Slashdot Mirror
News at a Glance
chris writes: "If you're too lazy to read headlines, a new way to find writings might just save your soul. Paradoxically, this site is showing all the pictures found in news and reviews over the Internet. Nothing to read there, just thumbnail galleries sorted by theme (with, of course, links to the original articles). This format is showing some interesting side-effects. First, you can see what's hot lately because the same picture is repeated over your screen. It is also very effective when looking for reviews of tech toys or computer gizmos... spotting a CPU or a japanese robot among other items is almost instantaneous. Another thing to notice is that pictures of human faces seem to keep the lead over pie charts and battlefields... they are a good clue to figure what an article is about."
It would be much more useful if it adds a short caption/title under the images instead of just the name of the source. I think it is quite good for slashdotters, as most of us don't RTFA. Now we can simply RTFP.
how is that any better than the pictures already at news.google.com ?
Sorry, but it seems something that someone with good scripting abilities can do in a matter of hours.
This paid my last vacation, it mi
Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons created a superhero, Ozymandias, in their 1985 graphic novel WATCHMEN. He had a huge wall of TV screens that showed the whole world's channels, each screen switching randomly every few seconds. Being incredibly intelligent, he could divine the state of the world through these Burroughsian blipvert glimpses, like a prophet reading entrails. This page reminded me of Ozymandias.
This site doesn't strike me as being very different from Google News. The only difference seems to be that Google includes short captions for each item, while this one just shows you a picture.
If they could just include some text/descriptions etc., it could be a worthy competitor to google.
My mom never taught me to sign.
But you did at least LATFP, didn't you?
Not really, we've already had TV for years.
People always seem to think that if there's a picture of something then it's the truth, but pictures are actually even easier to use when it comes to twisting the truth to fit your agenda. I don't mean actually editing the picture, but just using it so it fits your goal. Just alter the tagline and it changes a whole perspective. There was a series of ads for a radio statoin here that showed big pictures and would twist them. For example you'd see a bunch of small dots on a desert with fumes behind them so you could ony see they were vehicles and the tagline would read "Military offensive or rally race?"...
We live in an image-based, image-controlled world. I want my news without images, not made out of images.
Usually I have to lurch past interminable murders and battlefield pics to get to some maybe-already-read science story at the bottom of the page (on cnn).
But with this it was easy. I clicked on Top Stories more.. and skip the photos which I don't know what they are. Right away I see my two choices, what seems like a gorgeous tanned piece of royalty in a crimson and silver dress, or a stressed out techie on the phone. Hmmm, which should I pick? It's over in a microsecond and obviously everyone else here is making the same decision since the story (Halle on her Disastrous Love Life) is slashdotted. But the theory works. I don't know who the heck Halle is but now I want to know and save her from a bad boyfriend too!
I would even go for fewer thumbnails about 5 times the size of these and scrap the ones with bad pictures. That way we could see the news before it gets slashdotted. Next we'll evolve to networked torrents of femmes fatales (girls you pick hommes fatals or whatever you like). It is so much easier to make a decision without all those pesky letters they give me so much eyestrain anyway.
I reject that suggestion. If that is true, then explain to me why one can view heaps and heaps of pr0n and still recognise individual pictures as dupes in a database of, oh, 21Gigabytes worth. (I'm speaking on behalf of a friend, of course)
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
This is quite interesting to see that the same people asking for technical papers on IT are rejoicing about the prospect of feeling clever by looking at some non-sense pictures.
/.ers are not discussing more sharply such a decisive issue.
Of course, this is socially gratifying to be able to discuss on a shallow way of roughly every subject on Earth. But when you meet someone that truly knows what he/she is talking about (exactly the same way that people on /. know what they are talking about when it comes to IT), then you are fucked up. It's worth to get involved in a more serious way of learning how our world is rotating.This is exactly what I try to do by visiting this site, and learning from people that are competent on this precise subject.
I'm not going to discuss about the strength of the immediate impact of a very intuitive and emotional object, ie a picture, a photography. I think history gave us some very interesting examples of misuse of information through pictures, videos, etc. My main point is that we should be careful, because our relationship to visual stimuli are not that rational ; you can go there if you want to learn more about the debate on the power of pictures, and what they really represent in our society.
Our world is by now so complex, so wide-open, that only strong and addictive stimuli can catch our attention. This is not surprising that the story of pictural representations is tightly related to the complexification of the world we're living in right now.
Thus, I have such an admiration for photographers such as James Nachtwey; what the folks like him did and still do is all the more useful than everyday brings a little more sadness to our daily lives.
But in no manner they represent - and themselves acknowledge it frankly - the truth. Because the truth is not in a picture, nor it is in a series of pictures. Photographers are here to draw our attention to urgent, revolting, funny, clever, ie interesting subjects. But I hate nothing more than people going to see Rwanda's genocide exposition in a museum, and then coming back with the so good-conscience feeling about the fact that yes, they did something, and what's more, they understood the problem.
Pictures are a beginning. I see a beautiful -yes, beautiful- picture of kids starving in Ouganda, my first reaction is to take some time and read papers about it. If I have some interest in Africa's demise (yes, yes, you'll see that in some time, the Southern part of Africa will be empty of black people), and if I have some time to spend on that, I'll read very different papers. Read NGO reports on the subject. Try to understand how I can be of any help. Etc. etc. etc.
A site that is supposed to make you understand the whole international actuality with pictures and snippets is the best way, first to make Ignorance's realm all the more important, and second to encourage, indeed, lazzyness. I don't even see why
And this is really what a responsible citizen should do with the general purpose information.
Regards,
Jdif
Let's overcome our weakness.
a picture is worth a thousand words...
the pictures(images) on the site are around 1 kb which is about 1000 bytes which is about one thousand words
hence a picture is really word about a thousand words!!
1. make 1 kb sized images and substitute for long news articles
2. save bandwidth
3. ???
4. profit!!!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index2&cid=7 02
All photos, click to read.