More benefits of drinking wine. You'll be healhier than abstainers, according to Duke Universit Study. And, wine drinkers make better lovers. Right now I'm toasting the study with a 1994 Robert Craig, Mt Veeder, Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa Valley.
11:57:09 PM permalink | | trackback disabled due to spam
C|Net reports that Microsoft has acquired "some" assets of Connectix including Virtual PC and an undisclosed and unreleased server product. I'm wondering what this means to the performance of Virtual PC in future releases. I guess we can look forward to more bloatware for the Mac from Microsoft. Time will tell.
3:38:28 PM permalink | | trackback disabled due to spam
I finally was able to see and lay my hands on a 17" PowerBook. The local Apple Store in Newport Beach (Fashion Island) received a single display unit on Monday. It's beautiful. It's big. And the screen is phenomenal. Definitely going to require first or biz class seats to take this on my next trip. The one thing I noticed that is subtle yet very slick and speaks to the continued measurable improvement Apple makes with each new product. The hinge on this new PowerBook is so smooth and sure. It glides with ease, yet sits firmly in place once you're comfortable with the angle. The old TiBook I had sometimes required a two handed screen tilt adjustment. One to hold the PowerBook from shifting on a less than tacky surface, and the other to adjust the screen. No more. And from the sounds of it, the hinge might be a bit more durable. I'm not sure how Joi busted the hinge on his TiBook. But here's his story and a picture of his new 12" PowerBook in "target disk mode" while making the transfer from his hinge impaired TiBook. My biggest beefs with the 12" PowerBook? It doesn't have a DVI port. This means it's impossible to hook up one of Apple's superior all-digital large LCD displays. Sure, it's got a VGA out. But who cares. And its 128mb RAM is soldered to the motherboard. With only one slot open, the max memory is 640mb.
But at least Joi has GOT a new PowerBook. Me? 33 days and counting.
1:50:12 PM permalink | | trackback disabled due to spam
Advertising dollars. It's the lifeblood of the media industry. Money talks. Large advertisers have more power than you'd think. In some cases these advertisers can influence programming. There have been more than a few times that scenes of television shows, news programs and documentaries have been left on the cutting room floor due to an overtly vocal advertiser or a fearful management staff unwilling to deal with the phone call from an advertiser post air time.
However, in this era of post dot-com advertising frenzy, the media is struggling to make numbers. Magazines, newspapers, radio and TV stations have more inventory than buyers. This is quite a contrast from 1999 and 2000 when radio spots and hot outdoor properties in major markets were sold to the highest bidder and when editorial to ad ratios in major tech, business and crossover publications were 6 or 7 to 1.
But like those high flying IPOs of yesteryear times have changed.
So when media turn away or accept what might be considered controversial advertising, the question of policy, ethics and judgement have to be matched against profits, investor return on equity and continued viability.
Yet when the advertising sales team at far left publication The Nation accepted a back cover ad from the Fox News channel ($8,100), seems The Nation simply thought of the money and not about its readership. And its readership blasted the publication with more than 250 ranting and raging letters, emails, voice messages and at least 50 subscription cancellations.
Let me explain. First, have you ever read The Nation magazine? Maybe you're a subscriber, casual browser or you wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. When it comes to politics, the passionate are extremely passionate. And The Nation's readership leans pretty hard to the left. For example, a hot topic you'll find peppered through the pages of The Nation is anger and distaste toward what it perceives a national media bias toward the conservative. And accepting advertising dollars from the evil-doer conservative media would be akin to a vegetarian magazine accepting advertising from Omaha Steaks.
[...] "The words that they're using are outraged, shocked, confused, absolutely appalled, dismayed and dumfounded,"
said Ellen Bollinger, vice president for advertising at the
magazine. One e-mail message even read, "It is like an ad for Klan
News." [...]
Why would Fox News want to advertise in a publication that has been known to refer to the network as "a calculated
mouthpiece for the right that remains thinly veiled behind
its misleading mantra, 'fair and balanced'."?
The ad, which ran in the Feb. 17 issue, thanked America for
making Fox the highest-rated cable news network. It also ran in advertising industry publications and the leading daily newspaper in Atlanta -- home of news network pioneer CNN.
Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. And this seems a classic Murdoch move to rub its competition and liberal media foes where it hurts. Certainly creates buzz and makes for nice headlines. And by doing so is taking a certain degree of risk that many other companies would never chance. But one thing bothers me. I wonder if the Saudi's dared to try to place their image ad on Fox? And would Fox leave the Saudi's money on the table? I doubt it on both parts. But certainly makes for interesting speculation.
2:03:36 AM permalink | | trackback disabled due to spam
A former US Assistant Defense Secretary is quoted as saying that French Oil giant TotalFinaElf has negotiated with Iraq contracts worth $40-$50 billion to develop the significant Majnoon and Bin Umar Oilfields in Southern Iraq. So depending on who you'd like to believe today, which conspiracy camp you're sleeping in and if you favor the concept that war is about oil, I guess you'd have to ask Chirac why they're not jumping on board with Bush and his bandwagon. Maybe because if we do get a regime change, all contracts negotiated with the Saddam regime will be null and void. Again, that is if you're sticking to the oil story. That is, this would be the Oil For Peace theory. And in that case, you have to wonder why Spain is so pro-Bush on the war. It appears that in 1997 Spain's prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, had offered to pay Baghdad in "aid" if it gave oil contracts to the Spanish-owned Repsol company. Geeeeez. When will the giant dental floss theory surface? And are we forgetting about the huge contract and pending location fee for a major Hollywood studio's Iraq-based action flick? I'm growing weary of all this rhetoric. [thanks to John Robb for the pointer]
Yet when the advertising sales team at far left publication 
Why would Fox News want to advertise in a publication that has been known to refer to the network as "a calculated
mouthpiece for the right that remains thinly veiled behind
its misleading mantra, 'fair and balanced'."?
![[Valid RSS]](http://radio.weblogs.com/0108247/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
