Mediaboss Marketing

01-04-2012 13:47 Ku fans in Lawerence

Read more from the original source:
{Dot TV Presents}Final Four - Video

01-04-2012 13:48 On mass street in lawerence rock chalk jayhawk

See original here:
{Dot Tv Presents} after ku beat ohio - Video

Editors Note: Richard Fontaine, a Senior Advisor at the Center for a New American Security, is the co-author of Internet Freedom: A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age. Follow him @rhfontaine.

In its new Enemies of the Internet report, the international watchdog group Reporters Without Borders depicts an Internet under unprecedented pressure from the worlds autocratic regimes. The study lists twelve such enemies, including Iran, North Korea, China and Saudi Arabia, and observes that an increasing number of governments are not content merely to take domestic steps to control online space. Freedom of expression on the Internet, the study notes, is no longer the sole preserve of dissidents, geeks and censors. Diplomats have followed in their wake. Internet freedom has become a foreign policy issue.

The report documents the ways in which the twelve countries and others have established a broad approach to online control. Internet and mobile phone shutdowns have become more commonplace in recent years, famously in Egypt during the Arab Spring but also in countries like Kazakhstan and parts of China. Internet filtering and deep packet inspection is on the rise, and government surveillance of users activity both online and offline is increasing. Governments hack dissident websites, spread propaganda on the web, and sometimes simply arrest problematic bloggers and online activists.

It is clear what many autocratic regimes want in the Internet: a controlled space, one that ideally permits their citizens to use online tools for economic activity and basic communication, but that will not permit the kinds of expression that might undermine government authority. The effort to build such a controlled space is no longer restricted to domestic measures, and for several nations it now comprises a significant diplomatic effort.

Indeed, there are several diplomatic avenues through which Internet freedom may become restricted. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell recently warned that dozens of countries are pursuing a new treaty to establish, in the words of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, international control over the Internet. The treaty would give governments new power to regulate the Internet via the UNs International Telecommunications Union. If successful, McDowell warns, this effort could upend the bottom-up, private-sector-driven model of the Internet and give way to greater government control over its structure.

In addition, diplomats are wrestling over definitions of terms such as online freedom and security in ways that impact freedom of expression. At an April 2008 U.N. conference that sought to clarify what represents aggression online, for instance, a senior Russian official argued that any time a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another countrys government even in the name of democratic reform it should qualify as aggression.

Similarly, the six-member Shanghai Cooperation Organization which includes Russia and China in 2009 adopted an accord that reportedly defined information war, in part, as an effort by a state to undermine anothers political, economic and social systems.

There is push back. A key United Nations official last year issued a major report emphasizing the right of all individuals freely to use the Internet, and earlier this month, the United Nations Human Rights Council held a Swedish-led discussion among member states on online freedom. These instances follow on initiatives by the United States and others to push in various international forums for an expansive definition of the right to online expression.

The United States and likeminded countries will need to become even more active on this front. Developing international norms in favor of Internet freedom is a long-term, global objective. Some countries that currently repress the Internet like China and Iran are unlikely to be moved by any of these diplomatic efforts; statements at the United Nations and policy declarations supporting Internet freedom are highly unlikely to change their current policies.

But promoting Internet freedom is not only a near-term challenge, and current efforts may pay off in the longer run. In addition, many countries have not yet fully developed their own Internet policies or thought through all of the implications of Internet freedom and repression even in the short run including states in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Shaping the behavior of those states should be an important goal of the United States and its partners.

Read the original:
Internet Freedom: Diplomats Join The Dissidents, Geeks And Censors

30-03-2012 19:06 - Indie developers are cool. They think up an idea for a game. They develop the code and art for a game. And, when the game is complete, they sell the game all by themselves. This makes them cool because they do not rely on any sort of outside funding from a game publisher in order to promote their games through advertisements, or sell the games in retail boxes. With the evolution of the Internet, indie developers have had an even easier time of getting their game out there and into the hands of gamers. It is much easier and much cheaper to offer your game for download on a website than it is to get it on the shelves of a major retailer. The expenses saved by going the digital route can be put right back into making the game awesome, which makes for happy gamers. So does this mean that game publishers are obsolete? If so, why haven't developers ditched them yet? You can watch the entire live TLDR episode here: http

Read the rest here:
Indie Game Developers vs Big Game Publishers - Video

Philips AE5430 ... has the biggest speaker.

After a shaky start, portable digital radios have come of age. Rod Easdown looks at some of the options.

FOR ME the infuriating thing about that first wave of digital radios to hit the market wasn't the scarily high prices or the total lack of knowledge of the salespeople, it was that none of them sounded particularly good. In almost all cases it was difficult to pick any difference between digital and regular FM.

But lately the sound quality has been increasing in leaps and bounds and flipping from regular FM to digital (and many of them have an additional FM tuner) reveals a marked improvement in the music. And, it has to be said, a marked decrease in volume.

In every one we listened to, the volume level plummeted with the switch to digital and getting a level sufficient to hear throughout a normal room necessitated cranking the volume up to max.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Sangean DPR-69 ... ordinary sound for the price.

There's been another change, too. Maybe someone finally told the manufacturers that we like portable radios. Digital portables hardly existed back in the early days of the format but now they're all over the place and I've seen them as cheap as $44.

Thus, with a new season kicking off for the NRL and the AFL, we figured a comparison of them would be timely.

There are some points to bear in mind. The first is that digitals only work in the major cities, so if you take your digital portable to an exhibition game in, say, Wagga Wagga, Toowoomba, Launceston or even Hobart, you'll only get the FM stations, and FM stations tend not to broadcast footy. Digital broadcasting is coming to regional areas but by all accounts it won't be any time soon.

Continued here:
Three contenders ... portable digital radios