This probably isn’t news….

The internet, is changing the world.

Obviously it’s changing the way we work, the way we organize, the way we do business, the way we do everything.  Email, Twitter, Facebook, Skype, these are all great at changing the way we DO things.

Perhaps a better phrasing for the point I’m trying to make would be, “The internet is changing the way we think.”

Even that phrasing has some fundamental flaws.  It certainly seems to be changing the way people perceive the world and the news and what they see and what they are told.

Let’s say, we’re twenty years ago.  You hear a news report involving some matter and somewhere you think to yourself, “something seems off about that.”  Maybe it seems contradictory or opposite of something reported in the past.  The problem is, you can’t quite remember.  You could go to the library and pour over some microfilm but you don’t really have time for this and it’s probably not important.  Besides the fact of what would it prove?  Maybe you could tell your friends, maybe they’d believe you, maybe they wouldn’t care.

People have always noticed these inconsistencies.  Some people had time to care about them.  These were the “conspiracy theory whack jobs”.  These people might occasionally cross paths and exchange ideas or make little newsletters you could subscribe to and get mailed once a month.

Enter, the internet.  Let’s not jump to the current days but let’s say, the 1996 Internet.

You could dial in to a BBS or do some electronic searches on a library computer to find out if your suspicions on the inconsistency with the news seemed true.  It is quicker so you’re more likely to do it.  It’s still a bit cumbersome to prove the theory to people since you’ll need to send out some sort of mass email or wave around piles of print outs and papers.  It’s easier to find others who think the way you do but it’s still limited to the more technologically inclined who own a computer and know where to point their modems.

Jump ahead another ten years (or so) to present day.

Suddenly, we’re all connected.  Suddenly, you can do all of the research you need from the comfort of your own recliner.  Anyone can be a publisher through a blog with a few simple steps.  you can easily find groups and message boards of like minded individuals to help support your viewpoint.  Citing a source to others is as simple as copying a hyperlink.  All of this data is easily saved and archived for future reference.  It’s all easy to accomplish and it’s all lightning fast.

Now, instead of a “nutball” with 10 subscribers to some print paper you typed up on a typewriter you’ve got 1000 followers on twitter and a healthy following to your blog which you update 4-5 times a day.  Others subscribe to your ideas, maybe not all of them, others notice the problems and inconsistencies presented by the news and media outlets.  Maybe they run their own columns on their own websites.

If the printing press helped the people’s voice be heard, the internet is a massive amplifier.  People become increasingly disenfranchised by their superiors as the information becomes more and more accessible.  Occasionally measures are made to stop it or keep it down but it’s the voice of the world and it’s booming and powerful and it can’t be contained.

….and we are barely into it.  Information flow has been exponentiated by the world wide web yet it’s still a very tiny ball compared to it’s potential and it’s future.

There have been several PSAs running on TV and of course Radio about the “Performance Tax”.  Most specifically, they are against it.  The claim is that the tax would put an unneeded strain on the radio stations and more money into the pockets of the record labels (IE the RIAA).

I have no idea of the status of viability of this tax but I do find the whole situation rather hilarious.  The RIAA simply has no clue.

They have already been screwing over the artists themselves for years.  Cruddy contracts that more or less penalize the artists and load them with debt and fees to help keep them in the pocket of the label forever.  Several artists such as Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, David Bowie, and Lily Allen have taken the liberty of shedding their labels and now sell directly to fans through means such as the internet or have started their own label with the needs of the performers in mind.

This doesn’t include the thousands, probably tens of thousands of independent artists who use places like Myspace or MusicAlley to distribute their own work.  No, they aren’t “living the high life” of trashed hotel rooms with zillions of dollars and fans but many are making their own way, free of the mess that is the Recording Industry.

Then the RIAA went and screwed over the customers themselves.  The random scare tactics of suing soccer moms, dead people, 12 year olds, and college students into welfare with enormous unjustified fees has done nothing for the image of the RIAA in the eyes of the people.

It’s no wonder no one wants to buy music anymore.  who wants to support an industry that aimlessly bullies everyone it can.

For what?

Money?  The greedy need to support a pointless middleman?  If there’s one thing the internet has done for the world it’s killed the needless middleman.  Content creators can easily distribute their creations, be it music or video, news or opinion, there’s a way to get your own personal message out there, often at little or no cost.

So with the opinion of it’s practices from the public at an all time high, the RIAA decides to come up with a new scheme to screw even more people.  They want to charge new high fees for radio stations playing the music they own.  Let’s be clear, most radio stations exists mostly as a vehicle to promote music.  Music that gets later sold by the Recording industry.  So it certainly makes sense that the Recording Industry would want to charge these stations fees and put many of them out of business.

And putting them out of business isn’t a glamour opinion to drum up support, it’s a fact.  Itunes, Youtube, Podcasts, streaming internet radio, these are all putting a huge hurt on the radio station industry.  This coupled with the ease of flipping channels during commercials means many of these stations don’t make hardly anything and are already struggling to keep afloat as it is.  This is an industry that is already failing fast, now you want to inject it with a lethal dose of poison.

Despite the problems radio faces, it’s still a viable source for the promotion of music.  How did i choose which music to buy the other day from Amazon?  I’d heard the songs on the radio first.

Of course, maybe it is the plan of the RIAA to kill off many local stations.  If these stations go under they can snatch them up cheap and push out a repeated signal all over the nation.  This would give them more control over what people hear.  Who needs those “90s at Noon” blocks when we need to push more of the current hits?

Here’s a solution.  Let the RIAA have it’s tax.  If it’s a Recording industry based initiative, then it shouldn’t apply to independent sources.  Instead of playing the Top 40 Countdown with Ryan Seacrest, play the music of local independent artists.  College Radio stations are notorious for doing this and I often hunt out those stations for that reason.  Lots of fun new sounds can be heard on these stations.

Also, extend out to Podcasters to fill larger blocks of time.  I’m sure you could syndicate a few popular shows for a nominal fee, especially next to the fees the recording industry wants to charge for it’s songs.  The point is, let the RIAA have it’s fees, just stop using the RIAA’s content as a result.

Hey, it worked for Radiohead.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/22600154/detail.html\

The [Ohio] man used a bulldozer two weeks ago to level the home he’d built, and the sprawling country home is now rubble, buried under a coating of snow.

“As far as what the bank is going to get, I plan on giving them back what was on this hill exactly (as) it was,” Hoskins said. “I brought it out of the ground and I plan on putting it back in the ground.”

I can almost guarantee this guys is a fan of Atlas Shrugged considering this was a “solution” used by several prominent characters in the book.  I’m a bit torn on which side to take here actually.  On one hand, i feel the desire to support the home owner with a “Heck yeah, STICK IT TO THE MAN”.

I predict we’ll see more and more of these acts of desperation as things slide down even more.  Chances are we won’t even hear about many of them as they won’t all be as glamorous as a plane crash.

On the other, a 350,000 dollar home seems really extravagant and considering he was being foreclosed on it almost seems as if he’s been living a bit beyond his means.  the fact that his brother was once buddies enough to be a business partner as well but is now suing him over said partnership suggests that he’s also either a bit of a poor business man or he’s somewhat of a scam artist.  I’d say likely the latter since making poor business choices an ending up with a failed venture is something brothers would probably shrug off.  One brother screwing the other out of his share is something that could cause a feud.

That’s all just speculation though.

The real point behind this posting is that this action reminds me of another recent act of desperation that is much more predominant in the news.

The media and Washington seem to be pushing the idea that the economy is getting somehow better.  As I look around and see actions such as this from people with nowhere else to go and I continually see small businesses close in the surrounding communities, I don’t see a recovering economy.

California Residence to Pay for 911 Calls

Tracy residents will now have to pay every time they call 9-1-1 for a medical emergency.
But there are a couple of options. Residents can pay a $48 voluntary fee for the year which allows them to call 9-1-1 as many times as necessary.
Or, there’s the option of not signing up for the annual fee. Instead, they will be charged $300 if they make a call for help.

What a scam we have here.  Sure, most people technically pay for 911 service through taxes, and these residents of California probably pay taxes on top of these fees for the service.  But when you are giving people a “choice” such as the one above, mow much choice is there?

I’m reminded of the strange practice done by phone companies with “overage” charges, where suddenly a minute is worth 5-6 times as much because you didn’t pay for it in advance.

Now, I will give it to you that most people probably never call 911, so opting to simply not pay for the service seems like a viable options.  In fact, I have never dialed 911 in my life.

But you know this money making scam will be accompanied by PSAs and stories along the lines of “Don’t be left with a high bill in an emergency, sign up today”.  Not to mention the businesses that will be more or less forced to sign up for liability reasons.

Finally, does this fee cover any phone you call from?  If a person signs up and then calls 911 from a neighbor’s home or from their cell phone is that covered or does the neighbor get a huge honking bill when someone decides to mess with him and calls the police a dozen times while he’s away on vacation as a way of getting revenge in some suburban quarrel?

Airport Tells child to Remove Leg Braces

Four-year-old Ryan Thomas was flying from Philadelphia to Disney World in Orlando with his parents Bob and Leona when the incident occurred.

At the time Ryan, born 16 weeks prematurely with malformed ankles and low muscle tone in his legs, had only just begun to walk.

His parents wheeled his stroller to the security checkpoint then broke it down and put it on the conveyor belt.

They then walked Ryan through the metal detector. The alarm went off and the screener told them to take off the boy’s braces.

“I told them he can’t walk without them on his own,”

Really?

A Four year old crippled kid?

But it’s ok folks.  We all FEEL SAFER if we let the TSA to bull shit like this.  Because when the terrorists see that kids with leg braces are allowed through the security checkpoint then we’ll have 4 year old Taliban kids show up all over with explosives strapped to their shoes and crotches.

Maybe they should have made the Crotch Bomber take off his leg braces…. oh wait….

You know, I used to tell people that I never fly because it’s too expensive (which it is).  Thanks to the TSA for giving me an excuse that’s less whiney.

Patrick Swayze is the latest. Michael Jackson was the biggest. There was also Billie Mays, Bea Arthur, Dom Deluise, Farrah Fawcett, Ed MaHon, John Hughes, Les Paul, Ted Kennedy, and countless other lesser known celebrities have died this year. Celebrities die all the time though, why does this year feel different?

People are starting to make a big deal about how these celebrities are dropping dead left and right. I have a few ideas about why this phenomenon seems like a huge deal. It’s essentially a convergence of several otherwise incidental concepts.

First off, possibly the biggest deal, the heavy penetration of Social Media. In the past, some celebrity dies, maybe the morning radio show is talking about it, maybe you spot an article in a tabloid newspaper while waiting to check out, basically, news just didn’t travel as fast.

Now we’ve got news that travels literally at the speed of light. I don’t want to sound like I’m bragging, because I’m not and I don’t care, but I was probably one of the first hundred or so people to tweet “Michael Jackson is dead”. Why? Because the television station I work for shows TMZ. TMZ broke the story on their website and immediately sent out an email telling us we needed to get a reefed of the show with “breaking news”. I get these sorts of emails all the time. The point though is that almost instantly, (in fact before it was confirmed because TMZ was being ambitious), this news had gone across some news desk, out into email, out to my Twitter and the spreading across my web of followers. This same stem of information was spewing from hundreds of other sources as well.

Within maybe, 15 minutes, essentially everyone would know that Michael Jackson had died. The news spreads through Twitter and Facebook and personal IMs and IRC and across the news. You don’t have to wait until you hear about it on the news or the Morning zoo, then wait till you drive to work to discuss it with your coworkers. It’s all nearly instantaneous.

But the social web isn’t the only factor. Look at that list of names. When were these people stars (for the most part)? The 1980s and 1990s. The 1980s saw a massive increase in the use of Cable Television. It also saw the advent of the VHS VCR, allowing us to watch these people over and over. It saw the advent of pop culture pushers like MTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV), E!, People Magazine (actually the 70s), and in general, it was the rise of the concept of “celebrity”.

Previously we had the concept of “The Star”. These would be people like The Beatles or Frank Sinatra, or John Wayne. They were popular icons of entertainment but for the most part our exposure to them was limited. Suddenly we had television out the wazoo and magazines telling us every detail of the glamorous life of Hollywood.

Move ahead 10-20 years and throw in the internet. Now you can find entire websites dedicated to telling us every tiny detail of the lives of people like Paris Hilton or Angelina Jolie. Every act, no matter how insignificant is documented by at least a dozen obsessive fans.

Also, keeping with the time frame of popularity in the 80s, Many of these people were already 30-40 years old during their heydays in the 1970s and 1980s. That was nearly 30 years ago, these celebrities are now in their 60s and 70s. Traditionally, people in these sorts of positions don’t tend to lead the most cautious lives when it comes to keeping up their health. Many of these celebrities are simply reaching the point when they are ready to kick the bucket. His coupled with the increase in the number of celebrities hanging out in the public eye for longer periods of time makes it seem like there are a lot of people dying all at once.

The end result is that this increase in popular celebrity deaths isn’t something that is going to go away any time soon. I predict that it’s only going to get “worse” as the year rolls on and increase even more so in the years to come.

Now this is hilarious. It’s a perfect example of “spin” on a movie story. Basically when good things happen, it’s good, when bad things happen it’s bad.

First we have a story about how Hollywood thinks Twitter is killing movies. The article mentions how movies like Bruno an Land of the Lost have done terrible.

Here’s a thought, maybe these movies bombed because they were “Fucking Retardedly Stupid”. Please pardon my politically incorrect French but neither movie looked entertaining in the least. Bruno appeared to be all about some idiot jackass who is acting gay but may not be, OMG HILARIOUS. Land of the Lost starred Will Ferrel who has never EVER been funny (ever)(IMO).

Then there’s a story about how Twitter buzz helped promote Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Bastards. On the other hand, things to consider, Quentin Taratino makes nothing but top notch (though generally violent) films and this movie stars Brad Pitt. Unlike say, Will Ferrel, Pitt is actually a good actor who, like Tarantino also makes pretty much only top notch films.

So basically, Hollywood is complaining because their crap did terribly while their good stuff did great. Hmmm, that almost seems like what they should have expected in the rfirst place by definition.