Today's newscast was produced by Katherine Komp and Bernard K. Joes. Our headlines editor was Nell Abram and
the technical production team at KPFA in Berkeley includes Rose Katabchi and Scott Pham. From Bogota, Colombia,
I'm Manuel Rueda.
And you're listening to your radio station WBAI New York. The time is seven o'clock.
Time once again for another exciting edition of Off the Hook.
But if they could, they would. Bum diddly bum for the best, expect the worst.
I hope that's understood. Bum diddly bum!
And getting started by the program is Off the Hook. Emanuel Goldstein here with you on this Wednesday evening.
Joined tonight by Mike. Hi. Jim. Hi. Redhack. Hello. Rob P. Firefly. Good evening. Gus.
Yo, I'm really happy for you and I'm going to let you finish, but Eric S. Raymond has the best radio show ever.
Ooh.
Go on. Go on. You obviously have something to say. I said I was going to let you finish.
No, obviously I have an agenda here. Go ahead and finish. That's all I had to say.
Turn down the music and everything. Come on. How much did he pay you for that?
All right. We'll discuss this later. I thought the check said Kanye West on it. I don't know.
Okay. And.Red. Hello. And down in Philadelphia, Bernie S.
Greetings from Philadelphia. You know, I've never heard W.E.S.R.
Uh-huh. Yeah. Well, we'll find out about that. Yeah. Okay. So speaking of fraudulent stuff, I'm sorry, as best I could do.
What's this I'm hearing, Bernie? I think you forwarded us this story about it's got to be something wrong here.
There's a former employee of the U.S. attorney's office is guilty of is guilty of identity fraud.
Is that these are the people that are supposed to protect you against identity fraud?
And actually, they're they're involved in it. Yeah.
Apparently, the Department of Justice is a U.S. attorney's office here in Philadelphia.
It's called the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. They're right here at 6th and Arch Street in Philadelphia.
I've had to go through their office many times over the years.
So they could have stolen your identity when you went through there.
Well, they did. Actually, they stole my passport and I never got it back.
They also stole your soul for a while.
And they stole my birth certificate, which I never got back, which had two little footprints and my mother's thumbprints on it.
It was really. I know. It's like they never gave it back to me.
You know, obviously, I would, you know, if I use it for anything, I guess they would think I'd be.
How come I never got that? I never got footprints and thumbprints and things like that.
Well, you know, you a felon as a baby or.
No, no. I just I see I I was born in Nebraska and there is in the hospital there.
They still have this really beautifully intaglio engraved birth certificates with with like your your newborn baby's footprints and your mother's thumbprints.
But the Secret Service confiscated that and my passport, along with a whole bunch of other stuff.
And I never got any of it back. So I think that's the thing I really, really miss.
Well, sounds like you got off lucky, though, because apparently they could have stolen your identity as well.
Shakila Nikea Wallace, 25 years old, Philadelphia, worked as a clerk in the financial litigation unit,
used court records to find personal information of defendants and then secured online payday loans totaling about thirty four thousand four hundred thirty five.
Between January 2005 and March 2008, she pleaded guilty to fraud and aggravated identity theft,
and she's free on a ten thousand dollar bond pending sentencing on December 15th,
faces up to five years in prison, fines up to five hundred thousand dollars.
Interesting. Well, something tells me she probably won't get as much as much time as some people do for for hacking
in cases where there weren't any victims like my own.
But I actually had to go through her office. I don't know if she was working there then.
This was many years ago, but her office is the office where someone would go to pay their federal fines or,
you know, other fees involved with being prosecuted federally.
So she was taking IDs and other information belonging to criminal defendants,
people who had been found guilty or pled guilty or pled no contest.
So it sounds like. Sorry, it sounds like a couple of things.
I mean, first of all, it sounds like it's not as far as we know, it's not the higher levels of the people working there.
It sounds like she was sort of a low level, you know, bureaucratic functionary.
And then beyond that, if she was doing this to get a payday loan, were they paying her enough?
I mean, that's that's pretty crazy.
Yeah, well, they're probably not paying anybody enough.
You know, you would think that someone anywhere even near remotely close to law enforcement
would have the common sense and not try to do something like this.
A couple of things wrong with that statement.
You said common sense and law enforcement in the same breath.
I can't understand that. And authority, having the authority and not abusing it.
That's not the American way.
Well, being that this is such a big thing and people are, you know, getting arrested all the time.
You think they would see this kind of.
She didn't think she'd get caught.
I'll bet she probably watched the movie.
It was an office space or something.
She could do the same thing.
Yeah, maybe.
You know, Hackers was on the other night. It was fun to watch.
Yeah, I saw it on some crazy digital cable channel and brought back such memories.
Ironically, she'll probably have to go back to that office to pay her fines.
I know. And the cutting remarks that her ex-fellow employees will make to her.
I just it makes me sad to think about that.
It's Hacker's anniversary, the movie.
Is it?
Wait, how do you know that?
I know a lot of things.
OK, what is the anniversary?
I don't know that.
But you just know the anniversary is coming up.
Well, it came out in the autumn.
So, OK, that wasn't too much.
Well, you know, I learned things from the Twitter, but they're not specific.
OK, well, speaking of the Twitter.
Follow them on Twitter.
Of course, the Twitter is in the news yet again.
And this time it involves President Obama.
He was off the record.
This is kind of weird.
He was speaking on CNBC, but it wasn't speaking on CNBC.
He was in the studio.
And he called Kanye West a jackass because of, you know, the antics that he was involved in.
Over at the VMA Awards on Sunday.
And he interrupted Taylor Swift, the country music singer that none of us ever heard of before.
And now she's a big star and everyone is going to love her forever.
And he probably did her the best favor ever.
But, yeah, President Obama called him a jackass, but he did it off record.
In fact, he made sure that CNBC understood that when he was talking, it was off the record.
And they agreed.
However, what they weren't counting on was the fact that ABC News employees, ABC News, not NBC, ABC News employees,
including the co-anchor of Nightline, Terry Moran, Moran, Moran, I don't know how to pronounce it exactly.
He tweeted this fact that President Obama just called Kanye West a jackass for interrupting the speech.
And it's just basically exactly, exactly what he said was.
President Obama just called Kanye West a jackass for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won.
Now that's presidential.
You know, it's weird to me.
That doesn't sound very anchorish to be saying things like that, to be tweeting and to be, you know, gossiping.
Well, here's the problem with Twitter, right?
It's become this kind of stream of consciousness thing.
People don't really think about what they say.
Right.
Which for most people doesn't matter.
You know, if you tell me what you're thinking, I don't care.
The co-anchor of Nightline.
If you're someone who has a number of people who are following you because you're famous or whatever,
I think, I mean, unless you're some idiot celebrity, you should exercise some sort of restraint, especially if you're a journalist.
Mike, you're going to ask in a cynical tone why we care.
I was going to ask a related question, which is if we can move on from the whole, like, video music awards thing,
I would be completely unaware that these awards even happened if it were not for this outburst, which is really not that exciting of an outburst.
The awards are boring.
It's the outburst that people tune in for, and that's always what seems to happen.
But come on.
I could issue a better outburst, like, six times a day.
Yeah, but you can't interrupt bigger stars.
You've got to be able to do that, too.
The other interesting thing about network or Internet-related parts of this, if you try to find that clip anywhere, it's been taken down by Viacom every place.
The only place you can possibly see a clip is through Viacom themselves.
They control the entire, I guess, distribution of it.
If you put it on YouTube, it won't even make it on there.
They'll use some kind of algorithm to figure it out.
Does Viacom own CNN?
No, it's MTV they own, and that's where it aired.
Right, but I've seen it on CNN's website, so I'm curious to see if that's been taken down.
You've seen the entire video?
Journalistic fair use.
That would be journalistic fair use.
Okay, I see.
So it's possible.
They're just using the excerpt there.
So, yeah, it's possible, but it has to go through somebody else, which is—
The entire clip being considered fair use?
Not the entire clip, no, but probably part of it is—I mean, simply showing that part with Kanye.
Or they licensed it.
I mean, CNN can afford licensing.
That's also a possibility.
They might have done that, because couldn't you say that YouTube also is journalistic fair use?
Could you not say that?
This is the thing.
All these boundaries are so blurred right now, and it's just the fact that Viacom—
It's surprising, actually, that Viacom is doing it, because as I remember, I think Paramount,
which, unless I'm mistaken, is Viacom, is turning a blind eye to a lot of fair use stuff,
probably because they own Star Trek, and Star Trek fans are rabid fan producers.
I'm not sure if Paramount and Viacom are still together.
They might be.
Are they not anymore?
Viacom and CBS are together.
That much I'm pretty sure about.
I don't remember anymore.
But, yeah, so, I mean, that's the thing, is these boundaries are also blurred.
What are you going to do?
I mean, and I don't feel like any major company is really taking a smart view on that.
Yeah, but going back to the off-the-record thing, in an age where you could type something into your phone
and instantly it's visible to the entire world, I don't think there really is an off-the-record anymore.
Yeah, I mean, it's foolish to think that anything you say in a TV studio is going to be kept off the record,
but to have it immediately go out like that, I think that's kind of funny in and of itself.
But, yeah, that's a bit of fun there, a bit of interesting sidelights,
but nothing to compare to the fun that happened in Washington, D.C., with CNN.
You guys heard about this, right?
On September 11th, there was supposedly an attack going on with the Coast Guard.
Basically, CNN was listening to radio, to a Coast Guard frequency,
and they heard what sounded like some kind of confrontation,
where the Coast Guard was telling this boat not to advance,
and they said that they fired ten rounds at them,
and then CNN was showing live video of the actual boats trying to get around each other,
and supposedly they tried to contact the Coast Guard and got no information from them,
no other law enforcement agency knew what was going on.
So this went on for a good while.
People thought that there was some kind of possible terrorist act happening in Washington, D.C.,
and eventually it turned out that it was just a training exercise that the Coast Guard was involved in.
Now, CNN has been raked over the coals for reporting this,
but do you guys see what they did wrong?
Because I'm having trouble understanding exactly what it is.
I don't really see them doing much wrong.
It seems like there was a lack of information on the Coast Guard's part, if anything.
Well, first of all, they probably should have, I don't know, did they announce this in any way?
I didn't hear about any sort of announcement.
No, apparently they do this all the time, and they don't tell anybody.
That's true.
That's the thing.
No one knows this before because nobody listened to that radio channel before.
If they do it so much that it's too much to advertise every time it happens,
at least make sure that if a major news outlet comes to you saying what the hell is going on, that you can—
Or the D.C. police were racing to the scene because they didn't know what was going on.
See, the thing about it is there's no reason not to announce these things,
at least to news sources that might pick it up.
Because, I mean, when I was in Finland, you know, you'd turn on the news,
and every night they'd say, on the news, these are the activities, you know,
where they're using live ammunition tomorrow.
Well, on the news, they'd tell you that.
Yeah, they would say it.
So these are the areas.
So avoid this street because we'll be firing machine guns.
There wouldn't be streets, but they'd say, you know, the area behind this base may have, you know, whatever.
Wow.
But they would announce the activities in advance because that way people knew—either people wouldn't go there.
You know, if you were in your boat, you wouldn't—like the base I was on was on an island,
so you wouldn't go near the island because a shell might come over.
But you'd have to watch the news to know these things.
Well, but if it applies to you or if you are the news, then it's good to have, you know, access to this kind of information.
Yeah, and I'm sure the rest of you guys remember, I think it was earlier this year,
when the president's aircraft was flying low over the city to take some photos,
and they neglected to tell people what they were going to be doing beforehand as well.
Yeah, well, in that case, though, they told local authorities, but they told local authorities not to tell other people.
Yes.
Which was really silly.
Now, Bernie, about the actual frequency they used,
is this something that a lot of people would be listening to normally, this Coast Guard frequency?
Yes, actually.
This is one of the common VHF marine frequencies.
And if you buy just a VHF marine radio, they're available either handheld or you can, you know,
they're about the size of a CB radio.
You can mount them in your boat.
This is just one of the channels.
This is known as channel 81A.
I don't recall the specific frequency.
I think it's 157 point something megahertz.
Anybody can overhear this stuff just fine.
This specific frequency, channel 81A, is reserved for Coast Guard use only.
Supposedly, according to the FCC's website, I researched this,
it's for environmental use for the Coast Guard.
But in any case, they're using it for training purposes, which is fine.
The Coast Guard can use that frequency if theirs to use.
The problem I have with this is CNN had somebody in their staff who was monitoring a radio scanner,
which is fine.
They should be able to do that.
And they overheard parts of this exercise, didn't know what they were listening to
because apparently they weren't really skilled in listening to this kind of traffic,
which goes on all the time.
They called the Coast Guard twice.
The person they reached at the Coast Guard didn't know the exercises were going on.
They said, I don't have any information about what's going on.
And then the CNN went ahead in trying to get the jump on the gun over all the other networks
and reported that shots were fired.
In fact, shots were not fired.
And, in fact, if they listen to the radio traffic,
you hear a Coast Guard person saying the words, bang, bang, bang, to simulate fire.
Right.
Yeah, and then what happened after that, the reason it got out of control is that CNN reported it,
and then Reuters picked it up, and then Fox picked it up.
It just started echoing around in the media echo chamber,
and that caused a panic, and that caused Reagan Airport to shut down for 20 minutes.
Planes couldn't land.
Police were running around.
That was going on because the media echo chamber was reporting completely unconfirmed information.
So I'm going to call out CNN on this for having done poor reporting.
Well, I think that might be a little harsh because they did try and reach the Coast Guard.
They did focus their cameras on the actual scene where you could see boats trying to get past other boats.
And, in fact, there was one of the quotes from the broadcast,
vessel, if you don't slow down, stop your vessel, you will be fired upon.
The Coast Guard themselves say that it's likely that they reported that weapons were fired as part of the exercise.
I just wonder why is it necessary for them to use an open frequency to say things that aren't really happening
when they could just as easily have the exercise, I don't know, either through an encrypted channel
or through loudspeakers or some other way where someone is not going to listen in by accident
and think something's happening that's not really happening.
I think virtually all radio communications used by law enforcement and military and police should,
and agencies like the Coast Guard, should not be encrypted.
I think we should be able to hear what they're doing.
It's our tax dollars at work, and we should be able to hear what's going on.
Okay, but we should be able to understand what's going on.
Well, then, you know, that's CNN's responsibility for knowing how to do their job.
Wait, how is it CNN's responsibility to know when the Coast Guard's not telling them the truth?
I mean, they called them.
No, the Coast Guard did not tell them something that was not true.
The secretary who answered the phone was not personally aware of the exercise going on.
The exercises apparently go on all the time, but the secretary can't be responsible for going on.
Yes, there was some communication, but CNN reported that shots were fired.
Because it was said over the radio that shots were fired,
and, in fact, no other law enforcement agency had any clue what was going on either,
and I think that's on the Coast Guard to let them know that this is not really happening in case somebody panics.
What if it was a civilian that heard this instead and thought something was going on?
They wouldn't have gotten any confirmation.
That's what happens.
You know, this gets back to what the Bush administration was doing with reporting raw intelligence.
This is what we call raw intelligence.
People who don't know what they're looking at are going to misinterpret the information,
and when they report it as the truth, all hell breaks loose.
Okay, but if you wait for the government to give their version as to what's going on,
you're giving them so much time to paint the picture in a way that's not accurate.
When you see right in front of you what's going on,
hey, there's boats here trying to get past each other,
there's radio traffic of gunshots being fired,
and the Coast Guard is giving no comment or saying that they don't know what's going on,
and no other law enforcement agency knows what's happening.
That's a story.
That's something I think people deserve to know about before the government says,
okay, here's what's really going on.
I think the way they did this is something that deserves to be reported,
if not what was happening itself.
Yes, Gus.
But journalists, I mean, journalists do, just as a professional obligation,
do need to triangulate things.
That is just something that they have to do,
and that is how we keep them from yelling fire on a quiet,
or how they keep themselves from yelling fire on a crowded theater.
Right, I just see they had four different things going on that all together,
I think that's a story.
If they just listen to the radio and they just reported, hey,
someone's saying on the radio that there's some kind of confrontation going on,
yeah, that's not a story.
That's irresponsible.
But that coupled with what they could see,
and what they were being told or not being told,
and what other agencies didn't know about,
I think there was a lot going on there.
It seems like they weren't just trying to report on raw information
without any background research being done.
They were calling up the Coast Guard and trying to find out what was going on.
Not just the Coast Guard, but all kinds of other agencies as well.
Right, but unfortunately,
there seems that there was a lack of communication,
or there wasn't some kind of thing put in place for people to find out
within the system what's going on.
And because of that, this lack of communication,
you have a panic attack.
Isn't this something that we keep coming back to
is a lack of communication between governmental agencies?
And I think nothing shows that better than this.
Really, the most play this story is getting is the fact that
how could this happen on September 11th?
How could they have this kind of exercise?
That's irrelevant.
You can exercise whenever you want to have an exercise,
but at least have some basic safety rules in place
so that you don't cause a panic, which is what they did.
Now, I also agree that maybe encrypted channels are a bad idea,
but there should at least be some sort of alternate channel
for training exercises where it's used as a substitute
for the general public channel.
That's a good idea,
so you know anything on this channel is not really happening.
Right, so it's simply used in the exact same way
the public channel would be used.
As many people would know from the start,
hey, this is likely to be, it's the fiction channel.
Yeah, this is the Coast Guard fiction channel.
Yeah, if you can have all these different channels on cable,
why not on the scanner as well?
Yeah, I got to agree that you can't really blame CNN with this.
They took what they had,
and they did the best they could and ran with it.
I think they got a little overexcited and jumped the gun,
but I think this really who's at fault here
are the entities at the Coast Guard and everything
when they were planning this exercise
to fail to spread the news of what they were doing,
that they were playing war games out there.
I wouldn't even say anyone's at fault.
I mean, CNN reported this story.
They learned later that it was an error.
I assume they said, oops, this was an erroneous report,
and they retracted the story.
I don't know what more we could ask for from anyone.
Well, they also seemed a bit miffed
that this kind of thing was going on on September 11th.
Well, whatever.
I don't think that's the issue.
I think the issue is that
why didn't anybody know what was happening?
Why couldn't any story be verified?
Yeah, some people might say that they were jumping the gun,
but this is how, you know-
That's how these stories are made.
All the news stations are competing with each other,
trying to break the story before everybody else.
The story was broken
that the Japanese were bombing San Diego.
Yes, Bernie.
Emmanuel, there's two key points to this story.
One, CNN did not report
that one of our staffers overheard on a police scanner
something that sounded like this was going on.
The second problem with this
is that now this is going to be used as an excuse
to encrypt all kinds of government radio traffic
because CNN did not do due diligence, I don't feel,
in accurately reporting what they overheard
and how they got their information.
Well, in this particular case,
it just seems really silly
to have that kind of thing being broadcast
where anybody could have heard it and not understood it.
It should have been explained in some manner,
and just saying the words,
bang, bang, bang,
doesn't necessarily mean that it's fake.
That could have been one of the evil people saying that.
Who knows?
And at the end of the transmission,
they said something to the effect that
this test is over, this test is over.
Well, yeah, at the end they said that.
So should we wait for terrorist acts to finish
before we report them?
Well, the reporting was done well after that was said.
So, you know, again, I call it...
The Coast Guard can't be telling the public
about every single exercise you're doing.
That's just not feasible.
I think that's something that
Freedom of Information should demand,
that we know when they're testing
and when they're going to be ramming their boats
into each other and firing rounds
or saying they're firing rounds.
I think that's something we should know as well.
Well, we disagree on that then.
I don't want to beat this dead horse too incredibly much,
but it's sort of an interesting thing to think about.
What if this had happened in the days of, say, Edward Armour?
The news was only on two, three times a day.
So, I mean, to some extent,
this is another excuse for me to say,
die 24-hour news cycle, die, die, die,
because, you know, it's just...
They have all the space to fill,
so they're going to end up prioritizing stories
which, you know, are not otherwise...
So you think we should just have the news on
for a half hour a day?
I don't think that we should spend so much time
dwelling on things that otherwise wouldn't be newsworthy.
Well, a lot of things wouldn't get covered then.
And I'd be much happier for that.
Yeah, you could watch reality shows more.
No, I'm just saying that, I mean,
the stuff that is covered, 90% of it is garbage anyway.
Yeah, but when we just had news on
for an hour or half hour a day,
90% of it was still garbage back then.
I think that's always going to happen, no matter what.
But now, talking about that they said,
you know, bang, bang, bang in the broadcast,
well, where in the broadcast was this?
Did CNN come in before or after?
When did they hear this?
It's impossible to know that.
Was that when they decided to retract it?
But, you know, talking about that they had at the end
saying this trill is over,
again, something else you could do with this kind of thing
is repeatedly throughout the entire broadcast
is have some kind of cycling thing
that every now and then says,
this is a drill, this is not real,
like they do with the tests of the emergency system on TVs
and stuff like that.
But also, where was this done?
Was this done in an open area?
Yeah, it was done right next to the Pentagon,
which also wasn't very smart.
I mean, like, can other boats,
private boats come sailing on by?
The reason I say that is, you know...
It was a restricted zone of some sort.
But that made it seem as if it was a serious issue
because why is this boat in the restricted zone?
We're claiming that the media
spends too much time harping on unimportant issues.
Meanwhile, we've been on the air 20 minutes.
We talked about celebrities interrupting each other
in one other story.
Mike gets to pick the next story.
You're welcome to tune into another station, Mike.
I mean, any time.
Go ahead, Rob.
Yeah, this is just reminding me of the old
War of the Worlds broadcast with Orson Welles.
And even that, they explained in the beginning
and at the end of it that it was all fake,
all drama, but people tuned in
missing that announcement.
Yeah, we can laugh at those people
and say they don't have a clue, but, you know,
we could fall for that easily, too.
And the irony is that every time
that broadcast has been played, full to end,
as far as I know of, three times that I know of,
there was panics each time.
Yeah.
I mean, I was involved in something like that
on Long Island with a meltdown at a nuclear power plant.
It didn't really happen.
And, yeah, people still panic,
even though every 15 minutes we announced
that something was going on.
That's not always enough.
Okay.
What else?
Speaking of emergencies and things like that,
in England, there are trials underway
of a UK service that allows people
to contact emergency services by text message.
The system is aimed at people
who can't make the normal voice calls
to the emergency service,
which is three nines over there,
or 112.
It works both ways.
The service, what it does,
it sends the text to a voice relay assistant
who then speaks the text message
to the emergency service
and then texts back their reply.
And if successful,
this government initiative,
backed by Ofcom,
will become permanent in early 2010.
Seems like a good idea.
Seems something that is common sense
that we should have.
I don't know if we have anything like that here.
Yes, Redhack?
I don't know.
I mean, I guess if there's no other way
to get a message out,
but at the same time,
you don't want to encourage people to do this.
I heard of a similar story
that also was in the UK
where these two girls fell down
into some sewer or something,
and rather than call 911 or whatever,
112 over there,
they updated Twitter or like Facebook
or something like that,
and they said,
we're stuck in this drain.
Please, somebody help us on Facebook, I think.
Yes, this is what's happening.
You know, I mean,
it's a good idea if it's a last resort.
Well, this is for handicapped people.
This is for people that can't speak.
Yes, but people are going to do it anyway.
Some idiot teenager is going to...
I'm sorry.
Somebody is going to go...
You can make the same argument for any service.
And they're going to text,
instead of calling.
But basically, they'll get the idea.
Why is that a problem
if they text the correct people?
As long as the correct people
get the correct message,
I don't really care what medium.
Well, it's a matter of time also.
So the more emergency services we have,
the more they'll be abused,
so the less emergency services we should have.
Yes, we should just get rid of all the cop numbers,
911 and everything.
That way, we don't have to worry about them being abused.
Here's the thing.
This leads me to ask another question
because we were playing with phones
a couple of weeks ago,
and I was blown away by this.
You guys with your iPhones
and your Android phones,
you're used to this.
I didn't know this existed.
I think .red, you showed me.
You can go onto Google on your phone
and speak the search term,
and it actually will display it
on the Google search bar,
and you can immediately look up,
without typing anything on your phone,
particular strings.
I thought that was amazing.
And the voice recognition is extremely good.
What they don't have,
what no one seems to have developed yet,
is a way to do that with text messages,
where you simply speak into your phone,
and a text message gets sent.
I think that would be great to do.
I mean, I could then text and drive
without having to take my eyes off the road
and cause all kinds of problems.
That might take too much to put in a single phone,
which means, in order to do that.
You say that now,
but in two years,
you know that's not going to be the case.
So, as of right now,
you might need to do something
along the lines of,
you speak into the phone,
it's sent to Google,
Google transliterates it,
transposes it,
and then the text is sent out.
I have to say,
I have a service,
it's now available from Google,
but I've gotten it for a while
from a different company,
where it takes your voicemail
and turns it into text,
which is great,
because I don't have to listen to my voicemail.
Yeah, Google does that.
But it's really bugging.
Wait, why is that great
you don't have to listen to your voicemail?
Because I don't like listening to my voicemail.
You can read faster
than people can talk sometimes.
So, you prefer reading to hearing.
Yes.
All right.
When they take away senses,
we'll have you down on the list for,
I don't need my ears,
I'll use my eyes instead.
Well, they're not taking away a sense,
they're simply switching it.
One is faster than the other.
Well, you can be reading
and listening at the same time.
Have you ever got a voicemail?
People don't know how to leave voicemails.
They're like,
hey, it's my...
They know how to text.
Texting is like the...
No, no, no.
But then I can skip over
the whole nonsense part
and just read what they want.
Uh-huh.
Okay.
Well, it's just the translation
seems to get some profound things wrong sometimes.
Like instead of call somebody,
sometimes it says kill somebody,
and that leads to all sorts of misunderstandings.
Well, that's why we need to use it more and more
so that way they get better at it.
Yeah, I guess.
It is fascinating technology, though,
but I really would like to have that feature.
I think that would be cool,
and I'm sure they're going to have it
in a couple of years.
So when I start getting text messages from you
that are complete gibberish,
I'll know that it's a bug
in the text-to-speech algorithm.
Or it might be an encrypted message.
Yes, Bernie.
I just want to say,
back to the original story
where there's text messaging
going to emergency responders,
I do think, I agree with Mike,
it's a good idea
because up until now, at least in the U.S.,
there does exist a version of 911
for hearing-impaired people,
for people who use TTYs and TDDs,
telecommunication devices for the deaf
and teletypes,
to send these information.
But most cell phones aren't capable
of sending that kind of information,
that protocol.
I was in the post office a few months ago,
and I ran into a couple of hearing-impaired people
who were signing to each other,
and I started communicating to them,
not in sign,
but just through using our phones,
just typing text messages to each other
on a text editor.
It was fun talking with them.
I asked them if the phones they both had,
they both had one of these HTC G1 phones.
It uses the Google Android operating system.
It's only available on T-Mobile.
I asked them if they can send TTY messages
and TDD messages on that,
to cross-protocol.
They said yes,
and they demonstrated it to me.
So that's one of the few phones,
the HTC G1,
which is an Android-based phone
only available through T-Mobile,
where you can actually communicate TTY
and TDD messages to emergency responders
as it's set up now.
I do think, as Mike said,
it should be available, though, as SMS,
because that's a very, very common protocol now.
So it's a question of technology
not catching up with the needs of,
or at least policy not using technology
to catch up with the needs of impaired people.
I'm trying to remember whether we talked on the show
or whether we were talking sort of casually
in other times about whether there's plans
that are text-only,
so that you're not actually paying for a voice plan,
you're just paying for text.
Did we talk about that at some point?
I don't think we talked about that,
just text and no voice.
Because there's definitely,
there's a call for it in the deaf community.
I was actually researching this online,
because I personally...
Isn't that just like having a two-way pager?
Remember those?
Do you get longer text messages this way?
I'm not really sure.
But people don't have two-way pagers anymore,
and you can't really get them,
and everyone has a cell phone.
Besides, you don't get all the other bells and whistles
they can get on the phone.
Yeah.
So, but I mean, that's sort of, you know,
that's, I think, a question.
Actually, it would be great if we had listeners
who could tell us more about any plans
that are out there,
because last I checked,
I found a website that said,
you know, the deaf community was kind of peeved
that they didn't,
they weren't finding plans that were just for text,
and they couldn't convince the phone company
to do that for them.
That's an interesting idea.
There is such a service.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
That's what I want,
because I hate the quality of cell phones
and the audio.
Go ahead, Bernie.
There is such a service.
I wish I could remember the name of it,
but there is a product
that does not handle voice communications.
It's text and web browsing only.
I forget which carrier it's on.
I forget who makes the device.
But it's out there.
Okay, no doubt one of our listeners
would call us and tell us almost immediately.
I think I know what you're talking about,
but I think it's email and browsing only.
I don't think there's text involved.
No, it does include text.
That's the primary market for this particular device
is text users only.
Interesting.
Jim, were you expressing an interest
in devices of this sort?
Yes.
That's what I thought.
Okay, well, Jim definitely
could benefit from that as well.
Okay, more technology advances.
Every mobile phone in Japan
may be installed with software
to block illegally copied music.
If the world's first such system
is approved by talks
that start in Tokyo next week,
the talks between
the Recording Industry Association of Japan,
that's right, the RIAJ,
mobile phone companies
and music download sites
aim to agree on new anti-piracy measures
by the end of the year.
A system could be in place by 2011.
Now, building anti-piracy software
into the main device
on which young Japanese people listen to music
could make Japan
the first country in the world
to find an effective answer
to illegal downloads.
Of course, I'm reading this from Financial Times,
so that's the tone they're going to take.
Under the system proposed by the RIAJ,
whenever a user tries to play a song,
software in their mobile phone
would ask a security server
whether it is covered by copyright,
and if so,
and the phone did not have a code
to indicate it was bought legally,
the song would not play.
Wow.
Things can change very radically.
They're all talking about
how effective this could be,
but I think something that might be avoiding
is the idea of jailbroken phones.
Uh-huh.
You know, this,
especially as these phones
turn more and more into computers,
people are having more of a need
to do this kind of thing.
You know, if you jailbreak your phone,
all of a sudden,
the software goes away.
I just wonder,
so I actually bought a CD this week
for the first time in a while
because it was a French artist
and I couldn't find it anywhere else.
Do you need help using it?
No, no, no.
I took the CD and put it in my computer.
Now I just have MP3s like I really wanted.
But what if I were Japanese
and I put one of those MP3s on my phone?
Would I be able to play it?
You know, it depends.
It depends on what kind of software you run
and how legitimate it is.
Kind of, you know,
what does this apply to?
I mean, if I take my large collection
and I turn it into MP3s,
I didn't digitally purchase them,
so how do I have a code
that allows me to use it on my player?
Mm-hmm.
It's incredible to me,
whenever I see iTunes in use,
how it's...
I mean, there are ways of doing it, obviously,
but if you go strictly through a Mac,
you wind up with a copy of a song
that you can't copy anyplace else
or that you can only copy maybe two or three times.
Whereas if I buy something on some online site,
like, you know, Amazon or something like that,
I get an MP3 that I can copy as many times as I want.
So it's weird to me
why people do things in a certain way,
pay the same amount of money,
and get less control over something that they bought.
Whereas if you buy the CD,
you can always make copies
and an infinite number.
Well, you also have to take into account
that not all artists and songs
are available on all the different services,
and that's probably due to the recording companies.
Yeah, don't talk about the same artist,
just through a different service
having more restrictions.
Yeah, from putting the moral issues aside
whether they should do this,
I don't know how in the blue hell
they think they're going to actually implement this
because, you know,
you could buy a perfectly legal music file,
change one character in the ID3 tags,
and all of a sudden,
it's a completely different hash,
and it won't be recognized as the same song
by whatever server.
And, you know,
you can get a perfectly legal free MP3 off the net,
which the server also won't recognize.
You're forgetting one thing, Rob,
which is that this is being worked on
by Japanese people,
so it might actually work.
Very good point.
Well, you know,
it's amazing, too,
because for all the complaints
that the industry has
about, quote-unquote,
illegal downloading,
there are people doing ridiculous things
like paying for ringtones
and paying again for the same ringtones
when they go to a different phone.
And I wonder,
are they going to have this for the ringtones as well?
If you don't pay for your ringtone,
your phone won't ring or something,
or they report it to somebody.
It sounds silly.
There are also, I mean,
in terms of going back to the technology question,
there are ways to fingerprint the audio
in which, you know,
in case it wouldn't just be a hash of the file
or a hash of the metadata,
it would actually be analyzing the audio.
I don't know how technically feasible that would be,
especially on a mobile phone platform,
but, again, they are Japanese, so...
Yes, go ahead, David.
Well, if they're reducing a fingerprint on the audio,
it might be some special thing
in a certain part of the audio that they pick up,
in which case, again,
either way, you're talking about it being
people who try to copy it.
This is one of the reasons why
trying to secure these kinds...
trying to secure the copyrights
for this kind of stuff on devices
that people personally own and control
is so difficult,
because, like what we've all said,
what Rob said,
there's so many ways to get around this.
I just noticed, speaking of fingerprinting,
I just noticed, actually,
another service that is doing some fingerprinting now,
and that is YouTube.
One of my videos on the media show
popped up with a little flag that said,
you may be using somebody else's content the other day.
And it flagged one of my videos,
which is interesting,
because we've definitely fair used
a number of bits of content from various videos.
And I'm not sure whether they're going off the audio
or whether they're going off the images.
This is what they're doing with the VMA Awards,
where if you put any part of it up,
or any commercial program, it catches it.
This is a particularly interesting case,
because the thing that it caught
was us using an old copy of Free to Be You and Me.
And it was... it's pretty degraded.
Like, I'm guessing somebody probably, you know,
videotaped it and put it up that way.
And so I'm wondering how much degradation can go on
before the fingerprinting stops working.
They're probably fingerprinting the audio
only because that would be easier, probably,
especially under degradation, you know.
If you videotaped a TV screen,
the audio would probably still be able to match...
Why not repost it without sound
and see if it gets flagged as well?
That's actually the sound...
I know, I mean, they're harder on sound anyway.
They don't seem to be as hard, you know, going after video.
But they definitely go after people.
They rip people's soundtracks off of their videos all the time.
Now, see, I'm curious.
What happens if you were to try to play with the quality
of the sound, or if they're doing the video of the video,
you know, or add in some background noise?
You know, will they still be able to fingerprint it?
But that stinks, too,
because then you have to basically take something
that you produced that had a certain, you know,
audio track to it or whatever,
and then degrade it to try to get around it.
Well, we'll figure out a better way of doing it.
We have to know how it works.
Maybe not too much for a person to be able to tell,
but just enough to make a machine screw it.
I think that the audio fingerprinting is pretty good.
I've taken some pretty bad audio files
and run them through fingerprinting algorithms
to try to find what they are, and it works pretty well.
And, you know, there could be skips and pops,
and it doesn't really make a difference.
I don't think this is the interesting question.
I think the interesting question is,
how do we create and use services
that respect our rights of fair use and all this stuff?
Like, if YouTube doesn't want my business,
like, I don't know why I should spend
all this time giving it to them.
What business?
If I create content, my content.
Gus's content.
If YouTube doesn't want Gus's content,
like, why in the world do business with YouTube?
They're not that nice.
Well, I mean, you know, if you can spread that message
to absolutely everybody in the country
and the massive audience that YouTube manages to control,
then sure, absolutely, go ahead and, you know,
let them know about that software.
Are there that many people finding your content
through YouTube and not through other means?
There's not that many people finding your content.
What other means?
Let's name some other means,
because I'd like to know what these other means are.
Like democracy, which is not called something else, right?
Democracy?
Miro, Miro, Miro.
Okay, wait, let's get our names straight.
What's this called?
Let me answer the first question first,
which is, how are people finding content?
And I've seen Gus's content because Gus has told me about it,
and she posts it to blogs and other sources of information.
And I'm sure that's how most people
are finding your content.
And if your content was,
if you were announcing your content
and hosting it with some other service,
I'm not really convinced
that that many fewer people would find it.
Okay, but somebody in Paducah, Kentucky, for instance,
will never talk to Gus or hear back to her blog.
But they're not finding her content anyway.
Yes, you can find something on YouTube pretty easily,
but if you say there are alternatives,
I'm asking what are these alternatives that people can use.
I'm more interested in the people
who are simply not finding any of his content at all.
I'm interested in the people who are, you know,
having a hard time getting online and things like that.
So the question is, how do you reach those people?
You know, the people who are still relying on other media.
They're still relying on radio.
They're still relying on TV.
And they don't, you end up finding URLs
until Oprah says, hey, check out Twitter.
There'll be some free KFC.
It'll be great.
Yeah.
You know, so I mean, like, that is sort of my concern
is not, you know, yeah,
not the people who are managing to be, you know,
highfalutin enough that they, you know,
they know people that we know,
but the people who don't know.
I'm still waiting to hear an alternative name.
Are there any?
An alternative service to YouTube?
Yes.
There's Blipp TV.
There's Vimeo.
There's a whole bunch.
Okay.
I don't know what word you just said.
It sounded like it was Russian.
How do you spell that?
V-I-M-E-O.
V-I-M-E-O.
Although actually they're not.
Their licensing terms aren't that great either.
Yeah.
So go with Blipp.TV.
Blipp.TV.
Blipp.
Yep.
Like the thing that appears on radar screens.
Okay.
What about Miro?
Miro won't host your video.
Miro, which is a great software product
put out by a nonprofit called
the Participatory Culture Foundation.
And how do you spell that?
Miro.
M-I-R-O.
I think their website is
getmiro.com or org maybe.
Okay.
And what they do is they
allow you to take video
wherever it's hosted
and play it all in one central location
and it's pretty neat
but they won't host your video for you.
There's also, if I remember,
there's a website
and maybe you know the URL
that compares licensing terms
for different video hosting services.
That's true.
And I don't know the URL.
Google that.
There's a comparison somewhere.
Google that as well.
Okay.
Speaking of rights, consumers,
things like that,
there's this thing known as
the Right to Repair Bill.
Now apparently in Massachusetts
there's this bill that's being
passed through legislative process
that basically, I guess,
will make it so that
you can repair a car
regardless of what the auto people say
you have the right to do.
Now NFIB,
which I'm sorry,
I didn't write down
what NFIB stands for
but there's some kind of...
The Association of Small Businesses.
Is that what they are?
Yeah, if I remember correctly.
And the other one is
the larger auto industry.
They say they've joined
a coalition of businesses
lobbying for the Right to Repair Bill
in Massachusetts
because it supports the rights
of independent car repair shops
to get critical information
from automakers.
This issue is about
the right of small business owners
to be in business.
They say we believe very strongly
that small businesses
offer superior service and price
compared to large companies
and that is why
we are involved in this issue.
Now the international automakers
have a slightly different take on this.
In a hearing on...
This is their press release.
They say in a hearing
on so-called right to repair legislation
a representative of
international automakers
cautioned Massachusetts lawmakers
against burdening dealers
and automakers
with additional cost
to correct a problem
that doesn't exist.
They say they found
no evidence of a systematic problem
related to the inability
of customers or auto repair shops
to acquire the equipment
needed to repair cars
or access information
needed to make timely repairs.
In fact,
the FTC found
only two relevant complaints
as a result of an automated search
of its more than
4 million complaints
during the previous 10-year period
and none in the random sample
of some 6,700 complaints
related in any way
to auto repair.
Boy, it sounds like
they're really against this.
We need some clarity.
We haven't even talked about
what part of repair this is.
I'm trying to remember
who posted this article.
Was that Rob?
That was Bernie, I believe.
That was Bernie.
Bernie, can you talk
a little bit more
about what this right to repair...
what kind of repairs
it's talking about?
Well, yeah.
A lot of independent
auto service organizations
like, you know,
your friendly family
neighborhood mechanic,
they can't repair
most modern...
almost any modern cars.
Suppose you have
some error light
in your dashboard
that comes on.
It's this check engine
or whatever.
The way a lot of cars are,
like, for instance,
Volvos...
I have an old Volvo,
so it doesn't relate to that,
but any Volvo made after,
I think, 2006,
you're out of luck
because only Volvo dealers
have the ability
to interface with that computer
in such a way
to turn that light off
and to properly
diagnose the problem.
There are all these
ODBC2 codes,
which are a certain
standard code and protocol
for everybody
to get information
about what's going on
with their car,
but there's a lot
of proprietary codes
that auto manufacturers
use as well,
and they're hiding
that proprietary information
from both their owners
of their products,
their customers,
and from independent
service organizations
and service cars.
I think you mentioned,
Dustin,
your dad is really
frustrated with this.
He's a real car geek,
and he has trouble
with this, too.
Didn't he say that?
Right, he did.
I was talking to him
right before the show.
He may actually call in
and we may be able
to talk to him
more about this,
but there were two kinds
of car systems
he was talking about.
One is the car system
or the computer system
on board a car
that deals with things
like fuel injection rates
and stuff like that,
and there's been a lot
of people working
on overclocking
and things like that,
special kinds of gimmicks
that way.
So that is one system.
It's actually mechanical stuff,
and the other one
is more of a reporting system.
So it is the system
where your car records
that you had an accident,
and right before that
it was recording
what speed you were going.
So that is something
that automakers
or whoever
will want to give
to the insurance company.
It's more like a black box
on a plane.
I'm not sure
that's a bad idea,
having a black box.
I mean, yeah,
it can be used
in an Orwellian way,
but it's also good for...
I mean, it would cut
a lot of court time
when people are saying
one thing happened
when something else happened,
when someone slams
into somebody
without hitting their brakes.
It's nice to know
this kind of thing.
But that's, you know,
provided you don't have
to black box the black box.
If you can actually look
into the black box
and take a look
at what's been going on,
I think that would be
really neat for anybody.
Well, yeah, of course,
you know,
fraudulently changing
the black box
to make it seem
like you were doing something
or to make it seem
like somebody else was doing it.
I mean, imagine
what cops can do with this.
Make it read only, yeah.
Yeah, but what you say
definitely speaks true
to my experiences
as far as having
the smart car,
which was imported
from Canada.
Oh, my God.
A few weeks ago,
the fan belt
broke on that thing.
And I brought it
to one of those
roadside service places.
And would you know,
they could not find
even a fan belt
that would fit the thing.
They couldn't do
the computer calculations.
It was all proprietary.
Even the smart car people
in this country
aren't allowed
to access
the foreign
smart car information.
They have to pay
tens of thousands of dollars
to get the right computers
for this.
It's insane.
We had to buy parts
off of eBay.
These are mechanics
doing this.
It shouldn't be
this difficult
and this hard
just to fix a car.
I mean,
back in the old days,
anybody could fix a car.
They could learn
how to do it
and do a good job
or do a bad job,
but they could
at least get their hands
dirty and figure it out.
And my dad did.
He taught himself.
All right,
212-209-2900
is our phone number.
Taking phone calls
in a few minutes,
we have Les.
Mike.
I'm all in favor
of the right
to repair things,
but I'm curious
why automobiles only.
I mean,
there are so many devices
that I'd much rather hack
than an automobile.
How many things
are we prevented
from getting involved in?
We just did a story
about cell phones
that are going to have
digital rights management.
Going to.
Going to, yes,
but right now they have.
And they already do.
Apple cell phones
already have
digital rights management
preventing you
from taking a song
and copying it
to another device.
You set it right on the radio.
Okay, but you know what?
You don't have to buy
an Apple phone.
You do have to buy
a car, though.
I don't.
You don't have to
simply have anybody fix.
But cars used to be open source.
Okay, but they're not now.
I know.
That's a huge issue.
So in five years
when there's no more
open source phones
or there's not really
any open source phones now,
but five years from now
when all phones
have digital rights management,
are you going to say
I should have bought
a different phone
five years ago?
No, that'll be
a comparable subject.
Right now it's not.
Like, I think the way
that we can prevent ourselves
from getting into such a state
is through regulation
of the market
and saying that manufacturers
have to provide
their customers
and I see no reason
why that should be
limited to cars.
Okay, the only reason
it's limited to cars
right now,
well, not limited to,
but the reason
we're discussing cars
is because it's already
happening to all cars
and there's no Ubuntu cars
out there.
I wish there were.
It would be kind of cool.
But, you know,
you're kind of screwed
and if you're a mechanic
you're equally screwed
because you can't fix things.
I think Mike is just saying
that the problem
doesn't necessarily
need to be solved
for cars only
and that this kind
of legislation
can apply
to a broader range.
What kind of legislation
would that be?
Well, you're talking
about the right to repair.
All technology?
Take the bill
that's being proposed
in Massachusetts
and replace the word
car with device
and you'll probably
have very close
to a very good bill.
No, but you want
to get the car guys angry
because if you get
the car guys angry
you've got a really,
really good lobby
on your side.
I have no real interest
in car guys.
I find that
very general bills
don't tend to go places.
You need to be very specific
and then use that
as a precedent
to affect other things.
It's a social right.
It's the right
that we all used to have.
It's a precedent, too.
It's a precedent.
If you begin
to argue with cars
then you can begin
to argue from Linux
and then more people
who understand cars
understand commuters also.
Guys, I'd like to take
some phone calls
from our listeners
to see what kind
of opinions are out there
because we only have
a few minutes left
and you know what?
We're not on next week.
We're preempted next week.
So, yeah, let's see
if we can take
some phone calls.
212-209-2900.
Good evening.
You're on Off the Hook.
Hey, how you doing?
Hey, no problem.
Kanye West?
Who cares?
Okay, fine.
The Coast Guard thing?
Mm-hmm.
We have no right
as civilians
to know anything
what's going on.
That was just something
that was overblown, right?
Okay.
If the newscasts,
as far as the 24-hour news media,
all they want to do
is get ratings,
how can we even
trust the news?
Well, yeah,
but that's always
been the case.
But it's a little bit
more now,
so with the larger
news media
it's a little bit
more likely
to get ratings.
With the larger news cycle.
Mm-hmm.
Okay, you know how
there's always two sides?
There's never any truth.
There's only two opposing sides.
Okay.
And they get them to fight
and fight and fight
and fight.
Uh-huh.
Okay.
You know?
Anything else?
As far as the cars
and the Volvo tools?
Yes.
I own a Volvo.
Okay.
You can find everything
on the internet that you need.
You just need specific
scan tools to get
the OBD-II things.
Hmm.
The OBD-II codes.
Mm-hmm.
There are specific tools
that need to be hooked up
to specific parts
of the car
so you're able
to pull the codes.
Sure.
More than just like
the OBD-II connector.
In the back of my...
The back of my...
I'm sorry.
I just lost my train of thought.
If I want to fix
my air-conditioned vents
or anything like that
or any of the controls,
there's a specific
$350 tool
that I need to buy.
Mm-hmm.
I could do all
the work myself.
Bernie, does this make sense
to you?
You have all the
Volvo tools
that you need
and you need
specific tools
that you need
to do the job.
Do you own
a Volvo yourself?
Well, my...
I have an older Volvo,
but for my information,
some of the newer Volvos
after 2006
have some highly
proprietary codes
that really require
you to buy
like a $10,000 system
and license it
and whatever
to access
all the information
you need
to really effectively
service a Volvo.
I could be mistaken,
but that's what
more than one mechanic
has told me.
What year Volvo?
Anything after 2006
that the Volvo...
What do you own?
I have an older Volvo
I have an older 240.
Okay, so that's...
That's pro...
Okay, I got the last OBD1
just before they went to OBD2,
so everything...
I can find everything
I need for that car
on the net, luckily.
Yeah, but after 2006,
you're out of luck.
Okay, we're gonna have to
move on from car talk here,
but thanks.
Thanks for the call
and thanks for all the thoughts.
Let's see if we can move on
to another call.
Good evening.
You're on Off The Hook.
Speak up.
Thank you.
Well, you were talking about
the cars
that were getting
inaccessible.
Okay.
Well, yeah,
we had a Daewoo
and that was kind of
the pinnacle of that.
It's a discontinued car
and then they found out
immediately after buying it
that the manufacturer
had gone out of business,
but that was okay
because GM was going
to pick up the parts
and then, you know,
GM had their problems.
At the end of the day,
you've got like, you know,
one place within
a couple hundred miles
that can fix it
because it gets so specialized,
but to some degree,
it just seems like
that's going on everywhere
and you have to take apart
the engines
to actually repair anything now.
You know, it's like you had
like a $10 part
and you had to disassemble
the engine to get to it.
Yeah, my light burned out
on my smart car.
I've got to take apart
the whole hood to get to it
and nobody knows how to do that.
So, yeah, I hear you there.
But just in general,
it just, it's,
there does seem to be
a bit of a profit motive
in locking things down
so that they're hard to fix
and hard to interchange.
There's, I was just,
I finally heard something about,
I've been waiting a long time
to hear something
about the Kindle,
about someone, you know,
hacking that
and I finally heard
at an OZCon Ignite session,
someone talking about
using a Nokia tablet
to compile some Ubuntu packages
and load it through the USB port
and things like that.
But it's, it is just,
yeah, the whole idea
that the objects you buy
belong more to the company
than they do to the person
who bought them
just seems to be getting
really entrenched.
Yes, yes, absolutely.
Thanks for those thoughts
and we're going to have
to leave it at that.
But definitely interesting topics.
You can write to us,
oth at 2600.com
if you have further thoughts
or information to send to us.
And there's all kinds of things
in the hacker community
that are discussing this,
conferences and meetings
and things like that.
Have we said officially
that The Next Hope
is happening on July 16th, 17th,
and 18th, 2010
at the Hotel Pennsylvania
in New York City?
Have we said that?
We have now.
Oh, okay.
All right, well, yeah, that's true.
What I just said is true.
That's when The Next Hope will be
and I think we're going to have
a bunch of panels
on this subject
and other subjects
and maybe some demonstrations
as well.
Okay, we have this week's song
about computers
and this is something
really, really cool.
I suggest you listen
to the lyrics.
It's a lot of fun.
Devo Spice,
all about platform wars.
See you in two weeks.
Good night.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
You can see me in homes
wherever you happen to be.
Not to mention landfills
and a couple of dumps
because you need to be replaced
every couple of months.
Macs, on the other hand,
last for years
because it takes you that long
for you to dry your tears
when you realize
you spent enough
to renovate some rooms
and the only software
you can run is iTunes.
I got software
that can do anything
from run the space shuttle
to help you sing.
They help you write
when you get stuck
and best to make a quick buck
millions of titles.
Yeah, and all of them suck.
They got a clunky interface
and they waste too much space
and they crash a damn much.
Your table needs a leg brace.
You should really try a Mac.
Sorry, but no, I won't.
You think I like the iMac
and iPod.
Well, I don't.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
And I run all the best games
in the industry.
Well, I got games too, dude.
What's with the greed?
I can run Snood.
That's all I really need.
What about Office?
At my job, we've got to.
I can run Office.
I just choose not to.
I can get by
with Open Office
and with Google Docs.
They're completely free to me
and also they completely rock.
PowerPoint is powerless
and pointless like a butter knife.
Outlook always leaves me
with a crappy outlook
and life excellently
excels at crashing
with Google Docs.
I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
My life excellently
excels at crashing
which is absurd
and all the other apps
suck too.
Word.
I'm doing just fine
without any of that crap.
In fact, my Mac doesn't have
a single Microsoft app.
So what?
You want a medal?
What do I care?
Try getting some songs
off of your iPod there.
Don't tell me that you
never crash
cause I'll call shenanigans
cause you freeze in place
like a room full of mannequins.
I've seen you when it happens.
You sit there and smile
and watch a pretty color
spin around for a while.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
Hello, I'm a man.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
And I'm a Linux box.
Well, obviously.
The fact that you're a toaster
kind of gave it away.
So how's life as an appliance
treating you today?
You can mock me
but you'll never stop me.
I got games.
The only toaster on the planet
that can claim to run MAME.
Compiling my operating
systems a breeze.
And I can burn toast
as easily as DVD.
You compile your own OS.
Dude, are you nuts?
You trust Microsoft to do it
and you're calling me the odds.
You wouldn't catch me
doing that unless
I told you to.
You wouldn't catch me
doing that unless
you gave me a lobotomy.
We agree on something.
Now go away, you bother me.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
I'm a PC.
How many PCs
we got around here anyway?
No.
I knew it.
I'm surrounded by
all say.
Hello, I'm a man.
And I'm a PC.
And I'm a PC.
And I'm more affordable
than you will ever be.
Well, you get what you pay for.
Oh, don't start.
You paid for a computer
and got a piece of modern art.
Well, you're about
the ugliest thing
I've ever seen.
And that's a blue screen
of death
burned into your screen.
You're overpriced,
underpowered,
and slower than soccer.
With more kernel panics
than a normal Redenbacher.
Achoo!
Well, what have we here?
Better renew
your antivirus software
another year.
I bet that you're regretting
all those links you clicked.
Our marriage counselor
couldn't resolve that conflict.
Well, I can download porn.
Yes, so can I.
The only difference is
that I don't get a virus
when I try.
You've got a stupid mouse.
You've got windowpane.
You have to bow
to Apple's will.
You wear the error reins.
Well, you suck.
Well, you suck more.
Your brother wears army boots.
What are you, four?
You big meanie.
Well, aren't you gonna
go home and cry?
You're a stinky poopy head.
I know you are,
but what am I?
And I'm a PC.
And I'm a PC.
And I'm more affordable
than you will ever be.
And that's a blue screen
of death
burned into your screen.
Well, what have we here?
Better renew
your antivirus software
another year.
Just you and me
trying to get crazy.
I say,
don't you know
I'm not Choco?
PC.
Woo!
Wow, they played that.
We do play rap
here on WBAI New York
99.5 FM.
Wow.
Some of those lyrics
were something, though.
But we won't get into that.