Now that the world has had a few weeks to get used to the new Comcast/NBC collabo (but not that ugly purple logo), CEO Brian Roberts talked to the Wall Street Journal about plans for the future, including his claim that Netflix is actually a good thing for his company. Roberts referred to Netflix as the new version of reruns, and explained his view that it raises the value of NBCUniversal’s content while reiterating statements made earlier about lower-than-expected subscriber losses being tied more to the economy than anything else. Beyond the soft jabs, he discounted the possibility that Comcast might launch its own internet video service for non-cable subscribers, pushing the vision of adding internet video streaming options for existing customers and explaining how they’d “be able to use the devices that are cool and new, that they typically purchased themselves, to now control and interact with the device they also love, which is a brand new high def 3-D TV .” Of course, it doesn’t look like we’re closer to choosing our own UI for browsing content, but with nicely designed apps for tablets , phones and connected TVs maybe the platform for future innovation he references has something for us to look forward to after all — we’d consider new cable boxes that don’t suck to be a good start. Comcast CEO talks about the merger, ‘cool new devices’ like the iPad and why he doesn’t fear Netflix originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:16:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …Amphibians are a class of animals that are already getting hit harder than most — they’re specifically adapted to a rather narrow range of habitats, so as the climate warms, many are finding themselves literally left out to dry. However, the BBC reports that scientists believe that they may be able to eco-engineer amphibian and reptile habitats to increase their chances of survival in the face of increasingly hot climes. Needless to say, engineering habitats the world over would pose a near impossible feat, though it’s nice to know we’ll be able to save a ha… Read the full story on TreeHugger
Continue reading …It is said that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Maybe this is Rachel Maddow's intention behind continually saying the following on the MSNBC show bearing her name (video follows with transcript and commentary): RACHEL MADDOW: The longer it goes on, the clearer it becomes that this whole fight is not about what they say it is about. This whole fight is not about the budget. This fight is about destroying the unions. It is about corporate titans who give lots of money to Republicans and who can get them on the phone for 20 minutes in the middle of a crisis, guys like David Koch wanting to bust the unions, and it is about dismantling a key part of the Democratic base in terms of fund raising. You want to see those numbers from the 2010 elections again? Right. Okay, unions are the only significant outside spending group that Democrats have to compete with the conservatives. Union members also tend to support Democratic causes and they provide a good chunk of the get out the vote infrastructure that Democrats rely on to win elections. The Republican Party more than almost anything else represents corporate interest. The Democratic Party more than anything else represents people who work for corporate interests or people who represent something other than corporations. As she was saying this, the following graphic was on the screen clearly reading “Outside Groups”: As NewsBusters first reported last Wednesday, Maddow made virtually the same statement on her February 18 program: MADDOW: Of the top ten outside spending groups in last year's elections, seven of them were right wing groups, groups like the Chamber of Commerce, and Karl Rove`s organizations, which are mostly funded by billionaires. Conservative groups like the American Future Fund. The only non-conservative groups that cracked the top ten in the last election were the Public Employees Union and the SEIU, and the teachers union, that's it. In terms of large scale money spent in elections, unions are the only competition that Republicans have. The following Monday she said: MADDOW: Here again are the top ten big money contributors in last year's elections, seven of the top ten are right wing. The only three that are not are — ding, ding, ding — unions. The following day she said this to Jay Leno on NBC's “Tonight Show”: MADDOW: But, if you look at like the last election cycle, of the top ten people donating money in that election, seven of them were giving to Republicans. It was all corporate interests and right-wing PACs and stuff. Seven of the ten were all right-wing. And the only three that weren't were unions. Since February 18, she has uttered this falsehood at least four times on four programs airing four different days. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Once again, here are the facts. Maddow is actually referring to ” outside non-party committees ” wherein seven of the top ten contributors in 2010 were indeed conservative, with the only three liberal contributors being unions. These are groups that contribute money for political causes but not specific candidates. That's why they're deemed “non-party.” If you look at all ” outside spending groups ” for 2010 – which by Maddow's wording consistently has been the implication – you'll find that four of the top ten contributors were liberal with only two of them being unions. This completely destroys her point that “unions are the only significant outside spending group that Democrats have to compete with the conservatives” thereby invalidating her assertion that this is the reason Gov. Walker is trying to blame the “supposed” deficits on public sector unions in his state. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. What makes this even more absurd is the commercial airing on MSNBC to promote Maddow's program: MADDOW: News is about stories. It’s about finding all the disparate facts and then finding their coherence. Doing this right takes rigor and a devotion to facts that borders on obsessive. At the end of the day, though, this is about what’s true in the world. In the promo for the defacto new face of MSNBC, Maddow claims, “It’s about finding all the disparate facts and then finding their coherence. Doing this right takes rigor and a devotion to facts that borders on obsessive. At the end of the day, though, this is about what’s true in the world.” Yet at least four times in the last seven business days, Maddow has completely misrepresented the very same thing about 2010 campaign contributions. Over and over. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The folks at MSNBC and Comcast should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen. Is there any integrity at this network, or did they learn from Keith Olbermann that such a virtue is unimportant when advancing a cause?
Continue reading …It is said that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Maybe this is Rachel Maddow's intention behind continually saying the following on the MSNBC show bearing her name (video follows with transcript and commentary): RACHEL MADDOW: The longer it goes on, the clearer it becomes that this whole fight is not about what they say it is about. This whole fight is not about the budget. This fight is about destroying the unions. It is about corporate titans who give lots of money to Republicans and who can get them on the phone for 20 minutes in the middle of a crisis, guys like David Koch wanting to bust the unions, and it is about dismantling a key part of the Democratic base in terms of fund raising. You want to see those numbers from the 2010 elections again? Right. Okay, unions are the only significant outside spending group that Democrats have to compete with the conservatives. Union members also tend to support Democratic causes and they provide a good chunk of the get out the vote infrastructure that Democrats rely on to win elections. The Republican Party more than almost anything else represents corporate interest. The Democratic Party more than anything else represents people who work for corporate interests or people who represent something other than corporations. As she was saying this, the following graphic was on the screen clearly reading “Outside Groups”: As NewsBusters first reported last Wednesday, Maddow made virtually the same statement on her February 18 program: MADDOW: Of the top ten outside spending groups in last year's elections, seven of them were right wing groups, groups like the Chamber of Commerce, and Karl Rove`s organizations, which are mostly funded by billionaires. Conservative groups like the American Future Fund. The only non-conservative groups that cracked the top ten in the last election were the Public Employees Union and the SEIU, and the teachers union, that's it. In terms of large scale money spent in elections, unions are the only competition that Republicans have. The following Monday she said: MADDOW: Here again are the top ten big money contributors in last year's elections, seven of the top ten are right wing. The only three that are not are — ding, ding, ding — unions. The following day she said this to Jay Leno on NBC's “Tonight Show”: MADDOW: But, if you look at like the last election cycle, of the top ten people donating money in that election, seven of them were giving to Republicans. It was all corporate interests and right-wing PACs and stuff. Seven of the ten were all right-wing. And the only three that weren't were unions. Since February 18, she has uttered this falsehood at least four times on four programs airing four different days. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Once again, here are the facts. Maddow is actually referring to ” outside non-party committees ” wherein seven of the top ten contributors in 2010 were indeed conservative, with the only three liberal contributors being unions. These are groups that contribute money for political causes but not specific candidates. That's why they're deemed “non-party.” If you look at all ” outside spending groups ” for 2010 – which by Maddow's wording consistently has been the implication – you'll find that four of the top ten contributors were liberal with only two of them being unions. This completely destroys her point that “unions are the only significant outside spending group that Democrats have to compete with the conservatives” thereby invalidating her assertion that this is the reason Gov. Walker is trying to blame the “supposed” deficits on public sector unions in his state. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. What makes this even more absurd is the commercial airing on MSNBC to promote Maddow's program: MADDOW: News is about stories. It’s about finding all the disparate facts and then finding their coherence. Doing this right takes rigor and a devotion to facts that borders on obsessive. At the end of the day, though, this is about what’s true in the world. In the promo for the defacto new face of MSNBC, Maddow claims, “It’s about finding all the disparate facts and then finding their coherence. Doing this right takes rigor and a devotion to facts that borders on obsessive. At the end of the day, though, this is about what’s true in the world.” Yet at least four times in the last seven business days, Maddow has completely misrepresented the very same thing about 2010 campaign contributions. Over and over. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The folks at MSNBC and Comcast should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen. Is there any integrity at this network, or did they learn from Keith Olbermann that such a virtue is unimportant when advancing a cause?
Continue reading …Well, this one strikes us as a little… odd. Barnes & Noble is currently selling its Nook Color on eBay (along with plenty of other things). The truly interesting part, however, is that the price, once a $50 coupon code is applied, is $199, which is of course $50 less than it sells them for in stores or on its own website. We aren’t sure what the motivation behind this move is, but we’d guess that the bookseller is attempting to compete with other, unofficial eBay retailers selling B&N’s goods. Either way, if you’re in the market for a Nook Color, eBay seems to be the place to get one, for now. Barnes & Noble now selling the Nook Color on eBay for $199 originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:21:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …Well, this one strikes us as a little… odd. Barnes & Noble is currently selling its Nook Color on eBay (along with plenty of other things). The truly interesting part, however, is that the price, once a $50 coupon code is applied, is $199, which is of course $50 less than it sells them for in stores or on its own website. We aren’t sure what the motivation behind this move is, but we’d guess that the bookseller is attempting to compete with other, unofficial eBay retailers selling B&N’s goods. Either way, if you’re in the market for a Nook Color, eBay seems to be the place to get one, for now. Barnes & Noble now selling the Nook Color on eBay for $199 originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:21:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …Oh, come on, you saw this coming: Kin represented what was supposed to be Danger’s rebirth under Microsoft’s half-billion-dollar umbrella — and when that failed, there wasn’t really a future for these guys in the cards. We’ve received a statement today from T-Mobile breaking the news that Danger’s cloud services will be decommissioned after May 31st, and the problem with Sidekicks is that they’re more or less paperweights without a connection to Danger’s servers… so if you’re still using one, you’re definitely going to need a new phone. For T-Mobile’s part, they’re saying that they’ll “provide offers… to help make an easy transition” from old phone to new, and they’ll be sharing those offers in the coming weeks. If anything, we wouldn’t be surprised if the carrier was simply waiting for its all-new, Samsung-made, Android-powered Sidekick to be ready in the hopes that they’ll be able to keep folks in the Sidekick fold even though Danger’s gone. They’re also providing web-based tools and Sidekick apps to get data off the devices, so you can’t say they’re not doing all the right things in light of the situation. Smart of Microsoft to make sure the statement comes from T-Mobile, too, since it means the carrier can get out ahead of the panic before it starts. See the full statement after the break. Continue reading RIP, Danger, 2002 – 2011: Microsoft axing service on May 31st, T-Mobile promises customers an ‘easy transition’ RIP, Danger, 2002 – 2011: Microsoft axing service on May 31st, T-Mobile promises customers an ‘easy transition’ originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:01:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …Oh, come on, you saw this coming: Kin represented what was supposed to be Danger’s rebirth under Microsoft’s half-billion-dollar umbrella — and when that failed, there wasn’t really a future for these guys in the cards. We’ve received a statement today from T-Mobile breaking the news that Danger’s cloud services will be decommissioned after May 31st, and the problem with Sidekicks is that they’re more or less paperweights without a connection to Danger’s servers… so if you’re still using one, you’re definitely going to need a new phone. For T-Mobile’s part, they’re saying that they’ll “provide offers… to help make an easy transition” from old phone to new, and they’ll be sharing those offers in the coming weeks. If anything, we wouldn’t be surprised if the carrier was simply waiting for its all-new, Samsung-made, Android-powered Sidekick to be ready in the hopes that they’ll be able to keep folks in the Sidekick fold even though Danger’s gone. They’re also providing web-based tools and Sidekick apps to get data off the devices, so you can’t say they’re not doing all the right things in light of the situation. Smart of Microsoft to make sure the statement comes from T-Mobile, too, since it means the carrier can get out ahead of the panic before it starts. See the full statement after the break. Continue reading RIP, Danger, 2002 – 2011: Microsoft axing service on May 31st, T-Mobile promises customers an ‘easy transition’ RIP, Danger, 2002 – 2011: Microsoft axing service on May 31st, T-Mobile promises customers an ‘easy transition’ originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:01:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …President Obama intends to back legislation enabling states to duck some of the more onerous mandates of the new health care law—provided they can demonstrate that they could cover just as many people in some other way. “I think that’s a reasonable proposal; I support it,” Obama said in…
Continue reading …