Well, I got my state refund check, and my stipend check, and was happy to think that i could eat food other than rice again. Of course, the last week of eating nothing good was due to some very expensive weeks at the bar at the beginning of the quarter. You would think that i would learn, but instead i went out and spent 25 bucks last night. Now, some of that was dinner, but mostly it was just drinks.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy nothing more than going out with some friends and having a few drinks, or a lot of drinks (depending on the friends). Its not the drinking that i so much enjoy more than anything else, but its that i really enjoy being with people.
I have also decided that i will buy a new digital camera with some of the money from my federal tax refund. I'm going to just get one of those really small and thin ones that basically takes snap shots. Any thoughts of doing creative photography as a hobby that i might have once had, are long since gone.
As for the rest of it, i'm going to save some. But i also think I am going to get another tattoo. I should really find some of my artist friends from back home, and see if they have any art that i would like. I'm all about creativity and originality. I've also got a good sense of what types of things i want to go where, but not being super artistically inclined, i dont really have anything solidly worked out.
Want to make some money making me some sweet flash? Email me and i'll let you know what i'm looking for in a chest piece. In other news, i am taking my ears to 6ga, don't ask why, i'm just going to tell you "i dont know, because I want to."
On another note, i've decided that i want to research the process and meaning behind family crests. I know at one point my grandmother had traced down an old copy of ours. But she doesn't know where it went, or what it was. The internet might as well be pointless, because i know that i do not share the same family crest with every other "Falk" in the universe, regardless of how many times they try to convince me other wise.
In any case, I've only got 3 weeks to go before comprehensive exams for this master's. I'd better get back to reading.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
The Podcast Process (Assignment)
Creating my podcast was relatively easy for me. I was originally going to use my Mbox2 and ProTools to do all the recording, but due to time constraints, I simply used one of the microtrack recorders from the school's equipment room. They aren't bad little recorders, but they are definately not ideal in either sound quality or design.
I took the raw audio from the sound recorder home with me, and popped it into ProTools. It took me about an hour to edit out all the randomness that goes on in a conversation between Eddie and me, and another 20 minutes or so to apply some filtering to fix some of the issues created by the microtrack.
The final step was actually the most annoying. I took my edited audio and put it into Garage Band, simply because it was easier to "Assemble" the podcast there. After choosing the theme music, and recording the brief intro and outro, I put the cover picture up and that was that. I still dislike GarageBand. I don't dislike the program all THAT much, but as a trained audio engineer, used to working in ProTools, I sometimes find the simplicity annoying.
I enjoyed making this podcast, and think I might begin to do a series of them. I should really pick up some decent but cheap lavalier mic's for my ProTools rig, and perhaps a rack/cheap compressor. Ahh all the things I find to spend money on...
In any case, I am going to post another entry that is not an assignment immediately following this. So, that is all!
I took the raw audio from the sound recorder home with me, and popped it into ProTools. It took me about an hour to edit out all the randomness that goes on in a conversation between Eddie and me, and another 20 minutes or so to apply some filtering to fix some of the issues created by the microtrack.
The final step was actually the most annoying. I took my edited audio and put it into Garage Band, simply because it was easier to "Assemble" the podcast there. After choosing the theme music, and recording the brief intro and outro, I put the cover picture up and that was that. I still dislike GarageBand. I don't dislike the program all THAT much, but as a trained audio engineer, used to working in ProTools, I sometimes find the simplicity annoying.
I enjoyed making this podcast, and think I might begin to do a series of them. I should really pick up some decent but cheap lavalier mic's for my ProTools rig, and perhaps a rack/cheap compressor. Ahh all the things I find to spend money on...
In any case, I am going to post another entry that is not an assignment immediately following this. So, that is all!
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Assignment #3
For this task, we were to read this article: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/internet_names_.html
The internet and to some extent blogs create many ethical challenges for the world of media. Kevin Poulsen's piece attempts to maintain some form of ethics by not "being the first to name" the suspected shooter. Much to the chagrin of some of his posters, Poulsen takes the stance of the informer of a situation, not a potential link in a wild chain of speculation. Many news organizations would do well to do the same.
Some sites like CNN.com offer what they call Developing News stories. These range from continued updates to stories that have been going on for some time (like the coverage of the terrible shootings at Virginia Tech currently) or simply new stories that the facts are unclear about. In examples of the latter the website may change facts constantly over a period of minutes, hours, or days, to the point where the original story is no longer discernable amongst the truth that has come out. Is this good or bad?
During the day of the shootings, I personally viewed CNN.com many times over the course of the day, and the story changed as was approproate as facts came out. I also happened to watch several news reports on broadcast television, which were reporting the same facts at the same time as they came out. In this instance, using a "developing story" format to make what can be considered a "live" broadcast on a website factually as accurate as possible is fine. Where the line must be drawn is the same place where this article drew it, however.
Rather than posting the unclear shooters name, a fact which could have permanently damaged his reputation, Wired's writer simply reported all the facts he had at the time. He reported what was going on, that he had spoken to someone who he then identified by the name that he was given, and moved on from the story. This is a good example of proper ethical thinking in action. Of course, being that the stories on the website like that have a comment bar at the bottom, several "clever" readers of the article simply posted the man's name themselves. This, however, will surely always be seen as less credible than if a major publication had done it.
This brings us to another question. The question revolving around what it must have been like to be on the other side of the coin. With the possibility of this occurring to anyone at any time one has to consider what kind of representation of themselves they want online. What if the shootings were at OU, and it was leaked that the shooter was a large white male, wearing shorts on an otherwise cold day? Well, anyone from OU Tcom or any of my old friends could have easily put 2 + 2 together and thought "hmm, is Matt in class today?" Now if you know me personally, you'll probably know that i'm not a supporter of guns in any way, but sometimes minds wander under stress. I do say some outlandish things from time to time.
Sites like Facebook and Myspace can serve as functional online additions to a resume or website. Used in the proper light, they can show the activities and interests of a person without alluding to personal or private information. However, a Facebook page with 257 links to what is basically the same picture of you and your friends drinking, is probably not a good addition to your online presence. Now, more than ever before, it is possible to set privacy checks that allow you to keep your information "Friends Only" or in some cases even completely private, however, crafty people looking to find out more about you can find ways to bypass most of this security. For a while, there was a concern because potential employers can have a facebook page, and many do. So yes, your potential sweet job interview with big firm in big city, may be foiled when they see that picture of you that you thought "was the sweetest profile picture of you ever" from that "one underwear party you went to" on that night that also happened to be "edward 40's hands" night. If you haven't thought about this yet, its never too late to start looking ahead.
The internet and to some extent blogs create many ethical challenges for the world of media. Kevin Poulsen's piece attempts to maintain some form of ethics by not "being the first to name" the suspected shooter. Much to the chagrin of some of his posters, Poulsen takes the stance of the informer of a situation, not a potential link in a wild chain of speculation. Many news organizations would do well to do the same.
Some sites like CNN.com offer what they call Developing News stories. These range from continued updates to stories that have been going on for some time (like the coverage of the terrible shootings at Virginia Tech currently) or simply new stories that the facts are unclear about. In examples of the latter the website may change facts constantly over a period of minutes, hours, or days, to the point where the original story is no longer discernable amongst the truth that has come out. Is this good or bad?
During the day of the shootings, I personally viewed CNN.com many times over the course of the day, and the story changed as was approproate as facts came out. I also happened to watch several news reports on broadcast television, which were reporting the same facts at the same time as they came out. In this instance, using a "developing story" format to make what can be considered a "live" broadcast on a website factually as accurate as possible is fine. Where the line must be drawn is the same place where this article drew it, however.
Rather than posting the unclear shooters name, a fact which could have permanently damaged his reputation, Wired's writer simply reported all the facts he had at the time. He reported what was going on, that he had spoken to someone who he then identified by the name that he was given, and moved on from the story. This is a good example of proper ethical thinking in action. Of course, being that the stories on the website like that have a comment bar at the bottom, several "clever" readers of the article simply posted the man's name themselves. This, however, will surely always be seen as less credible than if a major publication had done it.
This brings us to another question. The question revolving around what it must have been like to be on the other side of the coin. With the possibility of this occurring to anyone at any time one has to consider what kind of representation of themselves they want online. What if the shootings were at OU, and it was leaked that the shooter was a large white male, wearing shorts on an otherwise cold day? Well, anyone from OU Tcom or any of my old friends could have easily put 2 + 2 together and thought "hmm, is Matt in class today?" Now if you know me personally, you'll probably know that i'm not a supporter of guns in any way, but sometimes minds wander under stress. I do say some outlandish things from time to time.
Sites like Facebook and Myspace can serve as functional online additions to a resume or website. Used in the proper light, they can show the activities and interests of a person without alluding to personal or private information. However, a Facebook page with 257 links to what is basically the same picture of you and your friends drinking, is probably not a good addition to your online presence. Now, more than ever before, it is possible to set privacy checks that allow you to keep your information "Friends Only" or in some cases even completely private, however, crafty people looking to find out more about you can find ways to bypass most of this security. For a while, there was a concern because potential employers can have a facebook page, and many do. So yes, your potential sweet job interview with big firm in big city, may be foiled when they see that picture of you that you thought "was the sweetest profile picture of you ever" from that "one underwear party you went to" on that night that also happened to be "edward 40's hands" night. If you haven't thought about this yet, its never too late to start looking ahead.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Contact Information for Podcast Recording Questions
mf169402@ohio.edu
Email me if you have trouble, I will also give out my phone number, but only via E-mail requests.
Email me if you have trouble, I will also give out my phone number, but only via E-mail requests.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Assignment #2
For this assignment i've been asked to read this article: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/09/68799
and to post a short reaction to it. We'll see how short i can keep this...
Posting on a blog is similar to giving a public address, or talking to a friend about something. The only difference is that, being "in print," a blog keeps a record of what was said. The comments that are left can and should be considered dialogue in a public place between two parties. It is the archival nature, of blogs, however, that make them more vulnarable to lawsuits. Just the same as if one put up a website that defamed someone, writing falsehoods or libelous passages in a blog can and should be subject to legal action. This is not to say, however, that in this case, Traffic Power seems to have any legal foothold to stand on.
The posters and commenters were raising public awareness of an injustice. This is the same as if you had seen an investigative report on the evening news, talking about a certain local car shop who is scamming its customers. It is based in fact, supported by evidence from others, and widely agreed upon. In honesty, the posters and commentors could stand outside of Traffic Power's offices singing "We Didn't Start the Fire..." and voila, case in point. The point, again, is that Traffic Power already had a bad reputation, and these posts were not "shots" at the company, as much as they were raising public awareness and general complaints.
In many cases, it is difficult to tell if a blog comes from a credible source. It is almost 100% impossible to determine if a comment on a blog comes from a credible, or even real source. This is where legal action can get tricky. While it may be ok to sue someone who posts an entry, say, claiming OU is a terrible school and posting lots of lies that create a giant footprint of misinformation; It should not be considered an option to sue a blogger over the comments posted on thier site. The blogger can turn off or delete inappropriate comments, but in the spirit of free speach, should not be required to do so. Determining credibility is almost always an issue of proving personal credibility of the writer, or the credibility of the company it is associated with. For me, this often involves research outside of simply clicking the bio page.
Internet service providers should have to provide the names of people who commit crimes using thier services. There should not be a way for an ISP to claim some form of amnesty from this duty. I could go into why more, but I'm already way over my 200 words, and attempting to keep this short. Ask me in person if you want to know more.
I tend to agree with the author and the accused in this case: This is an example of a company attempting to bully the little guy into disappearing, simply because they can afford to put up big dollar lawyers. If anything, Traffic Power should be counter sued for false claims and the court costs of the defendant should be reimbursed.
and to post a short reaction to it. We'll see how short i can keep this...
Posting on a blog is similar to giving a public address, or talking to a friend about something. The only difference is that, being "in print," a blog keeps a record of what was said. The comments that are left can and should be considered dialogue in a public place between two parties. It is the archival nature, of blogs, however, that make them more vulnarable to lawsuits. Just the same as if one put up a website that defamed someone, writing falsehoods or libelous passages in a blog can and should be subject to legal action. This is not to say, however, that in this case, Traffic Power seems to have any legal foothold to stand on.
The posters and commenters were raising public awareness of an injustice. This is the same as if you had seen an investigative report on the evening news, talking about a certain local car shop who is scamming its customers. It is based in fact, supported by evidence from others, and widely agreed upon. In honesty, the posters and commentors could stand outside of Traffic Power's offices singing "We Didn't Start the Fire..." and voila, case in point. The point, again, is that Traffic Power already had a bad reputation, and these posts were not "shots" at the company, as much as they were raising public awareness and general complaints.
In many cases, it is difficult to tell if a blog comes from a credible source. It is almost 100% impossible to determine if a comment on a blog comes from a credible, or even real source. This is where legal action can get tricky. While it may be ok to sue someone who posts an entry, say, claiming OU is a terrible school and posting lots of lies that create a giant footprint of misinformation; It should not be considered an option to sue a blogger over the comments posted on thier site. The blogger can turn off or delete inappropriate comments, but in the spirit of free speach, should not be required to do so. Determining credibility is almost always an issue of proving personal credibility of the writer, or the credibility of the company it is associated with. For me, this often involves research outside of simply clicking the bio page.
Internet service providers should have to provide the names of people who commit crimes using thier services. There should not be a way for an ISP to claim some form of amnesty from this duty. I could go into why more, but I'm already way over my 200 words, and attempting to keep this short. Ask me in person if you want to know more.
I tend to agree with the author and the accused in this case: This is an example of a company attempting to bully the little guy into disappearing, simply because they can afford to put up big dollar lawyers. If anything, Traffic Power should be counter sued for false claims and the court costs of the defendant should be reimbursed.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Assignment #1
This is the first post which is an assignment for the course this blog is an assignment for, so it is not about my sucky apartment.
For this assignment I will be posting a response to an article from Benton Foundation Headlines (www.benton.org). Because that article is short, and the RSS link will eventually expire, here is the article in its entirety:
*XM-SIRIUS MERGER CONSTITUTES A MONOPOLY
[SOURCE: Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio press release]
Gregory Sidak of Criterion Economics has concluded a study which demonstrates that the proposed merger between XM and Sirius would create a monopoly, constituting a likely violation of the antitrust laws. Sidak, a former Deputy General Counsel for the FCC, was asked by the Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio to determine whether subscription-based satellite digital audio radio services ("SDARS") are a relevant product market for antitrust purposes, and to assess the unilateral pricing effects of the proposed merger in the relevant product market. Sidak finds that 1) SDARS are a distinct antitrust product market; 2) The proposed merge would be anti-competitive as (i) it constitutes a monopoly under the most reasonable market definition and (ii) even under a more expansive market definition the proposed merger would increase seller concentration ratios to unacceptably high levels; 3) The majority of efficiencies identified by XM and Sirius would not benefit consumers; and 4) The conditions offered by XM and Sirius would not preserve consumer welfare.*
This is a story I've been following for a while. I am a big opponent of the homogenization of the radio industry and the Clear-Channelization of audio media. This would lead you to believe that i was a big opponent of the merger of the only two satellite radio providers in the country, however, thats not entirely true. I believe that factors outside of pure economics should be the basis of the descision making process in the FCC. However, this is not the established way, nor the direction they are going this time.
Thinking in terms of the way in which the FCC determines competition, the result of Sidak's study is unsurprising and inevitable. Any situation that equates to "any number plus any number =1 is bad" but, why? Why is it that a subscription service, which has to compete on a national footing with broadcast radio networks is its own unique market? Not to be sarcastic, but if you're listening to top market radio, in almost any format anymore, you're most likely listening to clear channel. But, because they don't own any stations in the hundreds of lower number markets, they're not a monopoly. Right. Without going into Napoli and pulling quotes out of papers i've already written, I can say I do not support this claim that the FCC should only consider this merger from the perspective of its effects on the "satellite radio market."
Yes, allowing these two to merge would be eliminating the competition in the satellite radio business. On a brighter note, this could lead to the freeing of one of the only TWO satellite licenses that are even available for issue. Apparently, neither of these companies are doing very well, so why not let them merge and let someone else enter the market? What is it really that is influencing the FCC to lean in this direction? Did they hesitate when television owners wanted to be able to own more stations and control more of the types of media outlets in towns? Well, actually, yes. However, as soon as the big media lobby kicked in, the choice was made. Congress was too scared of negative publicity, or the thought that the press might no longer cover them that they caved. Of course, neither of those two things would actually happen, but lawmakers are rational and can see past the dollar signs. Right?
The companies have admitted that they can survive outside of the thought of a merger, so it is not a "let us merge or lose this form of competition completely" situation, but that is no reason to solely look at this from an economic position.
It feels like the FCC has already made up it's mind, and with the established big meda obvioiusly happy with the descision, this seems like an open and shut case. It is a shame that there is not more qualitative research being done in markets to determine if this is actually good or bad. Analyzing numbers in a room somewhere is nice, but it really doesn't get to what the people do or dont want. That's the government for you. Numbers are more important than you are.
For this assignment I will be posting a response to an article from Benton Foundation Headlines (www.benton.org). Because that article is short, and the RSS link will eventually expire, here is the article in its entirety:
*XM-SIRIUS MERGER CONSTITUTES A MONOPOLY
[SOURCE: Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio press release]
Gregory Sidak of Criterion Economics has concluded a study which demonstrates that the proposed merger between XM and Sirius would create a monopoly, constituting a likely violation of the antitrust laws. Sidak, a former Deputy General Counsel for the FCC, was asked by the Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio to determine whether subscription-based satellite digital audio radio services ("SDARS") are a relevant product market for antitrust purposes, and to assess the unilateral pricing effects of the proposed merger in the relevant product market. Sidak finds that 1) SDARS are a distinct antitrust product market; 2) The proposed merge would be anti-competitive as (i) it constitutes a monopoly under the most reasonable market definition and (ii) even under a more expansive market definition the proposed merger would increase seller concentration ratios to unacceptably high levels; 3) The majority of efficiencies identified by XM and Sirius would not benefit consumers; and 4) The conditions offered by XM and Sirius would not preserve consumer welfare.*
This is a story I've been following for a while. I am a big opponent of the homogenization of the radio industry and the Clear-Channelization of audio media. This would lead you to believe that i was a big opponent of the merger of the only two satellite radio providers in the country, however, thats not entirely true. I believe that factors outside of pure economics should be the basis of the descision making process in the FCC. However, this is not the established way, nor the direction they are going this time.
Thinking in terms of the way in which the FCC determines competition, the result of Sidak's study is unsurprising and inevitable. Any situation that equates to "any number plus any number =1 is bad" but, why? Why is it that a subscription service, which has to compete on a national footing with broadcast radio networks is its own unique market? Not to be sarcastic, but if you're listening to top market radio, in almost any format anymore, you're most likely listening to clear channel. But, because they don't own any stations in the hundreds of lower number markets, they're not a monopoly. Right. Without going into Napoli and pulling quotes out of papers i've already written, I can say I do not support this claim that the FCC should only consider this merger from the perspective of its effects on the "satellite radio market."
Yes, allowing these two to merge would be eliminating the competition in the satellite radio business. On a brighter note, this could lead to the freeing of one of the only TWO satellite licenses that are even available for issue. Apparently, neither of these companies are doing very well, so why not let them merge and let someone else enter the market? What is it really that is influencing the FCC to lean in this direction? Did they hesitate when television owners wanted to be able to own more stations and control more of the types of media outlets in towns? Well, actually, yes. However, as soon as the big media lobby kicked in, the choice was made. Congress was too scared of negative publicity, or the thought that the press might no longer cover them that they caved. Of course, neither of those two things would actually happen, but lawmakers are rational and can see past the dollar signs. Right?
The companies have admitted that they can survive outside of the thought of a merger, so it is not a "let us merge or lose this form of competition completely" situation, but that is no reason to solely look at this from an economic position.
It feels like the FCC has already made up it's mind, and with the established big meda obvioiusly happy with the descision, this seems like an open and shut case. It is a shame that there is not more qualitative research being done in markets to determine if this is actually good or bad. Analyzing numbers in a room somewhere is nice, but it really doesn't get to what the people do or dont want. That's the government for you. Numbers are more important than you are.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Lights and Power: Starting off on a Good Foot
First of all, I would like to point out that i am not gifted with what one might call "good vision." My glasses prescription is some rediculous negative number on each eye. Nothing as terrible as my dad's vision, but still, we're talking below 7 or somewhere there abouts. So when i'm home, even in the day sometimes, I will leave the lights on. This isnt some energy wasting scheme, its simply what helps me to be able to see.
Of course, my bat-like occular tendancies are not the subject of this post. What I'm really here to talk about tonight is the shoddy wiring and power in this building, that blows lightbulbs out like there is no tomorrow. I've been back from spring break for a week and a day now. And 2 of the 6 lightbulbs in here are already burned out. Mind you, i changed them literally the day I left for spring break, and they obviously weren't on while I was gone.
"Falki, light bulbs are not expensive, what is your problem!?" you might be saying to yourself. Well, to you, oh doubter of the powers of my logic, I reply: "If the power in here is tearing up my lightbulbs this fast, what the hell is it doing to my desktop computer, my laptop computer, my television, etc?! hunh?! WELL?!" No response? Damn. I've already had to replace my (only 8 month old) power supply in my computer since i've been down here. And yes, I have a surge protector - but this isn't surges as much as it is just plain dirty power.
Who's fault is this? My sucky apartment building? AEP who supplies it? Athens City? I sure as hell don't know... but if you're some kind of genious with how electricity works and want to inform me, I invite you to do so.
But no matter who's problem this is, it sucks, and no amount of lightbulbs or damage to my precious electronics is going to fix it.
Coming soon:
This week's assignment post (when i find out what that is).
The "Absolute Opposite of Hot" Water Incident
Water Pressure: A New Concept in Modern Living
Of course, my bat-like occular tendancies are not the subject of this post. What I'm really here to talk about tonight is the shoddy wiring and power in this building, that blows lightbulbs out like there is no tomorrow. I've been back from spring break for a week and a day now. And 2 of the 6 lightbulbs in here are already burned out. Mind you, i changed them literally the day I left for spring break, and they obviously weren't on while I was gone.
"Falki, light bulbs are not expensive, what is your problem!?" you might be saying to yourself. Well, to you, oh doubter of the powers of my logic, I reply: "If the power in here is tearing up my lightbulbs this fast, what the hell is it doing to my desktop computer, my laptop computer, my television, etc?! hunh?! WELL?!" No response? Damn. I've already had to replace my (only 8 month old) power supply in my computer since i've been down here. And yes, I have a surge protector - but this isn't surges as much as it is just plain dirty power.
Who's fault is this? My sucky apartment building? AEP who supplies it? Athens City? I sure as hell don't know... but if you're some kind of genious with how electricity works and want to inform me, I invite you to do so.
But no matter who's problem this is, it sucks, and no amount of lightbulbs or damage to my precious electronics is going to fix it.
Coming soon:
This week's assignment post (when i find out what that is).
The "Absolute Opposite of Hot" Water Incident
Water Pressure: A New Concept in Modern Living
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)