoying. The apostrophe, I am told, is unnecessary since "net" is a word on its own.

My position is that a "net" is something to catch fish, while the " 'net" is where this webpage lives. We don't like to say three-syllable words when one will do, so we say "the 'net". And like any speech contraction, an apostrophe should be added to denote the abbreviation.

Am I crazy? Or just plain wrong? It's a given that I'm anal.

Discuss...

the internet is the new tv

I stumbled across this series of articles about the future of television programming and the adoption of the internet as a distribution medium.

The potential of the 'net is to cut out the middlemen. By virtually eliminating distribution costs, the internet replaces conventional broadcast networks, allowing content producers to provide their programming directly to consumers. The problem is that people don't expect to pay for television programming - sure, we pay $29.95 a month for our deluxe cable package, but that's just for access. The lion's share of programming costs are covered by advertisers. So how do the people making the content get paid? This article is one of the first I've seen that doesn't include the "1. do stuff, 2. use the internet, 3. ???, 4. profit" business model, but actually proposes something valid.

I agree that the 'net is a better distribution method than TV. I get what I want to see, when I want to see it, without needing to worry about forgetting to record a show. But perhaps it's a case of preaching to the choir. I am the guy who has cable TV included in his rent, and the first thing I did on moving in was get cable internet, disconnect the TV and shove it into a corner facing the wall, and set up my computer desk where it used to be.

Go figure.