- 2004/03/14 - 2004/03/21
- 2004/03/21 - 2004/03/28
- 2004/03/28 - 2004/04/04
- 2004/04/04 - 2004/04/11
- 2004/04/11 - 2004/04/18
- 2004/04/18 - 2004/04/25
- 2004/04/25 - 2004/05/02
- 2004/05/09 - 2004/05/16
- 2004/06/27 - 2004/07/04
- 2004/07/11 - 2004/07/18
- 2004/09/19 - 2004/09/26
- 2004/10/03 - 2004/10/10
- 2004/10/31 - 2004/11/07
- 2004/11/14 - 2004/11/21
- 2004/11/21 - 2004/11/28
- 2004/12/05 - 2004/12/12
- 2004/12/12 - 2004/12/19
- 2004/12/19 - 2004/12/26
- 2004/12/26 - 2005/01/02
- 2005/01/02 - 2005/01/09
- 2005/01/30 - 2005/02/06
- 2005/02/06 - 2005/02/13
- 2005/02/13 - 2005/02/20
- 2005/02/20 - 2005/02/27
- 2005/10/02 - 2005/10/09
- 2005/10/09 - 2005/10/16
- 2005/10/23 - 2005/10/30
- 2005/11/06 - 2005/11/13
- 2006/05/21 - 2006/05/28
- 2006/06/11 - 2006/06/18
- 2006/06/25 - 2006/07/02
- 2006/07/09 - 2006/07/16
- 2006/10/22 - 2006/10/29
- 2006/10/29 - 2006/11/05
- 2006/11/05 - 2006/11/12
My blog is worth $564.54.
How much is your blog worth?
|
|||
| Web | pboake.blogspot.com | ||
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Protect Your Copyright - Get a Healthy Bonus
I got mail from Access Copyright and even with "Pay to the Order of" showing clearly in the window of the envelope my expectations were not very high.
Those expectations were stratospherically surpassed when I openeded it. The amount represents the 2nd largest payment I have received for my work as a freelancer and it was from the unattribuatble royalties pool.
access copyright » rightsholders: "Any Canadian citizen or permanent resident who has published works in Canada in print form and is not affiliated with another RRO (e.g. COPIBEC) can apply to become an Access Copyright affiliate. This includes writers, illustrators and photographers and publishers of books, magazines, journals and newspapers. It costs nothing to become an Access Copyright affiliate.
As an Access Copyright affiliate, you will receive royalties whenever your works are copied and this copying is reported to Access Copyright. As well, each year we receive royalties that, due to insufficient information, can't be attributed to specific Canadian copyright owners. These royalties are pooled and divided among copyright owners who were affiliates of Access Copyright at the start of the fiscal year in which the royalties were collected. Most Access Copyright affiliates receive payments from this pool, but the amount per affiliate varies from year to year.
There are other benefits as well: Access Copyright may act on your behalf to protect your rights, by following up on reported infringements of your copyright and taking action which is necessary or advisable. And you'll be kept in the loop about copyright issues through Access Copyright's various publications and educational sessions."
I spent some of the money renewing my Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) membership and plan to get one of their press cards.
CAJ also has a fairly comprehensive health insurance plan
|
|
|||
| Links to this post | Permanent link for this article | Post a Comment | |
0 Comments: |
|||
|
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
InfoWorld Portrays Wikipedia as Intentional Virus Distributor
I had already read the Wikipedia malware story when I came across the careless headline wording in this November 6, 2006 08:31 AM posting by Caroline Craig which seems to imply that Wikipedia intentionally spread malware.
Wikipedia spreads malicious code
"The German version of online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been found to contain links to a supposed fix for a version of the MS Blaster worm. The fix was actually a piece of malicious code, says security vendor Sophos.
According to a report on cNet, the Wikipedia entry for WS32.Blaster was altered to contain false information and the link. Editors of Wikipedia.de deleted the links once they were discovered, however hackers were still able to send links to the archived entry through a mass-mailed e-mail.
Sophos reported on Friday that because the e-mails linked to a legitimate Web site, they were able to bypass some antispam solutions.
Posted by Caroline Craig on November 6, 2006 08:31 AM"
I doubt Infoworld meant to cast aspersions on Wikipedia but there it is - a poor choice of words puts an editorial slant on an article that's no more than a rehashing of news posted elsewhere.
Want to bet Infoworld and Caroline Craig are capable of better? I would.
--PB--
|
|
|||
| Links to this post | Permanent link for this article | Post a Comment | |
0 Comments: |
|||
|
|
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Inboxer Rebellion (Internet Petitions)
If the web response is any indicator this one has a broad base of support.
I have nothing against Stephen Lewis (I'm sure he'll be glad to know ;>)but journalists shouldn't sign petitions if you ask me. Objectivity is a enough difficult thing to maintain. Backing causes is the quick way to ruin it. IMHO, a journalist can do more for/against something with an objective, well-balanced article on the issue. Write the truth and let the people decide.
This particular petition is online only which raises another set of issues.
Renowned urban legend reference site Snopes.com has 79 entries on Internet petitions on every topic from saving the space program chimps to revoking the Peace Prize awarded to Yasser Arafat.
Snopes has this to say about Urban Legends Reference Pages: Inboxer Rebellion (Internet Petitions): "Claim: Signing and circulating online petitions is an effective way of remedying important issues.
Status: False.
Origins: These
past few years have seen the birth of an Internet phenomenon: the e-petition. It offers instant comfort to those outraged by the latest ills of the world through its implicit assurance that affixing their names to a statement decrying a situation and demanding change will make a difference. That assurance is a severely flawed one for a multitude of reasons.
Often petitions contain no information about whom they are ultimately intended for and instead are no more than outpourings of outrage. Expressions of outrage are fine and good, but if they don't reach someone who can have impact on the core problem, they're wasted. Thus, a petition that doesn't clearly identify the intended recipient may have some small value as a way for its signers to work off angst, but as an instrument of social change it fails miserably.
" ... Those in a position to influence anything know this and thus accord e-petitions only slightly more respect than they would a blank sheet of paper. Thus, even the best written, properly addressed, and lovingly delivered e-petitions whose every signature was scrupulously vetted by the petition's creator fall into the same vortex of disbelief at the receiving end that less carefully shepherded missives find themselves relegated to."
This isn't the first time journalists have dealt with issues of online advocacy. When the Miami Herald fired Jim DeFede on Friday, July 27, 2005 a online petition had collected 513 names by the following Tuesday evening.
In an article on Poynter Online Jim DeFede said "I have no qualms or concerns about somebody who's an opinion columnist signing the petition and expressing their opinions [...] but for a reporter… I hate to be the one to make that judgment, since I'm involved in [the story]."
If a staff member is not actively covering the DeFede story, Fiedler said, he does not object to his or her decision to sign the petition.
"I would discourage a reporter from signing a petition that might be designed toward influencing public policy," he said. "That would clearly constitute a conflict of interest, just like putting a bumper sticker on their car for a candidate… but signing a petition that is more or less within the profession, I see no ethical issue arising there."
It would be a shame for a stand taken on one issue to later diminish a journalist's credibility on a more important story.
--PB--
|
|
|||
| Links to this post | Permanent link for this article | Post a Comment | |
0 Comments: |
|||
|
|