gmac17

we had to sandbag our building here in hoboken. didn't go to work today - whole block flooded. a friend drove his 1 year old mercedes through about 8 inches of water, stalled and the cold water evidently cracked his engine block. he will never buy a mercedes again....

going to make things fun for the boston marathon...

seems pretty dead on to me.

wes at college http://atmizzou.missouri.edu/jan04/images/komu-1980s.jpg

I just got the email from Jeff Zucker an hour ago...

i was waiting for pete to chime in with his list... Norway House Manitoba might be at the top of my list for unique places. Fishing on the Nelson river with a "first nation" local who drank 1/2 a bottle of rum, caught all sorts of walleye and tooks us home safely up a windy river in what seemed like pitch black night...great, great time.

some of you people are pains in the ass! this is an unbelievable show - featuring many things NEVER seen on camera before, please don't try to make me feel guilty that i didn't go looking for wildlife in Hoboken today....

You went to Notre Dame I take it? If so, funny you say that because (no offense) everyone I've ever met who went to ND has been so outwardly proud of their school it is unbelievable. Never miss a chance to tell people where they went.

i was training some teachers a piece of software a few years back, and one of them stumbled upon a website showing pictures of a state and giving you multiple choice answers. the state shown was michigan. the choices were michigan, connecticut and one other state. both of these teachers agreed that the state shown was connecticut. I couldn't sleep for days afterwards.

and then you have tysabri, which if I'm correct killed 3 people and was pulled (or delayed) for several years before they decided the benefits outweighed the risks.

i couldn't have stated it better myself.

I can only imagine the lobbying money that will be (is being) thrown around for that one....

that really sucks. I got laid off a few days after I got back from my honeymoon. The CEO felt really bad and said "I know you just got married...really sorry blah blah blah". And I said - "well actually it's my birthday too" (it was) and the look on the guys face was absolutely priceless....

I generally have a lot of sympathy for the airlines - I couldn't imagine a more complex business to operate, with more rules and regulations all while dealing with people who all have very important things to do - many of whom are utterly rude and thankless. (when it comes to Jetblue like debacles I lose my sympathy...) as for whether or not 30 days is appropriate - in this day and age with cost cutting and what not that sounds about right. I suspect that you are going to be even more angry when you get an automated response / answer and a $50 voucher....

it is fine right now - sleety and slushy but not horrible by any means. I can't predict the future though.

Dean - I'm sure (in fact I know) that there are plenty of bigger fish here than me - but this issue is right in my wheelhouse. I have experience with this issue on all sides (and my youtube reference was simply to point out that youtube has been good for me personally, despite my issues with them). Evidently I need to take a class at winning message board arguments..... at the end of the day I don't think they will settle out of court, viacom won't get a billion dollars and the DMCA will most certainly get a major facelift to bring it up to speed with the times....

I won't fall for that one Dean. And I definitely won't say that I probably have a better understanding of the industry than anybody else here, or that I have personally dealt with the DMCA on a number of levels for companies that I started, or that I have content on YouTube with over a million views that will be featured on a crappy cable tv show in the not too distant future ($1,000 baby!).

you mean some random blogger on business 2.0 says the DCMA says they are fine. How is Napster doing these days? Then why can't I find a nipple on Youtube? Because people report it. Although most people wouldn't report copyright infringement, enough would that they could make it easily work. They are google for Chrissakes - you don't think they could figure out a way to do this? It's not blind at all - they provide great services, but they are full of sh*t with their "do no evil" crap. Censorship in china, ripping off publishers, click fraud - the list goes on.

although it sounds good, that will mean nothing in court. Google still made money off of placing ads around copyrighted content they were fully aware existed. EXACTLY!!! But why is it on the content owner to constantly police all of these sites when Google obviously has the technology or manpower to do so. Google time and time again has a policy of f'ing over content owners first and then saying "but you can opt out of our site if you want" - just tell us when your stuff gets posted. Why not give copyright owners a "key code" that will allow them to officially upload content. Then put a "copyrighted content" link on the video player just like the inappropriate link - if someone flags the copyrighted link but it was officially uploaded then it stays up. If it wasn't put up by the company, it gets reviewed and possibly taken down. I just solved the problem in 2 minutes on a bills message board. Yes - google tried to drive a sh*tty deal thinking these guys had to do a deal with them because they were it. Now Google is probably getting a little nervous because the viacom suit pretty much means that the other media companies will sit on the sidelines for a bit, or possibly even file a suit of their own. come on Dean - those are horrible arguments. Who cares if a random video or two get deleted - it's not your first amendment right that mistakes don't get made on YouTube. Mistakes happen at every company. And to call a policy of copyright protection "draconian" is a bit much... The funniest part of my hatred for google is that I own google stock, I get checks from Google every month for some sites I run, and I spend over $500,000 per year on advertising with them at work each year....

congrats. I know the feeling, when Bucknell knocked off kansas 2 years ago I was on top of the world for a few days. enjoy.

step 1) they turn a blind eye to copyrighted content that they could easily remove or filter. step 2) they create a huge user base, largely on the backs of unauthorized content paid for by other people setp 3) they try to bully media companies into signing deals with them, using the "there is no other game in town" angle. Mark Cuban has a very good take on this: http://www.blogmaverick.com/

Google could have a solution to prevent copyrighted content on the site by next week but they choose not to (notice how you can't find boobs on youtube - they obviously have filtering capability). Instead they put ads on other peoples content, create market share using other peoples content and then try to bully the media companies into making deals with them - all on the backs of the content they paid hundreds of millions to create. They did the same things with books - they scan entire copyrighted books without permission and then say "if you don't want us to do it just tell us". Gee, YOU ARE GOOGLE - why don't you let people opt-in to your service. mcjeff - this is a far cry from a dell monitor - this is someone making a business off of someone elses stuff.

good for them. Google has shown time and time again that they really don't care much about the concept of copyright.

I think sarah silverman was involved somehow.

I believe last spring syracuse cancelled a game with bucknell scheduled for this season because they didn't want to lose to them this year (again).