WebProNews

Tag: Debate

  • Woman Who Cut Out Baby After Luring Mother on Craigslist Won’t Face Murder Charges

    A decision not to file murder charges against a woman accused of cutting a seven-month-old fetus from its mother’s womb is setting off debates over so-called “fetal homicide laws.”

    Earlier this month we told you the horrifying story of a woman who lured a pregnant woman to her home with a Craigslist ad for used baby clothing. When she arrived, she was beaten and stabbed. It ended with 34-year-old Dynel Lane cutting 26-year-old Michelle Wilkins’ unborn baby from her womb and leaving her there to die. Wilkins didn’t die, however. After spending some time in critical condition she was just recently released from the hospital.

    According to police, Lane had been telling her family that she was pregnant for some time. When her husband came home he found Lane covered in blood. The baby was in the upstairs bathtub. She told him she had a miscarriage, which is also what she told doctors when she took the baby to the hospital. It didn’t survive.

    According to District Attorney Stan Garnett, the decision on what charges to file is a tough one, but murder is not an option due to the state of Colorado’s fetal homicide laws. In Colorado, a baby must show signs of life outside the womb to be considered a victim in a homicide.

    From The Denver Post:

    “Under Colorado law, essentially, there is no way murder charges can be brought if it’s not established that the fetus lived as a child outside the body of the mother,” he said.

    David Beller, a Denver defense attorney, says the charges present a complex legal challenge and deciding which ones to file is “incredibly complicated.”

    “In my experience, doctors (can) tell pretty readily whether or not the baby actually took a breath and if the lungs expanded,” he said. “I think the legal questions are going to turn to her conduct after the fact.”

    Beller said that “multiple issues” were likely at play in deciding what charges to file. He added that while there is a great deal of legal precedent in fetal death cases, there isn’t much that equates to last week’s case.

    There are 37 states that label the killing of a fetus as homicide in some cases. Twenty nine of those offer full coverage to the unborn through all periods of pre-natal development. Eight offer partial coverage – depending on the stage of development. Colorado is not one of those states.

    What Colorado does have on the books are laws that make the intentional killing of a pregnant woman an aggravating factor, as well as those that “specify that a court shall sentence a defendant convicted of committing specified offenses against a pregnant woman, if the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was pregnant, to a term of at least the midpoint, but not more than twice the maximum, of the presumptive range for the punishment of the offense” and “establishing that a court shall sentence a defendant convicted of assault in the third degree to a term of imprisonment of at least six months, but not longer than the maximum sentence authorized for the offense, if the victim of the assault was a pregnant woman and the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.”

    For pro-choicers, fetal homicide laws represent a slippery slope to curtailing abortion rights.

    For the pro-lifers, this tragic case is an example of the need for such laws and many blame the other side for interfering in their passage.

    This is already political, but it’s probably best to think about the human consequences first. A woman is lucky to be alive and now has to deal with one of the most traumatic experiences one can imagine for the rest of her life.

  • Steve Jobs Tops CNBC’s ‘First 25’ List, As He Could Really Rock a Turtleneck

    CNBC has been around for 25 years now, and in honor of that, decided to come up with what they call the “First 25,” or the 25 people “to have had the most profound impact on business and finance since 1989.”

    In other words (CNBC’s words), “the 25 most transformative leaders, icons and rebels of the past-quarter century.”

    And due to his “vision [which] spurred changes far beyond his industry and put an indelible stamp on the wider culture,” Apple co-founder Steve Jobs sits at number one on the list.

    He sits ahead of Bill Gates (#2), Sergey Brin‚ Larry Page & Eric Schmidt (all lumped together at #4) and Jeff Bezos (#5). Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg comes in at number eight.

    You can check out CNBC’s full profile on Steve Jobs and why they chose him here. When I say “they,” I mean CNBC, “augmented by their advisory board,” with some consideration to audience votes.

    CNBC knows that most people will hate this list.

    In fact, CNBC’s Tyler Mathisen argues why Steve Jobs at #1 sound ludicrous to some:

    But let’s talk about Jobs for a minute. The Apple OS never had more than a few points of market share on the desktop and laptop. Jobs didn’t put the smart in smartphones. Mike Lazaridis of BlackBerry did. And the iPod wasn’t the first portable music player.Sony’s Walkman was, and it had a radio. Philanthropy? Jobs didn’t come close to Gates. Fair enough, but he could rock a turtleneck—as well as everything from PCs, to music and movies, to smartphones—with style.

    You get the point.

    But then again, he says, this is only meant to spur debate.

    Everyone on our First 25, and every ranking in it, can be argued for and against. And that, folks, is the point. A ranking like this one is meant to spur discussion as well as celebrate exceptional achievement. And, let me tell you, the debates among the members of our advisory panel were every bit as heated as those sure to take place now that the list has been published.

    Ok, guys–let’s debate then!

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham: Who Won the Debate?

    Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham: Who Won the Debate?

    Bill Nye, beloved 90’s “Science Guy”, defended the theory of Evolution against Ken Ham and the theory of Creationism last night for two and a half hours. Neither one left persuaded to the other side.

    The debate took place at Ham’s Creation Museum where there are displays of some thought-provoking evidence to refute the theory of Evolution in favor of the Bible’s Creation story.

    Ham asserts that all of the answers are in the Bible, and that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Nye insists that there are still infinite discoveries to be made in the pursuit of understanding Evolution and that the Earth was created from a “big bang”.

    Nye went on to say, “If we accept Mr. Ham’s point of view … that the Bible serves as a science text and he and his followers will interpret that for you, I want you to consider what that means,” Nye said. “It means that Mr. Ham’s word is to be more respected than what you can observe in nature, what you can find in your backyard in Kentucky.”

    Ken Ham answered a question about where atoms come from with this statement, “Bill, I want to tell you, there is a book that tells where atoms come from, and its starts out, ‘In the beginning …,’”

    The debate was highly publicized and anticipated, but apparently, Bill Nye faced some criticism from his colleagues for appearing at the debate, according to Yahoo. For example, Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, wrote this on his blog, “Nye’s appearance will be giving money to organizations who try to subvert the mission Nye has had all his life: science education, particularly of kids.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VUXQatryNw

    Regardless of the agree-to-disagree outcome, the debate will give a huge boost to the museum. Ham’s Facebook page had hundreds of thousands of views before the debate, which he explains,

    “I think it shows you that the majority of people out there, they’re interested in this topic, they want to know about this, they don’t want debate shut down,” he said.

    Image via youtube

  • Bill Nye “Science Guy” Debates “Creationist” Ken Ham

    The debate that has raged for centuries, or at least since Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was formulated, and consequent book, “The Origin of the Species” has had religious nuts and science nerds at odds arguing from whence we came. The Bible says one thing science says another.

    The controversy about Tuesday’s debate between “Science Guy” Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham is no different. When evolutionists face off with creationists – it stirs up a lot of hostility. Even though science has the proof of human evolution, creationists still want to argue.

    The event is being held at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky and in an op-ed published on CNN.com Monday.

    The event can be heard live on YouTube, the evening of Feb 4th.

    Ham is participating in addition to arguing his beliefs, so that this debate might give creationism more of a public voice, he told TheBlaze.

    Ham’s intentions of integrating creationism into the public schools system is also part of the reason he’s taking the theory of evolution on.

    “While we are not in favor of mandating that creation be taught in public school science classes, we believe that, at the very least, instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution,” he said.

    Ham has stated, they both (he and Nye) have a love for “operational science,” but that there is a difference between what can be seen, and theories that are based on “beliefs about the past, which cannot be tested in the laboratory.”

    Ham is also frustrated that public school children “are censored” from hearing challenges to evolution.

    “Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it,” he continued. “Let our young people understand science correctly and hear both sides of the origins issue and then evaluate them.

    Nye, who hosted PBS’s “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” said that he isn’t going into the debate with Ham as a scientist, but that he plans to debate evolution and creationism as “a reasonable man.”

    “Well I don’t think I’m going to win Mr. Ham over any more than Mr. Ham thinks he’s going to win me over, if I understand that expression ‘win over,’” he told HuffPost Live’s Josh Zepps in an interview this week. “Instead, I want to show people that this belief is still among us … it finds its way onto school boards in the United States.”

    “I’m not going in really as a scientist as such. I want to remind everybody — I’m a mechanical engineer,” Nye said. “I’m going in as a reasonable man and I think that to just call attention to this belief system has value.”

    Atheists such as Richard Dawkins advised Nye against such a debate, pointing out that scientists engaging with creationists is ideologically dangerous and gives undue publicity to those who oppose evolution.

    “The guy challenged me to a duel. What am I gonna do?” Nye argued.

    However, Nye said that he is “frightened” by the push for creationism in science textbooks and instruction.

    “If the United States produces a generation of science students who don’t believe in science, that’s troublesome,” he said. “We want to raise the most scientifically literate students that we can.”

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Tagg Romney Apologized: Too Little, Too Late

    When Tagg Romney said he wanted to run up to President Obama during the debates and “take a swing at him”, he must have known he’d receive some backlash for it. Not for thinking it, but for admitting it in a public forum (a radio interview). Apparently, he didn’t think much of it until Twitter and other social media sites blew up about it.

    When asked how he reacted when Obama accused Romney’s father of lying during the debate, he replied, “Jump out of your seat and you want to rush down to the stage and take a swing at him. But you know you can’t do that because, well, first because there’s a lot of Secret Service between you and him, but also because that’s the nature of the process.” He added, “We signed up for it. We’ve gotta kinda sit there and take our punches and then send them right back the other way.”

    Now that he’s apologized to Obama–he did so personally after the last debate on Monday night, saying he was “just joking”–many are saying the apology is too little, too late.

    Image: Twitter

  • Binders Full of Women: The Comment That Launched a Thousand Social Media Pages

    Last night’s second Presidential debate saw the two candidates clash over mostly domestic issues, with a few foreign issues sprinkled in. The town hall format meant that audience members got to ask the questions, and one particular response from Mitt Romney to a question on gender equality in the workplace led the social media world to go crazy creating pages and accounts.

    Here’s Romney’s statement, for context:

    An important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

    And I – and I went to my staff, and I said, “How come all the people for these jobs are – are all men.” They said: “Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.”

    And I said: “Well, gosh, can’t we find some – some women that are also qualified?”

    And – and so we – we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said: “Can you help us find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women.

    And with that, “Binders full of women” exploded across Facebook and Twitter. Social insight firm Topsy says that Twitter activity spiked to its highest point of the night during the discussion of discrimination in the workplace. Tweets containing the word “women” peaked at 24,170 per minute at that time.

    Many of them, I would expect, also containing the words “binder” and “full.”

    The odd phrase received plenty of Twitter backlash, most of it looking something like this:

    And within ten minutes of the utterance, Twitter accounts like @BindersofWomen and @mittsbinder were born. @RomneyBinders also now has over 33,000 followers.

    Facebook users also joined the party, creating dozens of “binders full of women”-related pages and groups. A quick search of “women binders” will show you this. Facebook’s Politics and Government team says that Romney’s “binders” comment shop up 213,900% at one point.

    Out of all those pages, one stands proud as the leader. Binders Full of Women has already amassed 243,000 followers and is growing by about 5,000 likes every half an hour or so. Within an hour of being created last night, the group had already garnered over 80,000 likes.

    (image)

    Binders Full Of Women10 hours ago

    Gov. Romney clearly misspoke. What he meant to say was that his platform wants to bind women to the 19th century. Powered by socialditto(image)  1,000+ likes ·  776 comments

    The page even had Facebook employees impressed with its rapid growth:

    There’s even a “Binders Full of Women” Tumblr that already has dozens of posts.

    (image)

    (image)

    As you would expect, the Obama campaign team is jumping on the phrase as well:

    People say that the internet has made this campaign unlike any other campaign in history. Man, are they right.

  • Rupert Murdoch Courts Twitter for Ron Paul Debate

    Rupert Murdoch, the man with world’s most wrinkly hands, is back on Twitter, trying to improve the level of discourse coming across his account, something he’s already complained about in recent tweets. To his credit, instead of further lamenting about the quality of Twitter interaction, Murdoch took it upon himself to improve it by asking a simple question, one that usually leads to great deal of Internet debate.

    His topic? Ron Paul:

    (image)@rupertmurdoch
    Rupert Murdoch     Just reading new book on Ron Paul. Fascinating. Ron sure model of consistency, right or wrong. Any tweeters wish to debate?(image) 27 minutes ago via Twitter for iPad ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    If Murdoch had asked such a question in a Reddit AMA session, there’s no telling the amount of responses he would’ve received, but as it stands, besides the 50-plus retweets, once Murdoch’s tweet is expanded, you see there’s been no real interaction with him. What gives, folks? This is your chance to engage in a conversation with one of the most well-known, controversial media members in the world, but yet, the sound of crickets greeted his current events query.

    In fact, as of this article, Murdoch’s tweet was broadcast over 30 minutes ago, but yet, the Twitter crowd has given him nothing to respond to, and that’s unfortunate.

  • Versus Invites People to Share Stance on the War on Drugs in Google+ Hangout Debate

    Versus is a new debate series that’s using Google+ Hangouts to allow users to participate in global debates. Other Google+ hangouts have helped people connect under the sea with +World Oceans Summit and interview President Obama. Some people were able to interview President Obama via Skype while other questions from hangout followers were panned to and asked by the primary interview host.

    The first live global hangout debate will focus on the war on drugs and has piqued interest with a video on Youtube that showcases the following quotes from political insiders:

    “A world in which drugs were legally available might be an unknowable, unreversable but potential nightmare.” — Lord Ian Blair, Former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

    “Prohibition just shovels billions of dollars to very bad people.” — Misha Gerry, Journalist and Author of McMafia.

    “Fight the real drug war against poverty and the money launderers.” — Ed Vulliamy, Journalist & Author of Amexica: War Along the Borderline.

    “People should not be put in prison for taking drugs.” — Richard Branson, Founder of Virging Group Ltd.

    “There is no war on drugs. Time to start fighting it.” — Peter Hitchens, Columnist for Mail on Sunday.

    And a final daunting quote from Julian Assange, Founder of Wikileaks states that “A vast Prison-Drug-Industrial Complex has been created.

    The debate will be facilitated by BBC newsreader and presenter, Emily Maitlis and broadcast opinions from the likes of Richard Branson, British funny man Russell Brand, Julian Assange, experts such as the former Presidents from Brazil and Mexico, and other guests.

    This social media meets politics experiment is scheduled to air on the 13th of March at 7pm GMT.

    People have been discussing issues and joining in the debate on a Google Blog dedicated to Versus. A few lucky posters will be selected to join in the live debate.

    One Versus blog post quotes Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera, reported head of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico. Let me know what you think of the candid comments you have been reading on the linked blog and what your stance on the war on drugs means to you!

  • Google’s New Privacy Policy: Danny Sullivan Provides Insight

    In January, Google announced that it was overhauling its more than 60 privacy policies and replacing them with one. As Alma Whitten, Google’s Director of Privacy in Product and Engineering, wrote in the announcement, the idea is to create a “beautifully simple, intuitive user experience across Google.”

    The search giant said the main change for users would be that it could combine information from one service with its other services, thus providing a more fluid user experience. For example, if you conduct several searches on Google on a particular item, Google could assume that you want a video on that item if you then visit YouTube.

    What do you think of Google’s new privacy policy? Does it affect you at all? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

    Danny Sullivan, Executive Editor of Search Engine Land According to Danny Sullivan, the Executive Editor of Search Engine Land, the new policy will provide users with more personalized results. He told us that it really wasn’t surprising that Google made the change since most other tech and Internet companies have one privacy policy for all their products and services.

    “Google, which kind of has come from privacy policies on a per product basis, is kind of playing catch up, so that they have the ability to be more flexible both in what they may do with the information and how they may use the information to improve products and services,” he said.

    This flexibility is what has some people worried, however. Under the new policy, Google could potentially take the information it gathers when users search to target them with ads. Although Google says it will not do this, the new policy gives it the right if it so chooses.

    “Potentially, it gives Google a lot of new rights,” said Sullivan.

    Privacy groups have voiced numerous concerns over what the new policy could mean. Specifically, the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC) has even sued the FTC, saying that Google’s new policy violates the settlement the company and the agency reached last year over Google Buzz. The group is asking the FTC to take action that will prevent Google from combining user data “without user content” before the company puts its new policy into effect next month.

    Due to the timing of the matter, a federal district judge ordered the FTC to have its response to EPIC ready today. In return, EPIC is supposed to have its counter response ready by February 21.

    EPIC also filed another complaint this week over the privacy assessments the FTC required Google to take. Google said it was complying with the audits but has, up to this point, kept them closed.

    “I thought that if you’re going to be audited on privacy, then perhaps you ought to release the privacy audits so that… the public could see it,” said Sullivan.

    EPIC claims that the FTC Consent Order required Google to answer detailed questions about privacy and user information but that the search giant did not answer them.

    Interestingly, Forbes featured a report this week stating that the court should dismiss the lawsuit between EPIC and the FTC. According to the report, the privacy group is overstepping its third party right under administrative law.

    Glenn G. Lammi wrote:

    Washington Legal Foundation would be the last one to argue that federal agency actions should be immune from judicial review as a general principle. But once a settlement agreement has been reached between an agency and a private entity, the agency should not be compelled to embrace an outside party’s view that the agreement has been breached. EPIC is welcome to communicate its general views to FTC (which they do so quite often) on the Google Buzz settlement, just as Google might avail FTC of its thoughts on whether a competitor like Facebook or Twitter violated its respective privacy agreement with the Commission. But empowering activists or competitors to imprint their views of consent agreement breach on the Commission would be a dangerous and easily abused tool. If Congress wanted such third parties to inject themselves into FTC’s process on such agreements more formally and authoritatively, it would have said so.

    Sullivan told us that, although he has yet to look closely at EPIC’s case, he doubted the FTC would find Google in any violation.

    Unfortunately for Google though, that’s not where its problems stop. The European Union has also asked it to delay the roll out of the new privacy policy. In a letter to Google’s CEO Larry Page, Jacob Kohnstamm, a European privacy regulator, wrote:

    We wish to check the possible consequences for the protection of the personal data of these citizens in a coordinated procedure. We have therefore asked the French data protection authority, the CNIL, to take the lead. The CNIL has kindly accepted this task and will be your point of contact for the data protection authorities in the EU.

    In light of the above, we call for a pause in the interests of ensuring that there can be no misunderstanding about Google’s commitments to information rights of their users and EU citizens, until we have completed our analysis.

    In a post on its European Public Policy Blog, Google responded to the letter saying it had met with several officials prior to its announcement and briefed them of the changes. It said that no one had any objections at that time and indicated that it would proceed with its plans to implement its new policy in March.

    Most recently, nonprofit Consumer Watchdog wrote a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee requesting that Larry Page explain Google’s “disingenuous statements about its supposed commitment to users’ privacy.”

    In this letter, Privacy Project Director John Simpson wrote:

    “If Google were truly committed to “user control,” it would ask users to “opt in” to these substantive changes in its data handling, rather than imposing them across the board… Google’s practices affect millions of Americans. Google is so dominant on the Internet that for many people Google is the Internet.

    You must not allow Google to escape legitimate privacy concerns by sending underlings whose high-sounding pledges prove to be empty or whose answers prove insufficient in closed-door meetings. It is the chief executive who is ultimately responsible for the company’s behavior.”

    What’s more, a Washington Post poll found that 65 percent of users said they would cancel their Google accounts over the privacy changes.

    Sullivan, however, told us that he believes this poll is “99 percent inaccurate.” As he explained, users reacted in this same way when Facebook made changes in 2010. In the end, Facebook grew instead.

    “If they’re that concerned about it, then their alternative is to go to another company that is doing exactly the same thing,” he said. “It really doesn’t come down to what these privacy policies say, it comes down to the kind of controls that you’re provided and given, and ultimately, I think, your trust in the company overall.”

    Ironically, as Matt McGee pointed out, Google quietly launched a new program that allows users to get paid if they use the Chrome browser and share their data with the search engine. It’s called Screenwise and pays users in Amazon gift cards. Although many other companies conduct similar practices in order to learn how they can improve their services, Sullivan told us that the timing of this program was very bad for Google.

    In spite of the backlash, it appears that Google will roll out its new privacy policy March 1. The company currently has an ad campaign to help to alleviate concerns, but Sullivan believes that Google will need to begin doing extensive PR outreach in D.C. as well.

    Does Google’s privacy policy go too far, or is it what you would expect from a company of its size? Let us know what you think in the comments.

  • Interview: Here’s Why Open Auctions for 2G Spectrum Are the Best Option

    Interview: Here’s Why Open Auctions for 2G Spectrum Are the Best Option

    The war in Washington over wireless spectrum is really beginning to heat up as policymakers and the FCC aren’t seeing eye to eye. The issue is commonly referred to as the “spectrum crunch” since wireless networks are quickly becoming overloaded.

    The CTIA found that the number of wireless subscriber connections has surpassed the number of people in the U.S. and its territories. It also found a 111 percent increase in wireless data traffic.

    While the situation is by all means challenging, the massive eruption of content that sparked it is both encouraging and exciting.

    (image) “We’re in this exciting arms race where the creation of content is happening so fast it’s exceeding even these amazing improvements in computing power, these amazing improvements in storage capacity, and particularly, these amazing improvements in connectivity,” said Bruce Mehlman, the former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tech Policy and the Co-Chair of the Internet Innovation Alliance.

    To help solve this problem of congestion, Congress is currently examining legislation that would free up more spectrum from broadcast radio and television companies. While everyone agrees that more spectrum is needed, the dispute is over how it would be distributed and, specifically, the FCC’s role in this process.

    In the past, the FCC has had a very active position in managing the auctions. In other words, it has had the power to place restrictions on auctions or conditions on spectrum based on the bidders’ market dominance and spectrum holdings.

    However, the bill that’s currently in the House would remove this power from the FCC, which is a move that is sparking a lot of debate. Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt recently called the proposed bill “the single worst telecom bill” he’d ever seen.

    The House argues that previous government allocations are the reason that the current “spectrum crunch” is happening. It also believes that limitations in auctions would result in less revenue to help reduce the federal deficit.

    As Mehlman explained to us, Congress is remembering what happened in the controversial 2008 spectrum auctions as well as the recent failed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. He sides with policymakers on this issue because he believes the previous restrictions are to blame for the current problems.

    In a post on the Internet Innovation Alliance, Mehlman wrote:

    Many in Congress fear FCC micromanagement and seek open auction rules free from FCC interference. The FCC, of course, objects to Congressional micromanagement of their micromanagement, seeking maximum flexibility to set auction rules.

    The irony here is that these auctions are needed because the last time this spectrum was assigned, policy makers limited its potential use and transfer. Thus much of the spectrum is under-utilized and our economy suffers for it.

    In our recent interview, he expressed concern that the same issues would continue if the FCC were permitted to keep its authority.

    “The biggest challenge is if the FCC gets its way and follows through with what many in the House fear they might do, which is limit who’s allowed to compete, I think the very spectrum crunch these very auctions are expected to alleviate doesn’t get alleviated… then problems continue,” pointed out Mehlman.

    “I think most people would concede the reason there’s inefficient use of spectrum is because of old government decisions on who could and could not use spectrum,” he continued. “Logically, you want less government constraints in the future.”

    Some mobile companies are perfectly happy with the FCC’s authority over the auctions as a group of them led by Sprint and T-Mobile sent a letter to lawmakers asking that the Commission’s position remain the same. AT&T and Verizon are not part of this support since they believe the FCC would favor the smaller carriers.

    (image) Incidentally, not everyone agrees that auctions would solve the issue. Rick Whitt, Google’s Washington Managing Counsel, recently indicated that auctions would not completely eliminate the spectrum crunch saying, “Auctions will fall short of meeting that gap.”

    Mehlman told us that he agrees with Whitt in that content will likely be created faster than bandwidth can be apportioned. But, he believes that this provides an even greater urgency to get policy in place that would encourage an open marketplace.

    “Having everybody eligible to acquire the spectrum and to subsequently sell the spectrum to a higher and better user is letting the market allocate the spectrum,” he said. “If we had done that the first time, we would have less congestion, we’d have more high speed wireless, and, I think, we’d have the same amount of competition.”

    “We don’t have a problem with lack of competition, we have a problem with a lack of investment, [and] we have a problem with a lack of spectrum aggregation to meet the marketplace needs,” he added.

    (image) Even though Sinclair Broadcast Group CEO David Smith said it was doubtful that Republicans and Democrats would be able to agree on legislation for a broadcast television auction this year, Mehlman thinks it is a possibility. As he explained, this legislation is part of larger jobs bill that both sides want to see pass.

    Should auctions be open, or should the FCC have a say? What do you think? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

  • E-Books Or Real Books: What Book Lovers Think

    There is a lot of debate surrounding e-books in regard to if they will ever replace real books as the conventional way to digest writer’s works. One undeniable fact is that e-book readers are getting less expensive everyday and therefore becoming more popular. Certain publications are only being offered as e-books and with the increasing cost of physical resources like paper and gasoline makes e-books pretty attractive.

    Still, people are creatures of habit, and change doesn’t always come easy. Did you know that many feared the invention of the printing press? Previous to the press, books were unique hand-written works of art which were most commonly read aloud in performances and sermons.

    The Bible was the first “pressed” book. It was most commonly read and interpreted by religious figures and scholars. A predominant fear of its mass production was that the layman would begin to consume and interpret its meaning without the guidience of church officials and draw their own conclusion about the content. Not good as far as the church saw it.

    Regardless, books became common enough that they were not just for public performance or religeous sermon any more. Everyone knows books are for everyone and are an excepted way to pass on knowledge, learn facts, document history, and entertain us. More recently, we have the evolution of the book, the e-book, and some have anxiety about its role in society.

    Let’s look at what book lover’s are thinking on both sides of the coin: For and against e-books domination of the market.

    Pros For E-Books:

    1). Real books are heavy and cumbersome. Often it is hard for them to stay open on their own and readers have to fidget with them to get comfortable.

    2). Real books are expensive. Not only for consumers but also to manufacturers. The books have to be printed, packaged, and distributed. These processes consume materials and resources not to mention what the consumer has to go through to get it from the retailer.

    3). Real books can easily be lost or damage. While an e-reader is expensive at first, many books can be read and saved on the device. Even if the reader was damaged, the contents of the publication can be accessed by a replacement reader more easily than a water damaged box of books can be replaced.

    4). An e-reader offers much that a book cannot. A dictionary, a clock, internet access, the list goes on. A book is just a book. It has more uses than just reading however; those uses are relatively limited.

    5). Privacy. People cannot see what book you are reading. In fact, you can have one e-reader and be reading several books at once. also, if your e-reader is password protected, no one else can even open your book.

    Pros for Real Books:

    1). A physical book is yours to own and use as you see fit. Make notes in the margins, write your name in it, display it on your bookshelf, cut out pictures from there pages, ect. You own the book.

    2). You can loan a book in physical form and not have to worry about infringement of any kind on the authors intellectual property or right to be payed. Physical books allow you to “by hand” pass on the information inside of it and share the experience with others.

    3). Physical books offer an experience that extends to more senses than just sight. Well worn books especially might have this effect. The smell, feel, weight of a book offer a feast to more of the senses. Perhaps the pictures offer more in physical print than those of digital format.

    4). A book is a single purpose object. You won’t be distracted by clocks, software updates, or other tasks you can perform on the book. For those hoping to escape reality for awhile and enjoy a good book, this may come as a comfort.

    5). A book can be purchased used. Used books offer an opportunity to access material at a discounted cost. Digital versions remain pristine forever and may never be discounted or the opposite, disappear from servers altogether. This could be a disadvantage for readers of older publications.

    Conclusion:

    So a lot of what fans are saying about the pros and cons of e-books are in direct opposition of one another. I guess it really just comes down to what you need the publication for, where you plan to read it, and what kind of budget you’re on. The same debate could take place for digital versus cd or record format music. A lot of hardcore music lovers still swear by the record for sound quality and overall listening experience.

  • Twitter Revs Up for GOP Debate in FL

    Twitter Revs Up for GOP Debate in FL

    Tonight at 8:00 PM on CNN, the remaining Republican presidential primary candidates go at it. Again.

    The debates and speeches get live-tweeted, and there’s a lot of fun to be had from that. But, some folks are hitting the Tweet button sooner than later.

    Including this guy…

    And this guy…

  • SOPA: Twitter Weighs In On GOP Debate

    As we reported earlier, all four candidates in last night’s GOP debate in South Carolina stated their opposition to SOPA. Ron Paul pointed out that he had always been against it and waiting for the others to catch up. Newt said he ‘favors freedom’. Romney agreed. Santorum doesn’t like SOPA, as is, but still thinks that government should regulate the content of the Internet. I wonder why?

    Here’s how the Twitterverse responded to this rash of nods from all four remaining GOP candidates.

    (image)@kn0thing
    Alexis Ohanian    Dear, Congress: You finally got all the #GOP candidates to agree during this @CNN debate — against you. Ouch. #SOPA #PIPA.(image) 15 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    (image)@WebProNews
    WebProNews    SOPA: GOP Candidates All Agree #WebProNews http://t.co/dLozvF2e(image) 42 seconds ago via Tweet Button · powered by @socialditto

    (image)@JustinRYoung
    Justin Robert Young    Pretty pumped to hear the GOP Debate Crowd boo #SOPA and 3 of the candidates equate further legislation with a loss of freedom(image) 14 hours ago via Twitter for Mac · powered by @socialditto

    (image)@sjvn
    sjvn    RT @JBrodkin: sweet RT @arstechnica: At GOP debate, all four candidates oppose SOPA http://t.co/Dslu0Bbi Me: They got 1 right!(image) 1 hour ago via Twitterfall · powered by @socialditto

    (image)@asteris
    Asteris Masouras    Back from Twitterjail, wondered why I stayed up so late watching this debate but the SOPA round was worth it: it is now toxic to the GOP(image) 15 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    (image)@acarvin
    Andy Carvin    Ron Paul: I was one of the first to sign up against #SOPA. The GOP has been on the wrong side of the issue; these guys are playing catch-up.(image) 15 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    (image)@TheTeaParty_net
    TheTeaParty.net    Newt on SOPA—You’re asking a conservative about the interests of Hollywood #tcot #teacyber #gop #cnndebate(image) 15 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    (image)@kaepora
    Nadim Kobeissi    #SOPA question was just asked at the CNN GOP Debate – everyone except Santorum surprisingly gave a non-douchey answer.(image) 15 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    (image)@mpetricone
    mpetricone    #SOPA #PIPA question @ GOP debate! Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gringrich all against. Audience boos when John King says that CNN supports.(image) 15 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

  • SOPA: GOP Candidates All Agree

    Last night’s CNN debate in South Carolina found all four remaining GOP candidates in harmony on one issue at least. They all feel that SOPA is overreaching and needs to be rethought.

    Newt Gingrich answered the SOPA question first, saying, “I favor freedom.” He said that there are already tools and avenues of recourse in place to allow copyright holders to sue and stop piracy domestically. Gingrich continued:

    “The idea that we’re going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations’ economic interests strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do.”

    Mitt Romney chimed in:

    “I think he got it just about right… The law as written is far too intrusive, far too expansive, far too threatening to freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet. It would have a potentially depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in America, which is the Internet and all those industries connected to it.”

    Ron Paul pointed out that the others were late to the party:

    “I was the first Republican to sign on with a host of Democrats to oppose this law… The Republicans, unfortunately, have been on the wrong side of this issue.”

    Rick Santorum, while agreeing with everyone else that SOPA goes too far, did have a personal axe to grind.

    “The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people… The idea that ‘anything goes’ on the Internet, where did that come from? Where in America does it say that ‘anything goes’?”

    Of course, Rick Santorum has been embroiled in his own personal fight with Google and difficulties on the Internet.

  • Facebook Co-Sponsors Next GOP Debate

    Facebook Co-Sponsors Next GOP Debate

    With the Iowa Republican Caucus in the record books – and Michelle Bachmann’s campaign in the history books – the nation sets its sights on the New Hampshire Republican Primary on January 10.

    Will Mitt Romney keep his 25% momentum rolling? Right now he actually polls at 47%, more than double his nearest rival.

    Will flavor-of-the-week Rick Santorum still be relevant by then?

    Will Jon Huntsman’s efforts in that state pay off with a surprise?

    Will Ron Paul’s never-say-die base pull off a big upset?

    Will Newt Gingrich show up? Or will there be a book signing schedule conflict?

    Before the Primary on Tuesday, the remaining candidates square off in yet another debate on Saturday the 7th. This one is staged jointly by NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Facebook.

    Taking advantage of the nature of social media, the debate will feature days of opportunity for viewers to submit questions, chat up each other about the candidates, and watch videos.

    Facebook is highlighting how the candidates use social media, specifically Facebook of course, to interact with voters and get their message out.

    (image)

    Their “U.S. Politics on Facebook” page talks through how the candidates are doing.

    The Facebook presence for Meet the Press is pushing the upcoming debate heavily.

    As for the event itself. it will take place at 9:00 a.m. ET in Concord, NH. Of course, Facebook will carry a live stream, and video will be available on Facebook afterward.

  • Does Kindle Fire Prove A Dissonance Between Consumers & Tech Community?

    If you’re Amazon, apparently bad news doesn’t really matter because the Kindle Fire continues to be the #1 best selling item from their website for the 11th straight week (since its debut). According to a press release from yesterday, not only are sales of the tablet increasing with each week but this is the third week in a row that they’ve sold over one million units from the general Kindle family.

    “Kindle Fire is the most successful product we’ve ever launched – it’s the bestselling product across all of Amazon for 11 straight weeks, we’ve already sold millions of units, and we’re building millions more to meet the high demand. In fact, demand is accelerating – Kindle Fire sales increased week over week for each of the past three weeks. People are buying Kindle Fire because it’s a simple, fully-integrated service that makes it easy to do the things they love – watch movies, read books and magazines, listen to music, download apps, play games, and surf the web,” said Dave Limp, Vice President, Amazon Kindle. “Our family of Kindle e-ink readers are close behind Kindle Fire on the Amazon.com bestseller list. Customers continue to report preferring their Kindle e-reader for long-form reading, and in fact we’ve seen many customers buy two Kindles – both a Kindle Fire and a Kindle or Kindle Touch – this holiday season.”

    Not even a mention of a pitch of how Fire will only get better after updates to fix acknowledged problems start becoming available.

    So what of all that hubbub about the Fire being kind of a drag? A visit over to Amazon’s website reveals that the tablet has an average rating of 4 stars with over 6,000 reviews, which gives some pretty sound reliability to that high rating, and over half of those reviews give it the highest possible rating of 5 stars. Take this with a grain of salt given the source of this info, but even the “most helpful, critical review” still gave the Fire 3 stars.

    As you see, an overwhelming amount of people still found that review to be helpful. What’s more is that the author of that review posted an update fifteen days later to say that “a recent software update seems to have fixed several of the above problems” and praises the improved performance. Although the option isn’t available, that update might have pushed the worst constructive rating – a still better-than-decent 3 stars – up higher.

    Several technology sources, including this website, PC Mag, The New York Times, All Things D, and Jakob Nielsen (he disliked it so much he gets two links), have all given the Fire mediocre-to-punishing reviews and yet… people can’t seem to gobble up the Kindle Fire fast enough.

    Market analysts are predicting that Amazon will sell as many as 6 million Kindle Fires before the end of this year, which would trump the first-quarter debut sales of Apple’s iPad, the tablet by which all tablets are to be compared. There’s also speculation that the Kindle Fire will grab a sizable chunk of the tablet market next year – a market that, until now, has pretty much been the dominion of Apple.

    Maybe it’s the professedly easy usability of the Kindle Fire. Maybe it’s the much more affordable price tag. Maybe Amazon’s got some marketing warlocks on their payroll. Or maybe – just maybe – the tech community’s opinion is not representative of what the average person desires in a tablet. Regardless of how this discord can be explained, the Kindle Fire is not Amazon’s “most successful product” they’ve ever launched without some good reason.

    If you’re a Kindle Fire user, are you happy with it thus far? Do you find that the tech community is usually spot-on about all things technological, or are you often in disagreement with the technorati?

  • Is It Journalism or Blogging? Or Neither?

    Is It Journalism or Blogging? Or Neither?

    According to the Free Online Dictionary, journalism is defined as:

    1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
    2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
    3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
    4. Newspapers and magazines.
    5. An academic course training students in journalism.
    6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.

    How do you define journalism? Let us know.

    To me, the most prominent section of this definition is part 3, which essentially points to the objectivity aspect of journalism. However, when you think about this, how many mainstream journalists or media outlets does this aspect describe? And, if this is the definition, should it be enforced? Should journalists set themselves at a higher standard than they currently are?

    On the other hand, is this definition even accurate today? Or, has it evolved with the advent of blogging?

    These are just a few of the questions that are being raised after Crystal Cox, who calls herself an investigative blogger, was charged with defamation and ordered to pay $2.5 million after an Oregon court recently ruled that she was not protected under the state’s media shield law. As WebProNews covered here and here, Cox was sued by Obsidian Finance Group earlier this year after she accused the firm’s co-founder, Kevin Padrick, of fraud, dishonesty with shareholders, and abuse of his position as the company’s chapter 11 trustee.

    Cox, who defended herself in court, said that, because her content was based on information from an inside source, she was protected through the media shield law. The court, however, said that she was not associated with an established media outlet and was therefore, not a journalist.

    In the above interview, Cox told us that she does consider herself to be a journalist, saying: “I have taken depositions, I’ve interviewed people, I have over 400 sites, I’ve researched this case, I’ve watched insider meetings… I’m not just any blogger on it.”

    “I don’t have one blog… this is what I do all day, everyday, [and] have for years,” she added.

    Cox told us that she does not, however, consider all bloggers to be journalists. In addition, she does not think that the perception people have about journalism is correct and said that it wasn’t about getting both sides of the story.

    “I think it’s about digging in documents, reading depositions, reading court cases, watching videos – really doing deep investigation,” Cox said. “Real journalists should actually investigate and be willing to read it and be passionate about the story.”

    As far as her next steps are concerned, Cox told us that she is still uncertain. She has been in talks with First Amendment experts and other groups to weigh out all her options. She is trying to decide if appealing the court ruling or stepping down will do the most toward encouraging equal rights for bloggers and journalists. If she does appeal, Cox said she would not represent herself.

    Ideally, she would like to see her story result in a federal shield law and “for all bloggers to have rights as journalists, if they do what journalists do.”

    Is Crystal Cox a blogger or journalist? You decide.

  • What is the Right Solution for Internet Tax?

    The Internet sales tax issue has been debated for a number of years, but the issue grew to a new level of intensity after the state of California signed into law a bill that required all online retailing sites to pay taxes on their affiliate advertising. This, of course, sparked a big dispute since many online retailers such as Amazon cut off their affiliate programs in the state.

    As a result, a lot of the affiliates in the state lost most, if not all, of their revenue. Nick Loper, who was among the affiliate victims, spoke to WebProNews back in August and told us that he lost 70 percent of his revenue almost immediately after the law went into effect. He ended up moving to Nevada and starting completely over.

    The motive for California’s law was driven primarily by its struggling financial situation. Because many other states are facing similar scenarios with large budget deficits, they too are contemplating related actions. It’s understandable why states want to impose these taxes, but does that make it right?

    Can these interstate tax propositions actually solve the tax problem? What do you think?

    Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, doesn’t think that they would. He co-wrote a report with Veronique de Rugy on this topic, and as he explained to WebProNews, the tax issue is very complex and far-reaching.

    “The debate about Internet taxation is really an interesting debate, because the sales tax only being a state and local tax is not something that can be easily applied to something that’s interstate in nature, which the Internet and Internet sales clearly are,” he said.

    Even before Internet taxes became an issue, states have wanted to impose taxes on interstate companies that provide catalog and mail order services. However, they have not been able to do so because of their constitutional restraints. According to Theirer, the Supreme Court has provided limitations in this area because the states can’t put “discriminatory or unfair burdens” on companies that they don’t have any authority over.

    Congress is now trying to get these limitations reversed with new legislation. In August, the “Main Street Fairness Act” was introduced to the Senate. It, in essence, calls for a set of federal guidelines that would dictate how states could collect sales taxes from online retailers.

    A second bill, called the “Marketplace Equity Act of 2011,” and was introduced to the House last week. It is similar to the one introduced in the Senate but is a little different since it would give states the authority to require retailers, both on and offline, to collect sales taxes even when customers are located in states where the companies have no physical presence.

    “What both these measures try to do is find a way to, essentially, authorize a state-based system of taxation for the Internet,” said Thierer.

    “The reason, again, that the courts have not thus far allowed it is because, really, the complexity question. It’s not just that the states don’t have authority over interstate vendors; it’s that if they went to actually impose these taxes, it would create a huge burden on interstate sales and trade.”

    States are aware that tax systems are complex, and many of them have joined the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board to simplify the processes. They are working to not only explain rates, but they are also working to clarify definitions such as the difference between a cookie and candy bar. This might seem of minimal value on the surface, but as Thierer explained to us, each of these items is taxed very differently.

    He went on to say that, even if the systems were clarified, there would still be issues with this approach. He told us that states want to tax one another’s imports instead of taxing their own exports, which is a process that he calls a “tax cartel.”

    “The wrong answer, in my opinion, is to essentially tax everybody up to a higher level,” said Thierer. “The better approach would probably be to tax downward and find a way to have a more competitive tax arrangement, so that we don’t set this collusionary approach that some states want to use.”

    “I think that that would create a troubling disincentive to actually seeing more tax competition,” he added.

    Thierer also pointed out his frustration with Amazon being at the center of this debate, saying that he was “very troubled” by it. He not only thinks that Amazon is pulling the spotlight away from other online retailers, but he is also disturbed that it is making deals with politicians in order to eliminate its tax own burden. The online retailer has been negotiating with states to avoid or delay paying taxes in exchange for investment and jobs in those states.

    “In theory, that sounds great,” said Theirer. “I really do wonder about Amazon’s ability to deliver on it, but at the end of the day, this is really just politics, and it’s not the kind of solution that is ultimately going to serve the broader marketplace or consumers.”

    Theirer believes that there is a better approach to the tax issue than the approach that both the states and Amazon are taking. In the report, Theirer and de Rugy propose 3 potential solutions to the tax problem. One option would be to abolish sales taxes entirely. For this to work, states would have to rely on income, property, and various other taxes.

    On the other extreme, a second option would be to have a nationwide sales tax that would give states a certain portion of the income. Thierer, however, doesn’t think either of these methods is ideal. Instead, he is advocating an “origin-based sourcing rule” that would apply the structure of offline sales taxes to the Internet.

    As he explained, it’s the idea of taxing consumers at the origin of sale, not at the destination, which is what the states want to do.

    “The states and localities want to have a destination-based system where they try to figure out where everybody’s going to consume their online goods… that’s what creates the complexity and the costs associated with the plan that they desire,” said Thierer.

    On the other hand, he believes his idea would, “create tax competition eliminate the constitutional tax headaches associated with the states’ current plan, and it would make sure that we don’t have a confusing, complicated array of rates and systems for interstate vendors to contend.”

    It’s clear that the Internet tax issue is complex, but the big question at the end of the day is – do any of these approaches actually provide a solution to the problem? If so, would you be more apt to follow states’ proposal or Thierer’s proposal?

    Do you have ideas for what should be done about Internet-related taxes? Let us know in the comments.

  • Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney Win GOP Debate According to Likester

    The first Republican Presidential Debate to feature all of the candidates was held last night in New Hampshire. Two notable things happened last night – It was the debate premiere of early front-runner Mitt Romney and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann used her opening statements to declare her official candidacy.

    Apart from these two events, the seven candidates talked health care, immigration, abortion, gay marriage and the whole range of topics one would expect in a televised debate. CNN broadcast the debate and host John King ended every segment with what he called a “this or that” question. We learned that Tim Pawlenty favors Coke over Pepsi and former Godfather’s pizza chair Herman Cain prefers Chicago-style deep dish to NY-style thin crust.

    With all personal politics aside, any early presidential debate, of either party, serves as a barometer for public opinion. It gives voters an initial glimpse at the candidates and shapes the media narrative for the upcoming campaign. It’s impossible to predict the outcome of the primary right now but “global popularity engine” Likester is at it again, this time tackling the 2012 elections.

    Likester is a startup that analyzes Facebook data, specifically “likes,” to determine popularity trends across the social channel. This year they hosted “Likester Idol,” where each week they analyzed changes in the amount of Facebook likes for each contestant and made elimination predictions based on those results. They had a pretty good prediction record and ended up picking Scotty McCreery as the winner six weeks before the finale.

    This time, Likester is looking to predict something “more meaningful,” they say. Their goal is to predict the eventual 2012 Republican nominee, and they kicked off their analysis with last night’s debate results.

    The post debate analysis is in! All seven declared major Republicans were present, and the results of the data is below. We plan on updating this page bi-weekly, so please check back every few weeks for the latest.

    So who won the debate according to Likester? Mitt Romney, as he garnered 19,658 new likes on Facebook from his performance. He is the overall like leader with just under 1 million. Michele Bachmann, who ranks 3rd in overall likes, finished second by gaining 9,232 new likes. Ron Paul, who ranks 2nd in overall likes, finished 3rd in the debate by adding 8,717 new likes.

    (image)

    The remaining candidates finished 4th – 7th in the following order: Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum.

    Of course, a presidential primary may be a little tougher to predict than American Idol, but it’s possible that social media clout will play a huge role in determining the winner. Facebook played such a huge part in the 2008 election, there is no reason to think that popularity on the social media site won’t be an indicator of the outcome of this race.

    Who do you think won the debate? Who looked like a strong candidate? Romney, Pawlenty, Bachmann? Or did no candidate look good at all? Let us know what you think.