Friam

Post, washington post amazon buy out thoughts?

Classic

List

Threaded

12 messages Options

Gillian Densmore

Post, washington post amazon buy out thoughts?

I heard on public TV that amazon gobled up the washington post-

I'd like to here what other peoples thoughts that Amazon wants to the washington post to sink into "e-publishing" and be more populist in reguards to who can submit updates to news.

To kick it off. I'm conflicted. On one hand the washington post as a publication is old and might have a little bit of postive street cred under that proposed model, on the other hand- will amazon fact check submissions?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Barry MacKichan

Re: Post, washington post amazon buy out thoughts?

My understanding is that Jeff Bezos bought the WP. Amazon is just his day job, and not now the owner of a newspaper. At least this means that Amazon stockholders (other than JB), and even Amazon directors, will have no direct effect on the Post.

--Barry

On Aug 6, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I heard on public TV that amazon gobled up the washington post-
I'd like to here what other peoples thoughts that Amazon wants to the washington post to sink into "e-publishing" and be more populist in reguards to who can submit updates to news.

To kick it off. I'm conflicted. On one hand the washington post as a publication is old and might have a little bit of postive street cred under that proposed model, on the other hand- will amazon fact check submissions?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

signature.asc (859 bytes) Download Attachment

Pamela McCorduck

Re: Post, washington post amazon buy out thoughts?

In reply to this post by Gillian Densmore

Gobbled up is strong language, Gillian. Rescued might be more like it. The family that ran the Post couldn't afford to run it any more. The Grahams said they were glad to sell the entity called the Washington Post to someone who assured them he would run it to the same standards the Grahams had used. (Now this is sad, because the WashPost in the last ten years became a shadow of its best self, so "standards" are rather elastic.)

Bezos says he has no intention of interfering in the editorial part of the paper, which may or may not be true. But the Post couldn't sustain itself as it was going. Something had to give. I frankly will be fascinated to see the mind that dreamed up Amazon refashion a newspaper for the 21st century.

You might see the same thing happening to the New York Times, with Mike Bloomberg talked about as the buyer. The Times is making money right now, but it hasn't paid a dividend to the 83 members of the Sulzberger family in two years. Some of those people are going to say hey, we aren't a charity; we have to put our kids through college like everyone else. At that point, a buyer may be sought.

Just saying.

Pamela

On Aug 6, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I heard on public TV that amazon gobled up the washington post-
> I'd like to here what other peoples thoughts that Amazon wants to the washington post to sink into "e-publishing" and be more populist in reguards to who can submit updates to news.
>
> To kick it off. I'm conflicted. On one hand the washington post as a publication is old and might have a little bit of postive street cred under that proposed model, on the other hand- will amazon fact check submissions?
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gillian Densmore

Re: Post, washington post amazon buy out thoughts?

Hmm ok that's interesting distinction.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gobbled up is strong language, Gillian. Rescued might be more like it. The family that ran the Post couldn't afford to run it any more. The Grahams said they were glad to sell the entity called the Washington Post to someone who assured them he would run it to the same standards the Grahams had used. (Now this is sad, because the WashPost in the last ten years became a shadow of its best self, so "standards" are rather elastic.)

Bezos says he has no intention of interfering in the editorial part of the paper, which may or may not be true. But the Post couldn't sustain itself as it was going. Something had to give. I frankly will be fascinated to see the mind that dreamed up Amazon refashion a newspaper for the 21st century.

You might see the same thing happening to the New York Times, with Mike Bloomberg talked about as the buyer. The Times is making money right now, but it hasn't paid a dividend to the 83 members of the Sulzberger family in two years. Some of those people are going to say hey, we aren't a charity; we have to put our kids through college like everyone else. At that point, a buyer may be sought.

Just saying.

Pamela

On Aug 6, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I heard on public TV that amazon gobled up the washington post-
> I'd like to here what other peoples thoughts that Amazon wants to the washington post to sink into "e-publishing" and be more populist in reguards to who can submit updates to news.
>
> To kick it off. I'm conflicted. On one hand the washington post as a publication is old and might have a little bit of postive street cred under that proposed model, on the other hand- will amazon fact check submissions?

> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: Post, washington post amazon buy out thoughts?

http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/08/citizen-bezos-washington-post-amazon-founder-legacy/

Looking at Donald Graham, Bezos must have imagined by purchasing the newspaper, that he could at least ameliorate that fate for the Grahams. He must also have imagined that he could gather the best minds at his disposal, from hotshot web designers and technical officers to accountants and efficiency troubleshooters, to try to find a way not just to save The Post, but to build and reinvent a premier national news organization that could survive even the destruction of its own industry.

-- rec --

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hmm ok that's interesting distinction.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gobbled up is strong language, Gillian. Rescued might be more like it. The family that ran the Post couldn't afford to run it any more. The Grahams said they were glad to sell the entity called the Washington Post to someone who assured them he would run it to the same standards the Grahams had used. (Now this is sad, because the WashPost in the last ten years became a shadow of its best self, so "standards" are rather elastic.)

Bezos says he has no intention of interfering in the editorial part of the paper, which may or may not be true. But the Post couldn't sustain itself as it was going. Something had to give. I frankly will be fascinated to see the mind that dreamed up Amazon refashion a newspaper for the 21st century.

You might see the same thing happening to the New York Times, with Mike Bloomberg talked about as the buyer. The Times is making money right now, but it hasn't paid a dividend to the 83 members of the Sulzberger family in two years. Some of those people are going to say hey, we aren't a charity; we have to put our kids through college like everyone else. At that point, a buyer may be sought.

Just saying.

Pamela

On Aug 6, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I heard on public TV that amazon gobled up the washington post-
> I'd like to here what other peoples thoughts that Amazon wants to the washington post to sink into "e-publishing" and be more populist in reguards to who can submit updates to news.
>
> To kick it off. I'm conflicted. On one hand the washington post as a publication is old and might have a little bit of postive street cred under that proposed model, on the other hand- will amazon fact check submissions?

> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Post, washington post amazon buy out thoughts?

Pamela wrote:

Some of those people are going to say hey, we aren't a charity; we have to put our kids through college like everyone else.

Having a child is not so charitable, so far as the planet is concerned, e.g. table 3.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

The case for genocide or Shaker faith? was: Bezos buys WP

Marcus -

While I DO believe that we (industrialized humans for sure, all humans probably, large mammals maybe, all mammals possibly, all life for sure by some measure) are a blight upon the land, I think this article and specifically the table in question are specious.

Corollary arguments could then be made that purveyors of war and even (especially?) genocide are doing the survivors a great favor, and in fact, I think that might have been as significant of a factor in the (relative) slow growth of population in pre-industrial times.   By ending war, we destroy the biosphere.   Forget "drill baby drill", let's play "nuke baby nuke!"? Hussein's WMDs (had they been found or even existed) might have been tools of salvation for the human race, especially if used against populations with a high per-capita Carbon Footprint?   Seems like an argument for genetic modification of the human genome? *How* small can one human being be viable? Perhaps a 30lb human could cut their footprint by up to a factor of 5 or so? Maybe only having *small* children would help?   Fitting them with baleen and high density hemoglobin and flukes (e.g. whales) could allow our children to live in the ocean and by eating algae, create a *negative* carbon footprint?

Looking at Fig. 6, it would be easy to conclude that anything but 0 reproduction is completely irresponsible. It is possible this is true? We can either have 0 children, increase mortality rates significantly, or we can establish a carbon footprint 1/10 the size of our present footprint? I don't quite get Fig 6.'s lines. "Optimistic" seems to imply 0 reproduction, what does "Constant" and "Pessimistic" represent (2 children and 3 children per couple? or 2.03 children and optimistic/pessimistic assumptions about carbon footprints in the future?)

Comparing the amount of C02 released/produced by of the sum of one's offspring to adjustments to lifestyle seems like Apples and Orangatans.   It seems like there is a normalization factor left out?    It seems enough to say that your C02 legacy is many times your personal C02 footprint in your lifetime if you have children (is that any surprise that your Carbon footprint *plus* that of your children and their children, etc. is *much* larger than just your own?)?

An important number is what rate of C02 production by humans is "sustainable"?   Is there a well agreed upon number? C02 is not the *only* measure of our threat to the biosphere but by some measures it might be the most significant one for the moment.   Have targets been set that are reasonable to achieve without a massive human population die-off?   The ones I hear sound based on what Industrialized countries *think* they can do if they put their mind to it, or gloom and doom scenarios that sound likely biased by a factor of 2 or 10?

I *do* have children and in fact 1 grandchild (all I expect to have, in fact), partly for these very reasons. My daughters perceive that reproducing is categorically risky to their legacy (kind of a paradox?)...   While I think this kind of thinking has it's own risks, I can't provide a legitimate counter-argument.

While my initial reaction was negative to both the assumptions and conclusions of the paper, I think the point should be well considered. Maybe the Shakers had it right? At least in terms of furniture design and reproduction. There are apparently 3 living Shakers (all women?) I suppose we could interview them and see how it is working out?

- Steve

Pamela wrote:

Some of those people are going to say hey, we aren't a charity; we have to put our kids through college like everyone else.

Having a child is not so charitable, so far as the planet is concerned, e.g. table 3.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Verizon or Virgin Mobile Data?

Does anyone in the SFe/Los Alamos/Espanola area have Verizon or Virgin
Mobile modem/hotspot and data who might be willing to loan me their
device and service for a day to test the coverage against my location?

Both services have maps showing 3G *at* my house and 4G *very close*...
both services (3G anyway) also operate on the same frequency (900/1800
Mhz) as my T-Mo/ATT service which I am having good luck snatching out of
the sky with a directional antenna and a booster... which *should*
provide the same extra signal with these.

I could do this test in a day or overnight and would naturally be
willing to dropoff/pickup.

If anyone knows of other cellular data services in the area that would
be great too.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: The case for genocide or Shaker faith? was: Bezos buys WP

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

On 8/7/13 7:47 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

While my initial reaction was negative to both the assumptions and conclusions of the paper, I think the point should be well considered. Maybe the Shakers had it right? At least in terms of furniture design and reproduction. There are apparently 3 living Shakers (all women?) I suppose we could interview them and see how it is working out?

Tax incentives!

http://adoptiontaxcredit.org

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: The case for genocide or Shaker faith? was: Bezos buys WP

Marcus -

Tax incentives!

http://adoptiontaxcredit.org

Good thought... but apparently in 1960, the US passed some laws prohibiting adoption of children by religious organizations... Shakers are not only celibate (and therefore not reproducing) but don't marry, so I guess they are out of luck on the tax credit.

I was wrong, the three remaining Shakers are two women and one man.

With a diminishing population, but a strong work ethic, I would assume they command a significant amount of wealth. I would not expect them to give their money outside the group? Maybe the perfect incentive for a golddigger to convert at this point? As the last Shaker, it seems one might be able to change the rules..

A friend of mine wrote a novel (The Divine Comedy of John Venner) which included something of a tribute to the (already dwinding) Shakers, about 20 years ago ... which made me acutely aware of the influence the Shakers had, in particular on the form/function duality in design (especially furniture).

He opens his narrative with an address to Mother Ann Lee, founder of the celibate Shakers. "I've got the fury and the mire running in my veins," he tells her, "and the sickness thing in my soul. The moral mud of America sticks to me like nobody's business -- ditto the dust of destruction -- and if that's not enough, I'm in love with your final virgin."

Reads like something I would wish Ed Snowden had written.

Carry on,
- Steve

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: The case for genocide or Shaker faith? was: Bezos buys WP

On 8/7/13 11:23 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

apparently in 1960, the US passed some laws prohibiting adoption of children by religious organizations...Shakers are not only celibate (and therefore not reproducing) but don't marry, so I guess they are out of luck on the tax credit.

No additional organization is needed, just the technology of birth control. Make it financially easy to adopt and financially difficult to reproduce.

I was wrong, the three remaining Shakers are two women and one man.

Clone 'em.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ropella

Re: The case for genocide or Shaker faith? was: Bezos buys WP

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve Smith wrote at 08/07/2013 06:47 PM:
> My daughters perceive that reproducing is categorically risky to their legacy (kind of a paradox?)... While I think this kind of thinking has it's own risks, I can't provide a legitimate counter-argument.

I sympathize completely. While I'm still skeptical of the argument that human biological evolution has mostly been replaced by social evolution, I've fully adopted (ha!) the principle. And while I'm happy I to be a member of the Bastard Nation, there are issues with adoption. The individualist predisposition of a very large subset of ... [ahem] ... "parents" is regressive on a planet supporting our population density. One-on-one legal custody is an impediment to our evolution into something more like a biofilm.

Absent an apocalyptic event to drastically reduce our density, the more appropriate path is to help raise others' children. That can include anything from raising funds for girl scouts to tutoring at your local primary school to producing really cheap laptops.

--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
And their lust shall build a world

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com