Journal articles on the topic 'Edwards air force base (calif.)'

In February 1993, the U.S. Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency asked the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station to provide technical assistance for construction of a stone matrix asphalt (SMA) pavement demonstration project at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB). In August 1993, approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of SMA pavement was placed on a road at Edwards AFB. The SMA mixture contained crushed stone, natural sand, fly ash, cellulose fiber, and an AR-4000 asphalt cement. The following summer, it was reported that excessive amounts of bleeding had occurred in all wheelpaths. An inspection in August 1994 confirmed this finding, and it was noted that the bleeding was worse near the intersections. The SMA mixture apparently contained too much asphalt cement. Several factors contributed to the bleeding: (a) the SMA mixture as designed contained too many fines, especially in passing the No. 4 sieve, compared with current guidance from the National Asphalt Paving Association and others; (b) the void content of the mixture may have been inadequate; and (c) samples obtained from the in-place pavement had a finer grading and higher asphalt content than specified. The bleeding has caused concern; however, no maintenance has been performed on the SMA pavement and no measurable rutting has occurred in the wheelpaths.

At NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC), an engineering debris team performs a post-landing inspection of the space shuttle orbiter for debris and for anomalies in the thermal protection system. The areas of inspection and debris sampling include the orbiter windows, lower surface orbiter tiles, reinforced carbon-carbon panels of the orbiter wings, and the external tank (ET)/orbiter umbilicals.On October 18, 1989, the space shuttle Atlantis was launched from launch pad 39B at KSC. Atlantis landed on runway 23 at Edwards Air Force Base, California on October 23, 1989. During the post-landing inspection performed October 23-24, 1989, a washer, approximately 1/2 inch in diameter, was found embedded in one of the lower surface tiles forward of the LH2 ET/orbiter umbilical area. The washer was oriented perpendicular to the airflow, and approximately half of the washer protruded into the aerodynamic flow.The washer was submitted to the NASA KSC microchemistry laboratory for examination and elemental and phase analysis.

The thrill to go fast and push boundaries is something that many seek. From John Stapp’s rocket sled at Edwards Air Force Base in the late 1950’s to todays’ Formula 1 drivers, the “need for speed” is broadcast across TV screens weekly. So too are the horror stories of crashes, many at over 300 km/hr. Yet “need for speed” continues. It appears that the higher and faster the rollercoaster, the better. This leads to several questions. How does the brain stand up to speed and G-forces? Do Newton’s Laws still have reference in today’s world? There has been much attention in the general press on the possibility that high G-force roller-coasters are inducing brain injury in riders. However, research does not wholeheartedly support this notion, but rather the risk of brain injury from a rollercoaster is not in the rides, but in the rider — caused by previously undetected brain or neck conditions. That said there is some truth that high G-forces do affect the brain at a chemical and structural level. This paper will discuss the mechanism of head injury at speed and generally what Newton’s Law means in a neurological setting in todays’ world. Formula 1 racing and rollercoaster rides will be evaluated within a neuroscience context. (JNNN 2019;8(3):133–137) Key Words: concussion, head injury, Newton’s laws, Formula 1

Abstract This manuscript documents the tornado in the Rockwell Pass area of Sequoia National Park, California, that occurred on 7 July 2004. Since the elevation of the tornado’s ground circulation was approximately 3705 m (~12 156 ft) MSL, this is the highest-elevation tornado documented in the United States. The investigation of the storm’s convective mode was performed mostly inferentially on the basis of an analysis of the radar imagery from Edwards Air Force Base (which was in clear-air mode on this day), objectively produced soundings and/or CAPE estimates from two mesoscale models, an objectively produced proximity sounding and hodograph, and analyses of satellite imagery. The nearest Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) in Hanford, California, could not be used to observe this storm because of terrain blockage by the Sierra Nevada, and the nearest sounding sites were too distant and in a different meteorological environment on this day. The near-storm environment may have been favorable briefly for a supercell in the upper portion of the Kern River Canyon. The limitations of the radar data precluded the authors from making a definitive conclusion on the convective mode of the storm but do not rule out the possibility that the storm briefly might have been a supercell. There was insufficient evidence, however, to support the notion that the tornado itself was mesocyclone induced. High LCL heights in the proximity sounding also suggest that the tornado was formed by processes not associated with a mesocyclone (popularly known as a “landspout”), but do not allow us to dismiss the possibility that the tornado was mesocyclone induced.

Abstract. In February and March of 2011, the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system (UAS) was deployed over the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic during the Winter Storms and Pacific Atmospheric Rivers (WISPAR) field campaign. The WISPAR science missions were designed to (1) mprove our understanding of Pacific weather systems and the polar atmosphere; (2) evaluate operational use of unmanned aircraft for investigating these atmospheric events; and (3) demonstrate operational and research applications of a UAS dropsonde system at high latitudes. Dropsondes deployed from the Global Hawk successfully obtained high-resolution profiles of temperature, pressure, humidity, and wind information between the stratosphere and surface. The 35 m wingspan Global Hawk, which can soar for ~ 31 h at altitudes up to ~ 20 km, was remotely operated from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) in California. During the 25 h polar flight on 9–10 March 2011, the Global Hawk released 35 sondes between the North Slope of Alaska and 85° N latitude, marking the first UAS Arctic dropsonde mission of its kind. The polar flight transected an unusually cold polar vortex, notable for an associated record-level Arctic ozone loss, and documented polar boundary layer variations over a sizable ocean–ice lead feature. Comparison of dropsonde observations with atmospheric reanalyses reveal that, for this day, large-scale structures such as the polar vortex and air masses are captured by the reanalyses, while smaller-scale features, including low-level jets and inversion depths, are mischaracterized. The successful Arctic dropsonde deployment demonstrates the capability of the Global Hawk to conduct operations in harsh, remote regions. The limited comparison with other measurements and reanalyses highlights the potential value of Arctic atmospheric dropsonde observations where routine in situ measurements are practically nonexistent.

The western pond turtle (WPT) was formerly considered a single species (Actinemys or Emys marmorata) that ranged from southern British Columbia, Canada to Baja California, México. More recently it was divided into a northern and a southern species. WPTs are found primarily in streams that drain into the Pacific Ocean, although scattered populations exist in endorheic drainages of the Great Basin and Mojave deserts. Populations in the Mojave Desert were long thought to be restricted to the Mojave River, but recently another population was documented in Piute Ponds, a terminal wetland complex associated with Amargosa Creek on Edwards Air Force Base. WPT fossils in the Mojave Desert are known from the Miocene to the Pleistocene. Recently, Pleistocene fossils have been found as far into the desert as Salt Springs, just south of Death Valley. The oldest fossil records suggest that WPTs were present in wetlands and drainages of the geological feature known as the Mojave block prior to the uplift of the Sierra Nevada Range about 8 Ma and prior to the ~ 3 Ma uplift of the Transverse Ranges. Archaeological records document use of turtles by Native Americans for food and cultural purposes 1,000 or more years ago at the Cronese Lakes on the lower Mojave River and Oro Grande on the upper river. The first modern publication documenting their presence in the Mojave River was 1861. Museum specimens were collected as early as 1937. These fossil and early literature records support the indigenous status of WPTs to the Mojave River. However, mtDNA-based genetic evidence shows that Mojave River turtles share an identical haplotype with turtles on the California coast. Limited nuclear data show some minor differences. Overdraft of water from the Mojave River for municipal and agricultural uses, urban development, and saltcedar expansion are threats to the continued survival of WPTs in the Mojave River.

From 29 October 2012 to 7 November 2012, 73 supersonic passes of an F-18 aircraft were observed over a dry lake bed at Edwards Air Force Base as part of NASA’s Farfield Investigation of No-boom Thresholds project, which was conceived to measure the characteristics of sonic booms at the boundaries of their decay, where overpressure is exceptionally low, thereby stretching the limits of current prediction methods. Each pass was recorded by a 55-microphone phased array sensor system with a circular aperture diameter of 2000 ft (609.6 m). The data were processed using a novel time domain array processing algorithm to estimate the direction of arrival and trace speed of the sonic boom wave front along the plane of the phased array. The results from the phased array processing are consistent with the known location of the test aircraft for each processed flight and are consistent with expectations for direction of arrival due to atmospheric refraction. Near real-time estimation of the sonic boom direction of arrival, trace speed along the ground, and visualization of the propagation of the sonic boom wave front are possible. This could allow the test team to assess the data and determine if the target of the test point has been met while the test aircraft is still in flight. This would enable improved test efficiency and efficacy, ultimately improving the value of the test campaign. The measured direction of arrival also provides sonic boom propagation numerical prediction code validation. Most sonic boom prediction codes provide the propagation path of the sonic boom and thus the direction of arrival of the sonic boom at a point on the ground. Thus for predictions made using the actual flight data measured at the time of the test, the predicted direction of arrival and measured direction of arrival can be directly compared to help validate the prediction codes.

Introduction The recent AOL/Time-Warner merger invites us to re-think the relationships amongst content producers, distributors, and audiences. Worth an estimated $300 billion (US), the largest Internet transaction of all time, the deal is 45 times larger than the AOL/Netscape merger of November 1998 (Ledbetter). Additionally, the Time Warner/EMI merger, which followed hard on the heels of the AOL/Time-Warner deal and is itself worth $28 billion (US), created the largest content rights organisation in the music industry. The joining of the Internet giant (AOL) with what was already the world's largest media corporation (Time-Warner-EMI) has inspired some exuberant reactions. An Infoworld column proclaimed: The AOL/Time-Warner merger signals the demise of traditional media companies and the ascendancy of 'new economy' media companies that will force any industry hesitant to adopt a complete electronic-commerce strategy to rethink and put itself on Internet time. (Saap & Schwarrtz) This comment identifies the distribution channel as the dominant component of the "new economy" media. But this might not really be much of an innovation. Indeed, the assumption of all industry observers is that Time-Warner will provide broadband distribution (through its extensive cable holdings) as well as proprietary content for AOL. It is also expected that Time-Warner will adopt AOL's strategy of seeking sponsorship for development projects as well as for content. However, both of these phenomena -- merger and sponsorship -- are at least as old as radio. It seems that the Internet is merely repeating an old industrial strategy. Nonetheless, one important difference distinguishes the Internet from earlier media: its characterisation of the audience. Internet companies such as AOL and Microsoft tend towards a simple and simplistic media- centred view of the audience as market. I will show, however, that as the Internet assumes more of the traditional mass media functions, it will be forced to adopt a more sophisticated notion of the mass audience. Indeed, the Internet is currently the site in which audience definitions borrowed from broadcasting are encountering and merging with definitions borrowed from marketing. The Internet apparently lends itself to both models. As a result, definitions of what the Internet does or is, and of how we should understand the audience, are suitably confused and opaque. And the behaviour of big Internet players, such as AOL and MSN, perfectly reflects this confusion as they seem to careen between a view of the Internet as the new television and a contrasting view of the Internet as the new shopping mall. Meanwhile, Internet users move in ways that most observers fail to capture. For example, Baran and Davis characterise mass communication as a process involving (1) an organized sender, (2) engaged in the distribution of messages, (3) directed toward a large audience. They argue that broadcasting fits this model whereas a LISTSERV does not because, even though the LISTSERV may have very many subscribers, its content is filtered through a single person or Webmaster. But why is the Webmaster suddenly more determining than a network programmer or magazine editor? The distinction seems to grow out of the Internet's technological characteristics: it is an interactive pipeline, therefore its use necessarily excludes the possibility of "broadcasting" which in turn causes us to reject "traditional" notions of the audience. However, if a media organisation were to establish an AOL discussion group in order to promote Warner TV shows, for example, would not the resulting communication suddenly fall under the definition as set out by Baran and Davis? It was precisely the confusion around such definitions that caused the CRTC (Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications regulator) to hold hearings in 1999 to determine what kind of medium the Internet is. Unlike traditional broadcasting, Internet communication does indeed include the possibility of interactivity and niche communities. In this sense, it is closer to narrowcasting than to broadcasting even while maintaining the possibility of broadcasting. Hence, the nature of the audience using the Internet quickly becomes muddy. While such muddiness might have led us to sharpen our definitions of the audience, it seems instead to have led many to focus on the medium itself. For example, Morris & Ogan define the Internet as a mass medium because it addresses a mass audience mediated through technology (Morris & Ogan 39). They divide producers and audiences on the Internet into four groups: One-to-one asynchronous communication (e-mail); Many-to-many asynchronous communication (Usenet and News Groups); One-to-one, one-to-few, and one-to-many synchronous communication (topic groups, construction of an object, role-playing games, IRC chats, chat rooms); Asynchronous communication (searches, many-to-one, one-to-one, one to- many, source-receiver relations (Morris & Ogan 42-3) Thus, some Internet communication qualifies as mass communication while some does not. However, the focus remains firmly anchored on either the sender or the medium because the receiver --the audience -- is apparently too slippery to define. When definitions do address the content distributed over the Net, they make a distinction between passive reception and interactive participation. As the World Wide Web makes pre-packaged content the norm, the Internet increasingly resembles a traditional mass medium. Timothy Roscoe argues that the main focus of the World Wide Web is not the production of content (and, hence, the fulfilment of the Internet's democratic potential) but rather the presentation of already produced material: "the dominant activity in relation to the Web is not producing your own content but surfing for content" (Rosco 680). He concludes that if the emphasis is on viewing material, the Internet will become a medium similar to television. Within media studies, several models of the audience compete for dominance in the "new media" economy. Denis McQuail recalls how historically, the electronic media furthered the view of the audience as a "public". The audience was an aggregate of common interests. With broadcasting, the electronic audience was delocalised and socially decomposed (McQuail, Mass 212). According to McQuail, it was not a great step to move from understanding the audience as a dispersed "public" to thinking about the audience as itself a market, both for products and as a commodity to be sold to advertisers. McQuail defines this conception of the audience as an "aggregate of potential customers with a known social- economic profile at which a medium or message is directed" (McQuail, Mass 221). Oddly though, in light of the emancipatory claims made for the Internet, this is precisely the dominant view of the audience in the "new media economy". Media Audience as Market How does the marketing model characterise the relationship between audience and producer? According to McQuail, the marketing model links sender and receiver in a cash transaction between producer and consumer rather than in a communicative relationship between equal interlocutors. Such a model ignores the relationships amongst consumers. Indeed, neither the effectiveness of the communication nor the quality of the communicative experience matters. This model, explicitly calculating and implicitly manipulative, is characteristically a "view from the media" (McQuail, Audience 9). Some scholars, when discussing new media, no longer even refer to audiences. They speak of users or consumers (Pavick & Dennis). The logic of the marketing model lies in the changing revenue base for media industries. Advertising-supported media revenues have been dropping since the early 1990s while user-supported media such as cable, satellite, online services, and pay-per-view, have been steadily growing (Pavlik & Dennis 19). In the Internet-based media landscape, the audience is a revenue stream and a source of consumer information. As Bill Gates says, it is all about "eyeballs". In keeping with this view, AOL hopes to attract consumers with its "one-stop shopping and billing". And Internet providers such as MSN do not even consider their subscribers as "audiences". Instead, they work from a consumer model derived from the computer software industry: individuals make purchases without the seller providing content or thematising the likely use of the software. The analogy extends well beyond the transactional moment. The common practice of prototyping products and beta-testing software requires the participation of potential customers in the product development cycle not as a potential audience sharing meanings but as recalcitrant individuals able to uncover bugs. Hence, media companies like MTV now use the Internet as a source of sophisticated demographic research. Recently, MTV Asia established a Website as a marketing tool to collect preferences and audience profiles (Slater 50). The MTV audience is now part of the product development cycle. Another method for getting information involves the "cookie" file that automatically provides a Website with information about the user who logs on to a site (Pavick & Dennis). Simultaneously, though, both Microsoft and AOL have consciously shifted from user-subscription revenues to advertising in an effort to make online services more like television (Gomery; Darlin). For example, AOL has long tried to produce content through its own studios to generate sufficiently heavy traffic on its Internet service in order to garner profitable advertising fees (Young). However, AOL and Microsoft have had little success in providing content (Krantz; Manes). In fact, faced with the AOL/Time-Warner merger, Microsoft declared that it was in the software rather than the content business (Trott). In short, they are caught between a broadcasting model and a consumer model and their behaviour is characteristically erratic. Similarly, media companies such as Time-Warner have failed to establish their own portals. Indeed, Time-Warner even abandoned attempts to create large Websites to compete with other Internet services when it shut down its Pathfinder site (Egan). Instead it refocussed its Websites so as to blur the line between pitching products and covering them (Reid; Lyons). Since one strategy for gaining large audiences is the creation of portals - - large Websites that keep surfers within the confines of a single company's site by providing content -- this is the logic behind the AOL/Time-Warner merger though both companies have clearly been unsuccessful at precisely such attempts. AOL seems to hope that Time- Warner will act as its content specialist, providing the type of compelling material that will make users want to use AOL, whereas Time- Warner seems to hope that AOL will become its privileged pipeline to the hearts and minds of untold millions. Neither has a coherent view of the audience, how it behaves, or should behave. Consequently, their efforts have a distinctly "unmanaged" and slighly inexplicable air to them, as though everyone were simultaneously hopeful and clueless. While one might argue that the stage is set to capitalise on the audience as commodity, there are indications that the success of such an approach is far from guaranteed. First, the AOL/Time-Warner/EMI transaction, merely by existing, has sparked conflicts over proprietary rights. For example, the Recording Industry Association of America, representing Sony, Universal, BMG, Warner and EMI, recently launched a $6.8 billion lawsuit against MP3.com -- an AOL subsidiary -- for alleged copyright violations. Specifically, MP3.com is being sued for selling digitized music over the Internet without paying royalties to the record companies (Anderson). A similar lawsuit has recently been launched over the issue of re- broadcasting television programs over the Internet. The major US networks have joined together against Canadian Internet company iCravetv for the unlawful distribution of content. Both the iCravetv and the MP3.com cases show how dominant media players can marshal their forces to protect proprietary rights in both content and distribution. Since software and media industries have failed to recreate the Internet in the image of traditional broadcasting, the merger of the dominant players in each industry makes sense. However, their simultaneous failure to secure proprietary rights reflects both the competitive nature of the "new media economy" and the weakness of the marketing view of the audience. Media Audience as Public It is often said that communication produces social cohesion. From such cohesion communities emerge on which political or social orders can be constructed. The power of social cohesion and attachment to group symbols can even create a sense of belonging to a "people" or nation (Deutsch). Sociologist Daniel Bell described how the mass media helped create an American culture simply by addressing a large enough audience. He suggested that on the evening of 7 March 1955, when one out of every two Americans could see Mary Martin as Peter Pan on television, a kind of social revolution occurred and a new American public was born. "It was the first time in history that a single individual was seen and heard at the same time by such a broad public" (Bell, quoted in Mattelart 72). One could easily substitute the 1953 World Series or the birth of little Ricky on I Love Lucy. The desire to document such a process recurs with the Internet. Internet communities are based on the assumption that a common experience "creates" group cohesion (Rheingold; Jones). However, as a mass medium, the Internet has yet to find its originary moment, that event to which all could credibly point as the birth of something genuine and meaningful. A recent contender was the appearance of Paul McCartney at the refurbished Cavern Club in Liverpool. On Tuesday, 14 December 1999, McCartney played to a packed club of 300 fans, while another 150,000 watched on an outdoor screen nearby. MSN arranged to broadcast the concert live over the Internet. It advertised an anticipated global audience of 500 million. Unfortunately, there was such heavy Internet traffic that the system was unable to accommodate more than 3 million people. Servers in the United Kingdom were so congested that many could only watch the choppy video stream via an American link. The concert raises a number of questions about "virtual" events. We can draw several conclusions about measuring Internet audiences. While 3 million is a sizeable audience for a 20 minute transmission, by advertising a potential audience of 500 million, MSN showed remarkably poor judgment of its inherent appeal. The Internet is the first medium that allows access to unprocessed material or information about events to be delivered to an audience with neither the time constraints of broadcast media nor the space limitations of the traditional press. This is often cited as one of the characteristics that sets the Internet apart from other media. This feeds the idea of the Internet audience as a participatory, democratic public. For example, it is often claimed that the Internet can foster democratic participation by providing voters with uninterpreted information about candidates and issues (Selnow). However, as James Curran argues, the very process of distributing uninterrupted, unfiltered information, at least in the case of traditional mass media, represents an abdication of a central democratic function -- that of watchdog to power (Curran). In the end, publics are created and maintained through active and continuous participation on the part of communicators and audiences. The Internet holds together potentially conflicting communicative relationships within the same technological medium (Merrill & Ogan). Viewing the audience as co-participant in a communicative relationship makes more sense than simply focussing on the Internet audience as either an aggregate of consumers or a passively constructed symbolic public. Audience as Relationship Many scholars have shifted attention from the producer to the audience as an active participant in the communication process (Ang; McQuail, Audience). Virginia Nightingale goes further to describe the audience as part of a communicative relationship. Nightingale identifies four factors in the relationship between audiences and producers that emphasize their co-dependency. The audience and producer are engaged in a symbiotic relationship in which consumption and use are necessary but not sufficient explanations of audience relations. The notion of the audience invokes, at least potentially, a greater range of activities than simply use or consumption. Further, the audience actively, if not always consciously, enters relationships with content producers and the institutions that govern the creation, distribution and exhibition of content (Nightingale 149-50). Others have demonstrated how this relationship between audiences and producers is no longer the one-sided affair characterised by the marketing model or the model of the audience as public. A global culture is emerging based on critical viewing skills. Kavoori calls this a reflexive mode born of an increasing familiarity with the narrative conventions of news and an awareness of the institutional imperatives of media industries (Kavoori). Given the sophistication of the emergent global audience, a theory that reduces new media audiences to a set of consumer preferences or behaviours will inevitably prove inadequate, just as it has for understanding audience behavior in old media. Similarly, by ignoring those elements of audience behavior that will be easily transported to the Web, we run the risk of idealising the Internet as a medium that will create an illusory, pre-technological public. Conclusion There is an understandable confusion between the two models of the audience that appear in the examples above. The "new economy" will have to come to terms with sophisticated audiences. Contrary to IBM's claim that they want to "get to know all about you", Internet users do not seem particularly interested in becoming a perpetual source of market information. The fragmented, autonomous audience resists attempts to lock it into proprietary relationships. Internet hypesters talk about creating publics and argue that the Internet recreates the intimacy of community as a corrective to the atomisation and alienation characteristic of mass society. This faith in the power of a medium to create social cohesion recalls the view of the television audience as a public constructed by the common experience of watching an important event. However, MSN's McCartney concert indicates that creating a public from spectacle it is not a simple process. In fact, what the Internet media conglomerates seem to want more than anything is to create consumer bases. Audiences exist for pleasure and by the desire to be entertained. As Internet media institutions are established, the cynical view of the audience as a source of consumer behavior and preferences will inevitably give way, to some extent, to a view of the audience as participant in communication. Audiences will be seen, as they have been by other media, as groups whose attention must be courted and rewarded. Who knows, maybe the AOL/Time-Warner merger might, indeed, signal the new medium's coming of age. References Anderson, Lessley. "To Beam or Not to Beam. MP3.com Is Being Sued by the Major Record Labels. Does the Digital Download Site Stand a Chance?" Industry Standard 31 Jan. 2000. <http://www.thestandard.com>. Ang, Ien. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. London: Methuen, 1985. Baran, Stanley, and Dennis Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. 2nd ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth 2000. Curran, James. "Mass Media and Democracy Revisited." Mass Media and Society. Eds. James Curran and Michael Gurevitch. New York: Hodder Headline Group, 1996. Darlin, Damon. "He Wants Your Eyeballs." Forbes 159 (16 June 1997): 114-6. Egan, Jack, "Pathfinder, Rest in Peace: Time-Warner Pulls the Plug on Site." US News and World Report 126.18 (10 May 1999): 50. Gomery, Douglas. "Making the Web Look like Television (American Online and Microsoft)." American Journalism Review 19 (March 1997): 46. Jones, Steve, ed. CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995. Kavoori, Amandam P. "Discursive Texts, Reflexive Audiences: Global Trends in Television News Texts and Audience Reception." Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 43.3 (Summer 1999): 386-98. Krantz, Michael. "Is MSN on the Block?" Time 150 (20 Oct. 1997): 82. Ledbetter, James. "AOL-Time-Warner Make It Big." Industry Standard 11 Jan. 2000. <http://www.thestandard.com>. Lyons, Daniel. "Desparate.com (Media Companies Losing Millions on the Web Turn to Electronic Commerce)." Forbes 163.6 (22 March 1999): 50-1. Manes, Stephen. "The New MSN as Prehistoric TV." New York Times 4 Feb. 1997: C6. McQuail, Denis. Audience Analysis. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997. ---. Mass Communication Theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage, 1987. Mattelart, Armand. Mapping World Communication: War, Progress, Culture. Trans. Susan Emanuel and James A. Cohen. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1994. Morris, Merrill, and Christine Ogan. "The Internet as Mass Medium." Journal of Communications 46 (Winter 1996): 39-50. Nightingale, Virginia. Studying Audience: The Shock of the Real. London: Routledge, 1996. Pavlik, John V., and Everette E. Dennis. New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. Reid, Calvin. "Time-Warner Seeks Electronic Synergy, Profits on the Web (Pathfinder Site)." Publisher's Weekly 242 (4 Dec. 1995): 12. Rheingold, Howard. Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Harper, 1993. Roscoe, Timothy. "The Construction of the World Wide Web Audience." Media, Culture and Society 21.5 (1999): 673-84. Saap, Geneva, and Ephraim Schwarrtz. "AOL-Time-Warner Deal to Impact Commerce, Content, and Access Markets." Infoworld 11 January 2000. <http://infoworld.com/articles/ic/xml/00/01/11/000111icimpact.xml>. Slater, Joanna. "Cool Customers: Music Channels Hope New Web Sites Tap into Teen Spirit." Far Eastern Economic Review 162.9 (4 March 1999): 50. Trott, Bob. "Microsoft Views AOL-Time-Warner as Confirmation of Its Own Strategy." Infoworld 11 Jan. 2000. <http://infoworld.com/articles/pi/xml/00/01/11/000111pimsaoltw.xml>. Yan, Catherine. "A Major Studio Called AOL?" Business Week 1 Dec. 1997: 1773-4. Citation reference for this article MLA style: Daniel M. Downes. "The Medium Vanishes? The Resurrection of the Mass Audience in the New Media Economy." M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3.1 (2000). [your date of access] <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/0003/mass.php>. Chicago style: Daniel M. Downes, "The Medium Vanishes? The Resurrection of the Mass Audience in the New Media Economy," M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3, no. 1 (2000), <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/0003/mass.php> ([your date of access]). APA style: Daniel M. Downes. (2000) The Medium Vanishes? The Resurrection of the Mass Audience in the New Media Economy. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3(1). <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/0003/mass.php> ([your date of access]).