Slashdot Mirror

And someone was futzing with our navigation earlier. But it's better now. For now.

1. If you don't want a search engine spidering your pictures and news stories, don't put them on the web. If AFP were paper only, Google could not violate their copyright. It saves AFP money to stay offline.
2. If AFP decides to pay to go online to make money, they should know the rules of the Internet. First rule about search engines like Google: robots.txt. If they don't want Google to spider them, any half-decent Internet expert they hire would be able to keep Google out of their webspace in the time it takes to type

   User-agent: *
   Disallow: /

   AFP didn't do their homework, and that's a poor way to protect any investment.

3. Speaking of investments, even if they somehow managed to stay completely ignorant of search engine operation, anyone who wants to sell something online needs to protect it. This is as easy as adding password accounts. Other online news services do just that.
4. Copyright protects the rights of authors so that they can make money. Why should we give them the benefit of governmental protection when it's obvious they don't care about protecting the content themselves enough to use basic measures to do so?

To sum up: AFP, of their own volition, paid to get on the web. They completely ignored RFCs. They ignored standard practices by established companies in their business sector. They wait until $17M in damages accrue, which doesn't happen overnight. Only then do they cry foul, and sue using copyright law to protect something they won't protect themselves when they have the chance. If you were a judge, which way would you rule?

Notice that I didn't even need to talk about fair use rights. France doesn't use the US Constitution. My arguments are purely economic, and I'm fairly sure the French understand money. If any lawyers at Google are reading this, please fight this suit. AFP are being unreasonable, and need to be taught a lesson.

http://mobile.wsj.com/mp3/

I can't read the article (anyone want to 'leak' a WSJ.com userid and password?:P) but obviously this event did have a real-world (financial) impact.

Does that change my mind? I'm not sure. Food for thought definitely.

"Supposedly the netscape version has built in the IE rendering engine for compatibility, while still maintaining the security of Firefox. We shall see. This may mean a browser that is vulnerable to every exploit."

According to Walt Mossberg's review in the WSJ:

"If a site is considered trustworthy, Netscape automatically renders it using the Internet Explorer method, for maximum compatibility. Internet Explorer's method for rendering Web pages opens security vulnerabilities that Firefox's doesn't. Netscape figures that, at trusted sites, it's OK to take that risk."

The original story of Tringo getting purchased is with the Wall Street Journal. This link doesn't require membership either (but you do have to scroll down). It also covers another thing missed by the Clickable Culture story: The publishing rights go to Donnerwood in the real world but the developer, Keir, keeps his rights to the game within Second Life.

The Wallstreet Journal has a page B1 article (free via this link?) on buyers trying to hold software providers liable for flaws, damages, bugs, etc. It seems the old EULA disclaimer is not going to hack it anymore. Buyers argue that each software patch is equivalent to a product recall and that vendors should help pay for the cost of patches (AT&T says it sends $1 million per month on patching).

If General Motors can be held liable for damages caused by a defective car part, some argue that software makers should be held liable for damages arising from buggy code.

Many skeptics contend that liberal environmental agendas are behind alarming global-warming headlines, though often skeptics bring policy agendas of their own. Think tanks backed with funding from the energy industry have waged a wide campaign to cast doubt on key scientific results. "Climate science today is fully politicized," says Roger Pielke Jr., head of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research.

Several scientists, with specific expertise in the field, agree there is a potential flaw in the math.

None could confirm an actual flaw.

There was nobody who would say whether the flaw, if it exists, would signficantly affect the conclusion

McIntyre & McKitrick have been published twice, once in a non-mainstream journal and once in peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters. No info on what was published or how respected the latter journal is.

There was no discussion at all on whether any error in the conclusion would show an increase or decrease in global warming.

A useful tidbit: McIntyre still doesn't know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph (quoted from the article).

In other words, there is very little that's definitive, and not one scientist with expertise yet confirms McIntyre & McKitrick's argument.

That seemed odd to me so I e-mailed the article's author: How much support or opposition do their arguments draw? He responded that not many people had studied McIntyre & McKitrick's work; It's not a long list.

In other words, we don't know about McIntyre & McKitrick. We do know many scientists have studied and accepted Mann's work.

Then perhaps you would consider that McKittrick and McIntyre's latest paper (PDF warning) was published in the February 2005 Geophysical Research Letters?

You might also consider that Mann refuses to release the complete dataset on which he based his research as well as the algorithm used to generate the graph. This means his work cannot be validated by anyone else because he is not making available the conditions for the experiment.

McIntyre has also pointed out that the general method used by Mann tends to generate hockey-stick results even on random data.

Humans may well be warming the planet with their activities. Mann's work, until properly verified, should not be used as evidence of this.

The Kyoto treaty is an attempt to grapple with a perceived major problem, that of human-influenced weather shifts. The underlying science that purports to prove the human connection has been challenged quite recently, but there can be no doubt that in the northern hemisphere, winters are becoming milder and weather patterns more extreme, which climatologists agree is indicative of global warming.

Whether or not it chooses to sign a particular treaty for trading carbon dioxide output shares, the United States should take a leadership role in reducing pollution and energy consumption. Other countries do tend to follow the U.S. lead when it makes sense, despite a lot of America-bashing in these forums and the mass media. I would argue that Ukraine's recent presidential election is a good example of that.

According to an architect in California (I've forgotten the exact reference), their electricity shortage a couple of summers ago could have been averted had they simply painted the roofs of all state buildings white, to reduce air conditioning use.

Rather than lament this state of affairs, we should take this as a very positive sign that there is a lot of energy savings to be harvested even without technological advances. The United States should invest more heavily in alternative energy research, including safer nuclear fission approaches such as "pebble" reactors. It should offer home builders and commercial building developers significant tax breaks for installing passive energy systems using solar and wind. "Green" cars should be greatly encouraged, methanol and hydrogen fueling stations incentivized and perhaps made mandatory for government fleets, and more electric car charging outlets provided for all those sub-50 mile commuters.

The U.S. should also consider a crash program (no pun intended) to build and renew public transportation systems. Cities that have it should improve it, and cities that lack it should get into the game.

Lead by example. Get the U.S. out of the Middle East by taking away the strategic national interest of protecting their oil. Build the windmills and solar power cells on scales large enough to bring the costs down, and ultimately the investment will repay itself both through the manufacturing and export of technical innovations, reduced health issues from pollution, and of course less need to invade oil-rich countries.

My two cents'. ;-)

Gee, that's my point - company after company allows it's lust for cash to kill its revenue stream.

Ok, I really can't keep on going with someone who proudly demonstrates a total ignorance of even the Dow Jones Industrial Average. That would be insanity!

Unfortunately the people who benefit the most from the current environtmentally unfriendly energy sources are the same people who are in power today (G. W. Bush)...

You are so right, because the Chinese and the Indians are definitely not using the cheapest most polluting fuels they can to grow their economies. Give me a break.

The need for energy is only increasing and most people will keep ignoring this whole disaster scenario until it actually happens.

Maybe people are sick and tired of sensationalism. Scientists use ultra worst case scenarios to push their agendas forward. (see here). With media attention they can argue for more funding... and the media likes it because it continues to draw attention meaning they can sell more ads. Many politicians like it because they can use it to justify their expense to society and feel self-important because they're calling the G8 to task. Right or wrong, people are just sick and tired of all of the posturing.

Or for those who don't feel like logging in, and want a clicky link, clikicky clicky.

Wow! What great timing!

Michael Powell Stepping Down Today

My Dual G5 PowerMac and 30" LCD display were both bought in the US and work fine here in the EU.

According to a recent article in the WSJ Apple are getting wise to this and have recently started fitting different PSUs for different regions - it might have worked this time, but next time you try to save some money to prevent Apple from screwing you then your expensive purchase is likely to go bang as soon as you hook it up to the power...

From the iMac G5 specs page (US):
Line voltage: 100-120V AC or 100-240V AC, depending on country of purchase
From the Power Mac specs page (US):
Line voltage: 100-125V AC or 200-240V AC

However any Apple product with an external power supply is likely to remain compatible with voltages between 100 and 240

I should also have included some relevant links to Internet based news sources bookmarked in Safari:

Slashdot of course.
CNN of course.
NYTimes for the writing and quality of reporting.
BBC for the big mainstream non American news perspective.
Kevin Sites for on the ground reporting in Iraq.
Dan Gillmor for news grassroots news.
CBS for financial info.
CNET for tech news.
Global Security for political defense news.
Google for a good news accumulator.
Cryptome because John manages to pull some pretty damned interesting articles out.
NPR of course. Don't forget to donate.
Reuters because they have the news.
Washington Post for beltway news.
Wall St. Journal for more financial news.
NPR Marketplace for more financial news.
CBS for mainstream US news.
Technocrat for real science oriented geek news, like Slashdot only with less noise.
Oh, yeah and
Macsurfer for a Macintosh community oriented news accumulator.

michael:

"It's hard to believe that the WSJ is equating prominently disclosed campaign consulting with secret payments from the U.S. Government treasury to TV personalities in order to promote Republican policies, but they are."

The Wall Street Journal Best of the Web column:

"The Dean campaign, unlike the Education Department, didn't spend tax dollars. But the bloggers who benefited from its largesse appear to be as compromised ethically as Williams."

I could find no statement in the Wall Street Journal equating the two scandals, notably in the article which michael links. The editorial opinion expressed in the Journal in fact does not equate the scandals, rather it points to a prominent difference between the two: the use of tax dollars.

michael:

"It's hard to believe that the WSJ is equating prominently disclosed campaign consulting with secret payments from the U.S. Government treasury to TV personalities in order to promote Republican policies, but they are."

The Wall Street Journal Best of the Web column:

"The Dean campaign, unlike the Education Department, didn't spend tax dollars. But the bloggers who benefited from its largesse appear to be as compromised ethically as Williams."

I could find no statement in the Wall Street Journal equating the two scandals, notably in the article which michael links. The editorial opinion expressed in the Journal in fact does not equate the scandals, rather it points to a prominent difference between the two: the use of tax dollars.

Disclaimer: I've been a 20+ year WSJ subscriber and had some recent dealings with them plus a bunch of other media and the difference was night-n-day.

speaking of comcast, anyone read the WSJ article (reg req) this morning? Highlights: - caller ID which whispers calling party ino - $39.95 all you can eat usage - possible integrated phone which is wireless outside home and cordless landline inside Anyone know more?

Nope.

Far From Stingy
December 31, 2004; Page A10

Across the world, the reaction to Asia's tsunami is bringing out the best in human nature. Fund-raising appeals, disaster-relief teams, military assets -- all are being marshaled for the victims of this tragedy.

Which makes it all the more outrageous that a top United Nations official chose this week to accuse the U.S. and other Western nations of being stingy with assistance to poorer nations. "We were more generous when we were less rich," Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland lectured on Monday. "And it is beyond me why we are so stingy, really."

Now, complaints about U.S. miserliness are more routine than the earthquakes and floods that strike the globe. A favorite "fact" of international critics is that while the U.S. government nearly always ranks first in absolute amounts of foreign aid, it tends to fall last among industrial countries in aid as a percentage of gross national product. The one-tenth of one percent that Washington devotes to foreign assistance, they say, is nothing compared with what the U.S. could afford.

The problem is that, as with so many questions of accounting (say, Oil for Food), the U.N. and other international bodies rely on unreliable ledgers. Groups like the Development Assistance Committee (part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) tend to look only at "official" government aid. What this misses is that Americans have never trusted government institutions to dole out assistance. Instead, we open our wallets for private groups that are better at targeting money where it's needed, tracking projects, cutting waste -- and getting results.

When it comes to this sort of giving, nobody beats Americans. According to a 2003 report from the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. international assistance to developing countries in 2000 was $56 billion. Yet just 18% of that was "official" government assistance. Some $33.6 billion -- or 60% -- came from the private sector. Corporations shelled out nearly $3 billion. Religious groups weighed in with $3.4 billion. Individuals provided $18 billion. To say nothing of funds from foundations, private and voluntary organizations, or universities.

Cynics mark this generosity down to a U.S. tax code that encourages giving. Yet most research shows that Americans view donations as a duty. Philanthropy magazine reports a study showing the average U.S. contribution outweighs the average German or French one seven- or eight-fold. This sense of responsibility is often motivated by faith; some 60% of American donations go to religious groups or causes.

None of this sits well with the U.N., whose own budget relies on state dollars. A chastened Mr. Egeland was forced later this week to claim he'd been misinterpreted and to acknowledge U.S. generosity. But behind this apology is the U.N.'s longstanding belief that what's really needed is for the U.S. and others to raise taxes to pay for more public foreign aid.

That approach reigns in Western Europe and explains what's wrong with so much of current foreign aid. Europeans have come to view private donations as a failure of the state and expect their governments to collect billions in taxes to shuffle along to slow-moving and unaccountable international bureaucracies. The result is a lose-lose situation. Giving countries see their own economies depressed by higher taxes and receiving countries find the aid too often enabling strongmen or perpetuating poor policies.

A far better approach, at least in the public sphere, are initiatives such as President Bush's Millennium Challenge Account. By tying long-term assistance to improvements in specific economic and political goals -- such as cracking down on corruption or establishing rules of law -- foreign aid brings about real reform. This approach drives U.N. bureaucrats nuts,

Interestingly enough, the FARK guys linked my Hoax page which includes a pointer to the WSJ article and those FARK guys wrote some HILARIOUS comments - so I wonder how many comments above were biased by the original press report?

Hey /.'ers ... it was all fun ... I'm SLAMMED ... will say more later ... but be SURE to read MY story of the events and also what Wall Street Journal guy wrote ... and then if you want, go to that Channel-7 site and cast your vote if I was naughty or nice!

Komar admits to faking the whole thing.. to spread happiness.....
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB11041739 9327110132,00.html

There's still good journalism in America, but you have to read it, not watch it:

The New York Times is widely derided for having a "liberal bias," but there is still no paper in the US that covers as much of what is going on in the world today and presents as wide a range of intelligent and interesting commentary. The print edition is jam-packed with info, and while people complain about the fact that you have to register to get free news from NYT online, it's more than worth the money. ;-)

The Christian Science Monitor, despite the name is a scrupulously independent voice. Their print version is formatted not to bring you every ounce of news, but to pick and choose stories of interest from around the world. CSM doesn't focus on immediacy, which is quite refreshing in the era of instant news stories without any meat.

The Wall Street Journal takes flak because it represents the voice of The Man, but if you recognize that the Journal's bias is in favor of the capitalist marketplace, it's an excellent source of information. The reporting is solid and the range of coverage is impressive.

Getting back to the theme of going beyond knee-jerk immediacy, there are several excellent weekly and monthly magazines available in the states. I'm partial to The Economist, which is not published in the States, and so provides much more coverage of the rest off the world. I happen to agree with most of their editorial bias, but I sometimes disagree with it. One of the nice things about the Economist is that they state their views in a way that allows you to separate the facts from their views.

I'm also partial to The Atlantic, a monthly magazine that explores a wide range of issues. Their coverage of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq has been superb for its depth, range of viewpoints, and clarity.

There are plenty of other great news sources in the United States. I merely listed some of my favorites. My point is that if you expect the television to provide you with serious news coverage, you'll continue to be disappointed. If you take the time to sift through a few print publications, you may be amazed at what's out there.

This doesn't happen to Valve for a couple of reasons. Walt Mossberg doesn't review games, but he did review TurboTax. Mossberg's column can propel a product's sales or destroy them; more importantly, he's an unbiased, reputable critic with a massive audience who writes for the most respected newspaper in America. That kind of credibility doesn't come easily, and no game critic has it.

That leads to the next point, which is that the gaming media is an incestuous pool of kick-backs and lame reporting with a generous amount of hype. Without a critical press and sufficiently discerning readers to follow that press, game companies are free to get away with almost whatever they want.

Your answer to your own question is relevent too. In economics, a competitive market often has perfect or near perfect substitutes, such as TurboTax and TaxCut. These products are not precisely interchangable, however, but they are much closer than games. Each game is unique, and as such one cannot find a near perfect substitute for HL2. That means people are willing to put up with Steam and all the rest of this bullshit.

Notice that I say people in general, because there's no way I would buy HL2 because of all the shit I've read on /. about it.

It's the Jihad, stupid

Oh, and Ohio went to Bush in 2000 as well. This word "staunch", I do think it means what you think it means.

In fact, Mossberg's full article came complete with its own "bottom line": "The bottom line: Google is still my search service of choice, but Microsoft has arrived in search and will be a more and more attractive alternative."

I have to ask, Why are we not rejoicing? We now have two competitors trying to add more useful features. They are already driving innovation -- to the benefit of us. And, so long as Google exists, MSN must do no evil, else it will never gain customers.

Now, throw in the suffering of the Tibetans, and you have a morally bankrupt society: China.

Now, throw in the suffering of the Tibetans, and you have a morally bankrupt society: China.

We should increase the reliability of the anti-bootleg system, PirateEye, for theaters by doing nationality profiling. All Chinese nationals entering a theater should be pulled aside and strip searched for recording devices.

Nationality profiling will enable us to boost the reliability of PirateEye to 6 sigma.

We should increase the reliability of the anti-bootleg system, PirateEye, for theaters by doing nationality profiling. All Chinese nationals entering a theater should be pulled aside and strip searched for recording devices.

Nationality profiling will enable us to boost the reliability of PirateEye to 6 sigma.

We should increase the reliability of the anti-bootleg system for theaters by doing nationality profiling. All Chinese nationals entering a theater should be pulled aside and strip searched for recording devices.

We should increase the reliability of the anti-bootleg system for theaters by doing nationality profiling. All Chinese nationals entering a theater should be pulled aside and strip searched for recording devices.

IANAL, but this would be illegal to include in their policy (ethnicity and disability). However, this happens already (unwritten policy or moronic employee) and I think Best Buy's new strategy of pigeonholing customers (and shunning "undesirable customers") will make it worse.

In case you didn't read the related Wall Street Journal article:

Shunning customers can be a delicate business... Earlier this year, Mr. Anderson apologized in writing to students at a Washington, D.C., school after employees at one store barred a group of black students while admitting a group of white students.

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109986994931767 086,00.html?mod=home_page_one_us

It's quite a bit more devious than that. Low price pledges are signals to other competitors that you are ready to end a price war, or enforce a cartel decison. If you match low prices you can find out that one of your cartel partners is breaking their half of the bargain, and you didn't have to spend anything on cartel enforcement (your customers did it for you). That said, if you don't already have a cheap DVD player, a little birdy told me that they would have the cheapest ones on black friday.
Best Buy's CEO (or one of the chiefs) is a firm believer that one of the best ways to boost profitability is to reduce the customers that don't make you any money and provide excellent service to those who make you tons. It's a bit like the difference between a Nordstrom's and Wal-Mart (grew up in the NW so Nordy's was the only high end retailer for a long time). One has free coffee, and salesfolk who kiss your butt. The other is doing volume business. The former makes up the services they offer with a markup, the latter makes a smaller margin on each sale, but has much, much lower overhead so they each net about the same amount on each dollar spent. Best Buy's goal is to become more like Nordstrom's but without pricing themselves out of the latter market. This is a very tall order, and we won't know if they succeeded for about a decade.
If it wasn't over in the Ars article, the WSJ (free today) has an excellent article about the whole topic. It's available here.

cLive ;-)

Your argument seems a bit circular to me. Because Apple entered an existing market (remember that when the iPod was introduced many felt Apple had entered the market late) and blew away the competition there is now no competition to the iPod. But you seem to be saying that because there is no competition Apple won't be able to compete when other companies deliver products that match or exceed the iPod's capabilities.

Based on your comment about Apple being unlikely to drop the price of the iPod to $50, you seem to be thinking of price as the only criteria for success in a competitive marketplace. But price is not the only factor in this market, as Apple has shown repeatedly since the introduction of the iPod. Apple has been competing successfully against competitors that have been given rave reviews here on Slashdot, so your comment about lack of competition for the iPod rings hollow to me. It's kind of like saying until someone makes a perfect copy of the Ford Explorer and sells it for $10k less, the Ford Explorer has no competition in the SUV market.

As a side note, could we drop the whole, "Macs are more expensive than PCs" thing? Apple does not sell at the low end, but at the medium and high end their machines stack up very favorably in price to Dell and other competitors. If you want to buy a $700 computer, a PC wins hands down. But if you move upmarket, Macs often beat comparable PCs in price.

People are calling it a draft because it's involuntary military servitude - they're not parsing the words like some White House lawyer. Even people who are drafted signed agreements to comply with the Selective Service system - and involuntary service isn't voluntary, even though you signed up for it. Not enough are serving to support Bush's chosen war in Iraq. And what happens when a nondiscretionary demand for our troops comes up?

Basically it makes placing a projector and screen in the solarium a viable option.

Brillian's LCOS engine looked nice at the show, but this screen got me more excited.

Reference Links:

http://www.insightmedia.info/emailblasts/InsightMe diaAnnouncesBestBuzzAwards.htm

http://www.extremetech.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393 ,l=&s=1005&a=128243&po=10,00.asp

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB108742977 261939595-IRjg4Nllal3nZyva3qHbqyCm4,00.html

Sure: the backdoor draft, for those naive enough to think that enlisting for a tour will get the chances of being fed into the Iraqmire meat grinder over with quickly. Thanks for the invite. While we're at it, we can note that the Democrats tried to get a draft started before the war, to prevent rich and connected Republicans from avoiding the effects on their families of sending other kids to war for them. Bush's "no draft" plans will turn out to be "misunderstimations" of the failure to recruit, already underway, when he flipflops to the "last resort" draft in a heartbeat (someone else's, of course).

I'm not. Walt Mossberg was comparing retail.

And as for the education prices, if you add $100, you get retail.

Secondly, from everything I've read, you in no way need to get the best Intel chip available to compare with Apple in terms of speed. Everything I've read says that you need Apple's top processor/memory packages to make OSX zippy.

Well, that's completely and totally wrong, since first, it's subjective, and second, you most certainly do not need the "top processor/memory packages" to make OS X "zippy".

Plus, I have no idea what you're looking at, but Dell's chapest PC is $469 with monitor, while Apple's seems to be $799 with that ridiculous monitor built in, plus with half as much RAM.

Take it up with Walt Mossberg. He's not even an "Apple guy". And someone will ALWAYS come up with some configuration of something else that's "cheaper" than some model of Mac. You can ALWAYS do this. Christ, if you think it's a rip off (it's not), don't buy one (and I imagine you won't).

Also, with the new 1.2GHz iBook with 256MB RAM, 30GB drive, and 802.11g wireless coming in at $899 (education), and the eMacs and iMac G5s coming in at $599 and $1099 (education), respectively, I fail to see how people continue to say Macs are too expensive. Even Walt Mossberg notes "If you tried to match the specs of the base iMac G5 in a traditional Dell tower, you'd also pay more. A Dell Dimension 4600, with the best processor, Windows XP Pro, the best 17-inch flat-panel monitor, a CD recorder and the same graphics card, costs $7 more than the 17-inch iMac. And it's much bulkier and uglier."

The only way to effectively deal with spyware is to block it across the board on the network. Looking for a clientside software solution is ineffective as it requires installation of what is essentially a personal FW on each computer and becomes a major IT headache to manage.
Here is one article (WSJ login required) http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109805050471847 505,00.html
that describes an alternative solution to block spyware in the network and prevents requests from actually being loaded on the client PCs.

Another related article on where this was done http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?a rticleID=50500086&_loopback=1 but the article doesn't have in details.

WSJ's The Mossberg Solution reviews it today; pix both undocked and docked. Bottom line: he doesn't like it much; get a laptop. A quote:

But the worst feature of the OQO is the awful way you have to use it on a desktop. It has a sort of docking cradle, but the cradle lacks the array of ports and connectors familiar on laptop docking cradles. Instead, the OQO comes with a very long, stiff, weird cable that has various ports and connectors embedded in it at intervals. You plug the cable into the cradle.

WSJ's The Mossberg Solution reviews it today; pix both undocked and docked. Bottom line: he doesn't like it much; get a laptop. A quote:

But the worst feature of the OQO is the awful way you have to use it on a desktop. It has a sort of docking cradle, but the cradle lacks the array of ports and connectors familiar on laptop docking cradles. Instead, the OQO comes with a very long, stiff, weird cable that has various ports and connectors embedded in it at intervals. You plug the cable into the cradle.

I'm curious (assuming the original writer is reading this) about how that writer would respond to Mossberg's criticism.

He knows all and speaks in a way that doesn't make thier eyes gloss over.

Interesting, indeed. Online here, in case anyone else is also looking for it.