Slashdot Mirror

There are sound economic reasons to not have the McRib on the menu all the time: https://www.theawl.com/2011/11...

There's also the beatings of gay people, rampant islamophobia, and descendants of European invaders calling descendants of native american's "illegal immigrants." Yet here you are, with your wingnut persecution complex.

The TV adjustment seems pretty reasonable to me (if we're talking year on year).

I suspect towards the end of CRTs availability, sticking with 27" CRTs would have resulted in larger negative inflation, not less. In reality, nobody was replacing a 27" CRT with a 42" Plasma at that price increase within a year.

The reality is that TVs have overall been getting less expensive or holding fairly steady.

1996, TV is 490 2011 dollars, or 340 nominal cost, in 2011 it's 319.

in 77 a TV a discontinued 25" TV was nominally $530.

TVs have been roughly the same nominal cost, or slightly negative for much of the time since their inception (not as extreme as that -7% from the BLS page, but it's not fair to pretend they went up 400% as you imply either.

that 27" CRT was replaced either for a very cheap CRT, or a roughly the same nominal price 32 inch flat-screen.

sources:
https://theawl.com/how-much-mo...

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cp...

Your point stands to a point, but it's not quite as extreme as you imply it.

From the article;

"All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States, or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."(emphasis mine)

Swartz downloaded 20 million documents. I would consider that "vast quantities of materials".

I second this.

I've been telephone free for two years now and haven't missed it for a moment.

It's the new "I don't own a TV" :)

Not sure if I want to be first in line to try out a radical new space habitat design by a guy that believes in big black triangles and shapeshifting skinwalkers.

An economy based on people having jobs is doomed to collapse for two reason: 1- People keep replacing themselves with more children than their parents had. 2- Only a finite number of workers are needed to produce enough to match demand, and that number is shrinking. This jobs-based first world economy must be replaced by something that isn't dependent on everyone working for someone else to prove that they deserve more than basic human needs. "on a very fundamental level, we have pretty much everything we need"—and we're just distributing it wrong, and "we don't have enough ways for people to work and prove that they deserve this stuff." http://www.theawl.com/2011/09/douglas-rushkoff-why-do-we-want-jobs-anyway

Sorta OT, but there was an interesting article recently on the price of hogs and when McDonalds brings back the McRib, the price has to be within a certain range or they won't do it: http://www.theawl.com/2011/11/a-conspiracy-of-hogs-the-mcrib-as-arbitrage

See here:

It is axiomatic that drugs are baaaaad. Even when they're good for you.

Time Magazine reports ...

It was BookTwo that originated this story because that's written by the guy who put the book together (which was picked up by a blog which was picked up by The Awl which was picked up by Time's NewsFeed). Of course, we are talking about Time here. I found the images of what's actually inside very interesting but I would bet that the guy who used some simple code to create the Creative Commons work is probably the only person to tender cash for a physical copy.

Here's another complete rewrite reducing the whole article to:

-
Iraq War, eh???
-
All your oil are belong to U.S.
-
Stup up stoopid Americans

But you know what's really interesting? When Bridle compiled this used their lexer to transform the XML, he kept the IP address in the upper right of each edit. So the above edit's IP address is forever in print: 68.162.123.240 Of course if you had used a username to make an edit, that was put in place of the IP address.

This whole thing reminds me of the time lapse video done of the Virginia Tech shootings. Creative stuff you can do with Wikipedia.

Wikileaks is the shit. I have followed them since the day I learnt from them on the New Scientist Magazine.

Day and Night I am wishing people in my country (Mexico) would be brave enough to leak the documents showing all the corrupt people that are paid by the drug-traffic cartels (e.g. the laptop of the drug-lord recently confiscated ).

This kind of public full disclosure is the only way to attack the full corruption circle in the government.

the Wall Street Journal's readership is actually going UP while their competitors are losing money right and left

According to this graph, the WSJ readership is flat (there was a surge a few years back because of online subscriptions, but that seems to be a redefinition of "circulation" as much as anything else). If that graph is correct, the WSJ is certainly doing better than the other newspapers (which are in free-fall), but their circulation doesn't seem to be going up.

In fact.. yay, a graph:
http://www.theawl.com/2009/10/a-graphic-history-of-newspaper-circulation-over-the-last-two-decades
( via Cool Infographics blog )

The LA Times has just been sucking overall, explaining their sharp drop.

Most of the others had been stable until relatively recently, as more and more people realize that they all just regurgitate the same news they can get online for free.

The exception noted in the article summary - the local publishers - and the major publisher lonely at the top and holding relatively steady, share the opposite of the above in common. They don't regurgitate news so much as that they report on the actual news and provided added value. In the case of local newspapers.. local news that strikes at the heart of the community (I've always wanted to say that). In the case of the WSJ.. in-depth investigation and background information, catering to their major audience (which tend not to be the target audience for the other major papers).