are we sure dusty baker was nowhere near here?

School team hit for 66 runs in two innings

two things come to mind when i saw that headline

1. FAIL
2. PWM3D

sirius/xm radio merger. still waiting...

i have invested in satellite radio right when the department of justice had announced the new company would not constitute a monopoly and approved the merger which had been announced a year ago. the next step in the process would be for the fcc to approve the merger, a process that should have taken no more than a week tops.

this approval was 4 weeks ago.

now, i'm perfectly happy to continue to use sirius should merger fall apart. i mean, even though most of the talk stations are horrible to put it nicely (thank god for sirius 110 indie talk, otherwise i might lose my mind) the university of louisville airs its games on sirius. and uofl trumps any reason proposed. but come on. what's holding up this merger? for any of you out there who own a satellite radio or are looking to get into satellite radio and are just waiting for the fcc to approve the merger, go to siriusmerger.com or xmmerger.com (for each respective company's flavored website on the merger, it's all the same content) and send a letter to your congresspeople and the fcc. i don't know much about your congresspeople, but i can be assured that probably one of mine may take my letter seriously, and i know they won't be republicans.

here's a copy of my letter (with some personal info scrubbed out for obvious reasons)

------- Forwarded message -------
From: "SIRIUSmerger.com" [personal e-mail addy]
To: "SIRIUSmerger.com" [personal e-mail addy]
Cc:
Subject: Please allow this merger
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:00:58 -0400

Thank you for using SIRIUSmerger.com Mail System

Message sent to the following recipients:
FCC
Representative Yarmuth
Senator Bunning
Senator McConnell
Message text follows:

C. Artis
[address]

April 16, 2008

[recipient address was inserted here]

Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

I am a person that has just become involved in this satellite radio
industry because of the allowance of the DoJ for the companies to merge.
I purchased a radio the very next day because finally the companies were
going to jointly offer what I have been missing in my market. There are
no progressive stations in Louisville, KY. International news is only
offered for a few hours at night. Most of the music offered on the radio
here is music I do not listen to. Satellite radio has given me the
options that I wanted and I am willing to pay for it because it is another
option that I have not, nor will not be offered because the major radio
companies that broadcast in Louisville will not run that content or will
run it for a short time and then change it because the content does not
rate well.

There are many more people like me who have only just now invested in some
manner in satellite radio because of this merger that is pending and is
very close to becoming a reality. To deny this merger because of a feared
"monopoly" is ludicrous on its face and is easily debunked. When XM Radio
first launched there was a time period where it was the only satellite
radio option. Did the FCC or the Department of Justice deny XM from
operating because Sirius had not launched its satelites yet? Also, the
reason that satellite radio exists is because the consumer, or radio
listener, was given the choice of station A or station B with no recourse
to go to station C because there was no station in the market offering
that content. Satellite radio gives the consumer a choice of offerings in
the local market or offerings from a satellite provider. Just because
there were two satellite radio companies in existance does not mean that
they were in direct competition with each other. They are also in direct
competition with the local radio markets. Both companies were losing
money competing with each other and with the local radio markets. If this
merger is not approved and one company files for bankruptcy, would the FCC
allow this to happen because there will only be one company offering a
satellite option instead of two? It is for this reason why the logic of a
merger being denied seems flawed. If the satellite companies are
competing against themselves and one fails, isn't this a merger almost by
default because there is now one company where there were two? And what
would happen to those who would have invested into their respective
companies by way of equipment and subscriptions? At least with this
merger proposal there is a guarantee that all equipment will continue to
function as it is now.

A combination of companies will allow satellite radio to better compete
with the local markets. A stronger satellite radio company will force the
local radio markets and the so-called terrestrial radio companies to
improve their products, which would in turn force the combined company to
improve their offerings.

Satellite radio is a great technology that serves a specific market of
those radio listeners who are unsatisfied by what their local markets
offer and now finally have a device that delivers the content that they
want. To take it away by not allowing both companies to survive as one
does not serve the people who actively use it does not serve the common
good, but the interests of special lobbyist interests, such as the NAB who
have an active interest in seeing satellite radio fail because the NAB
serves the interests of the local radio markets and terrestrial radio
companies who wish to maintain the status quo.

Please allow this merger to be completed. We the radio listeners have no
other recourse to express to the radio industry in our local markets what
content we want. By denying the merger you deny the will of the people to
express their opinions.

Sincerely,

C. Artis

those of you interested in this venture, please write your congresspeople and the fcc to get some movement on this issue.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

hey folks, demonoid is back. guess what? it could have been back sooner than you thought.

it seems like (to my eyes anyway) that the main roadblock in the site coming back was the site admin himself. deimos was his handle. if these "real world issues" were so encompassing that running a torrent website was simply out of the question, then why the hell didn't he turn over the site months ago? the moderation team at the subdemon(oid) forums were childish to put it mildly, and the fanbois were that much worse. you know how sad it is to see multiple threads titled "WHEN WILL DEMONOID BE
BACK??????????" or similar in tne subdemon forums over and over ad nauseam ad infinitum? i had posted in the forums there and i'll say it here- ALL of this could have been alleviated if deimos had just made one post in the announcements section at the subdemon forums, the content of said section was really an list of rules. these "real world issues" i guess must have been really important for deimos to never have said anything at all ever in that fourm. wonder how he found time to make posts in other threads of non-importance...

i have no idea what the timeline of events was, but the way the message on the front page reads, it seems like it was a short time ago. like in the past week. the few times i checked the subdemon forums, i did not see any announcement of a site admin change. when you add in the reports that the pirate bay offering up server space for demonoid, plus another tracker relocating to canada after demonoid went down and the turnaround time of it coming back up when it has gone down in the past, i think you in the end have a story of an absent admin who was negligent in their duties. deimos failed as an admin at his site's most crucial time in its existence. if life somehow became overwhelming so that he couldn't have run his site, turn it over to someone who could, a lesson learned months later. if he saw these issues coming up in the horizon, he should have turned the site over to someone who could run it in his absence. i can't speak for anyone else, but if i had a tight team of people i trusted and i had to go away for an undetermined time, i would have turned things over a long time ago.

i have used and will use the site, mainly because it is one of the best audiobook torrent sites on the internet (and someone please develop an audiobook dedicated site in the future please. there is a big audiobook community out there, i have a very large collection of such) so i'm glad the site is back. being grateful its back is one thing. essentially taking a dump on your users by having no announcements and then finding out it could have been back months ago is another. it should be a lesson
to other bittorrent users on the intarwebs- don't rely so heavily on one site to get your pirated goods.
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

edit: about that timeline? i may have been a bit off. instead of being something that happened in a week, it looks like it may have happened in a day. demonoid kool-aid drinkers, hear this and know this- YOU WERE PLAYED. the site could have easily come back quickly, but because of the site admin whom you loved, fawned over and protected so diligently decided to take a crap on you and pretty much walk out on you all without turning things over, the interwebs is treating deimos with kid gloves. screw that. be remorseful about his personal life, but his life as an admin deserves and needs intense scrutiny and criticism.

so randi rhodes got suspended

randi rhodes spoke at an air america affiliate function over the weekend and let loose some pretty incindiary stuff about geraldine ferraro and hillary clinton. she was on her show monday, off it on tuesday and today comes a press release from the grand poobahs of air america that she has been suspended. my guess it will be a week or two. and then this too shall pass.

only reason i'm writing about this is because the reactions from the randifans, especially on her website's forum ranges from rediculous to hilarious. their general bane of contention is this: air america has NO RIGHT to suspend randi because she was speaking:
a)the truth
b)her opinion
c)not on company time
d)not as a representative of aar

wrong on all four counts. all four points can be debunked with a few facts:
1)reguardless of whether or not she was representing air america radio at the time, the fact is that she is employed by aar and can be seen as representing aar if she is or is not simply because they employ her.
2)she was speaking at an air america affiliate's function. even if it was on her own time, those who may not have known could still think that she represented the views of air america.
3)one can express their views without using the language that she did. even if she felt that way, its not good for a radio personality to use that language when talking about public figures.

although what she said i believe to be true, she shouldn't have said that in the way she did.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/