Dude I totally agree. CSM is great and like you I was wary at first. No, the news sites I try and avoid (~90% of the time) are anything belonging to that spawn of cthulhu Murdoch.
If for some inexplicable reason, the news industry starts going insane and declares that they are putting up pay-walls everywhere, then Google could head 'em off at the pass by agreeing to split their advertising revenue from news.google.com to the publishers whose article blurb's are shown for a given page view. Of course, the assumption here is that news publishers could be made profitable with just a bit more advertising revenue. If they are out by an order of magnitude, then this "solution" won't save them either.
As an aside, I'm a keen Google news lurker, however I will sometimes click on a link belonging to a news publisher other than the main one whose article blurb is shown. That's because I choose to boycott certain publishers. I'm not sure if gNews is adaptive or not (I read while logged in) however so far it doesn't seem like it.
Value is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, money is value, but so is the customers' good-will. By releasing this, CBS could increase their "good-karma-mind-share" among the public i.e. some relatively cheap, good publicity. If they were smart, they could setup a website to allow the public to download the material in question - don't tell me there aren't ways for this to end up with a net benefit for CBS. None of what I just described "viloates the principles of capitalism". Its just that people used to being bloody-minded are quite happy to cut off their nose to spite their face.
> The copies are their property to do with as they see fit.
Indeed, and since they have (as yet) not figured out a way to "monetize" these shows, they would, I'm sure, rather see the tapes destroyed rather than release them for consumption in the public domain.
I'm pretty sure this behaviour can be referred to as an act of bastardry.
I get the "good journalism costs money" argument. However, what this shows is that while it is possible for businesses to make money off internet advertising, the Times couldn't figure out how to do it.
While I doubt we'll ever know, my guess is that their revenue from subscription will be less than that from advertising. If their top tier talent hang around, they will bleed money until they are bought by someone with deeper pockets (who will reverse this dumb-ass decision and start some serious cost cutting). If they walk, then the value of the business will shrink making them an unlikely target. My guess is the latter. The talent will walk. An "indie" Krugman/Friedman/Dowd blog could probably earn enough advertising revenue to support them. The rest will disappear.
If that happens then there will be a REAL shakeup in the old-school media franchises.
Look, these residents may be complete fucking loons but...
According to TFA, iBurst furnished technical reports proving the tower was turned off in early October.
In other news, British American Tobacco furnished reports showing that cigarettes have no negative health effects. In other news, Exxon furnished reports showing that increases in CO2 are likely to transform the world into a tropical paradise. In other news, CIA medical officers report that water-boarding releases calming endorphins in detainees.
> And should they really be using wireless if Lucifer is the Lord of the Air?
Isn't Lucifer also known as the "bringer of light" which would imply lord of fibre-optic communications? On reflection, perhaps he is the lord of all high-speed communications technologies.
If this twat thinks that privacy is no longer a social norm, where's the video's of him masturbating to pictures of George Orwell? The blog describing his plushy fantasies. The tweets giving everyone blow-by-blow updates to the size of his bank balance.
The reality is that even the unthinking morons that post pics/vids/words of themselves doing cringeworthy, career-limiting, dumb shit, STILL make a choice about what to post. There's still plenty of stuff that they don't want ANYONE knowing. The line may have moved over the last 20 years, but it hasn't disappeared.
The best thing you can do is internal advocacy. Keep reminding people how this "open source stuff" has helped deliver projects on time and under-budget (if it has). Keep reminding managers how well they've done to save taxpayers' money. By helping to change attitudes of management and raising the visibility of OSS to other stakeholders, you're making it easier for the next project for which OSS could be considered.
Always remember though that the business case trumps all. Just make sure that your business case includes all the relevant factors (TCO, maintainability, flexibility,...) in which OSS often shines. If your business case for OSS doesn't stack up for a particular project - then don't push it. You are an advocate for doing your own job for your own company the best way possible - this may often mean using OSS. You are (most probably) NOT paid to be an OSS zealot or fanboi.
Spot on. I'd also add that since telcos are already complaining about the data-load that the iPhone (and others) are adding to their networks, the cost of the kind of volumes that would be needed make the "web" a decent mobile app platform is (for the moment) prohibitive.
But let's say that bandwidth goes up and cost comes down, your final point "can you access them all in the same way from web apps?" is the final nail in the coffin. As a result of the differences, developers will make (again) the same decision that they've often faced in the past i.e. develop for the platform with the biggest market share, OR can I make enough money of the others to justify the extra cost in custom code for their platforms?
> I am thoroughly convinced that no amount of evidence at this point can convince the skeptics.
You've hit the nail on the head. In Australia, the Senator (Nick Minchin) that led the putsch against his own party leader (the one who was negotiating amendements to the government's proposed ETS scheme), is as hardcore a denier as they come. And I say denier, because he was (mid-90's) as equally opposed to the links between passive smoking and ill-health (at that time he was trumpeting a study by the Tobacco Institute as validating his views).
Most people currently questioning the reality of anthropogenic climate change can be categorised as follows: - genuinely confused or skeptical people who have often been on the receiving end of mixed messages - those that just can't trust what they don't (or won't put the effort to) understand (e.g. science, scientists) - oil/coal lobby shills/politicians who are happy to sell their mother if it suits their agenda/bank-balance - complete kooks (TimeCube guy; the LaRouchies; David Icke; NWO conspiracy nuts etc)
Of these groups, only the first is really open to persuasion. Nick Minchin is at best in the second group, although he is more than likely in the third.
Have any of the principles responded to why they said what they did?
Not that this changes the fundamentals of the science, which I believe are quite simple, ie: - CO2 is a known greenhouse gas (experimentally confirmed since 19th century) - natural CO2 output is being added to by human activity. = more energy being trapped by the atmosphere and added to this system we call the Earth.
All the rest, models and predictions are arguing the when and the how rather than the if. The "if" is so simple (to my mind) that it surely is beyond scientific dispute.
Translating freely... from what? Show us some specific emails! Where's the so smoking gun? Or are you parroting a line you blindly believe from some right-wing blog?
C'mon - I'm still waiting for someone to actually quote one of the specific emails verbatim with a "smoking gun" quote, that unmasks the great leftist conspiracy. Where are the command emails from the Illuminati ordering the suppression of data? Where are the threats to keep wavering conspirators in line?
Whoever modded you up to +5 insightful obviously has no fucking idea what insight is.
OK buddy. Link to the actual emails that support your statements or I call complete bullshit.
To review, you state (grammatical errors aside): - "data was being manipulated" - "material subject to FOIA was being systematically and deliberately purged" - "the system was being manipulated to keep out opposing views and get editors removed"
The raw-data (i.e. stolen emails) that you're basing this on are presumably available on some right-wing/skeptic web site. So why don't you cite some specific instances? Specific phrases and paragraphs from specific emails.
I've lost more productivity to NetHack in various forms and platforms since the late 80's (at that time on a VAX 780 running VMS) than any other game. I'm currently playing iNetHack on the iPhone. There's no reason to play in ascii any more - almost every port supports graphical tile-sets if the thought of ASCII puts you off. There are excellent guides available as well (http://nethack.wikia.com/).
Its not the easiest game to "win" (I've only ascended 3 times in over 20 years), however if you define "win" as hours of rewarding game play and depth of detail that is pretty amazing then you'll love NetHack.
My favourite feature of NetHack? Coming across the "bones" of previous games with the (now cursed) inventory you were carrying at the time you died.
Random nethack tip: if you come across a grey stone - kick it first. If it "thumps" - DO NOT PICK IT UP!
Slashdot Mirror
> This thing looks more like a Jet Refrigerator or a Jet Stove that you attach to it.
First thoughts? Wile.E.Coyote and the wonderful products from ACME.
Dude, while most people around here have heard of Lost In Space, most are too young to have actually watched the original TV series. Shame.
Dude I totally agree. CSM is great and like you I was wary at first. No, the news sites I try and avoid (~90% of the time) are anything belonging to that spawn of cthulhu Murdoch.
If for some inexplicable reason, the news industry starts going insane and declares that they are putting up pay-walls everywhere, then Google could head 'em off at the pass by agreeing to split their advertising revenue from news.google.com to the publishers whose article blurb's are shown for a given page view. Of course, the assumption here is that news publishers could be made profitable with just a bit more advertising revenue. If they are out by an order of magnitude, then this "solution" won't save them either.
As an aside, I'm a keen Google news lurker, however I will sometimes click on a link belonging to a news publisher other than the main one whose article blurb is shown. That's because I choose to boycott certain publishers. I'm not sure if gNews is adaptive or not (I read while logged in) however so far it doesn't seem like it.
Value is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, money is value, but so is the customers' good-will. By releasing this, CBS could increase their "good-karma-mind-share" among the public i.e. some relatively cheap, good publicity. If they were smart, they could setup a website to allow the public to download the material in question - don't tell me there aren't ways for this to end up with a net benefit for CBS. None of what I just described "viloates the principles of capitalism". Its just that people used to being bloody-minded are quite happy to cut off their nose to spite their face.
> The copies are their property to do with as they see fit.
Indeed, and since they have (as yet) not figured out a way to "monetize" these shows, they would, I'm sure, rather see the tapes destroyed rather than release them for consumption in the public domain.
I'm pretty sure this behaviour can be referred to as an act of bastardry.
Huzzah!
Seriously though, it seems that the management's earlier lesson didn't sink in too well:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/17/new-york-times-figures-out-the-web-its-free/
I get the "good journalism costs money" argument. However, what this shows is that while it is possible for businesses to make money off internet advertising, the Times couldn't figure out how to do it.
While I doubt we'll ever know, my guess is that their revenue from subscription will be less than that from advertising. If their top tier talent hang around, they will bleed money until they are bought by someone with deeper pockets (who will reverse this dumb-ass decision and start some serious cost cutting). If they walk, then the value of the business will shrink making them an unlikely target. My guess is the latter. The talent will walk. An "indie" Krugman/Friedman/Dowd blog could probably earn enough advertising revenue to support them. The rest will disappear.
If that happens then there will be a REAL shakeup in the old-school media franchises.
Look, these residents may be complete fucking loons but...
According to TFA, iBurst furnished technical reports proving the tower was turned off in early October.
In other news, British American Tobacco furnished reports showing that cigarettes have no negative health effects.
In other news, Exxon furnished reports showing that increases in CO2 are likely to transform the world into a tropical paradise.
In other news, CIA medical officers report that water-boarding releases calming endorphins in detainees.
I'm just saying...
:-)
My kingdom for mod points!
The other one.
(oblig. Young Ones reference for the kiddies)
> And should they really be using wireless if Lucifer is the Lord of the Air?
Isn't Lucifer also known as the "bringer of light" which would imply lord of fibre-optic communications?
On reflection, perhaps he is the lord of all high-speed communications technologies.
If this twat thinks that privacy is no longer a social norm, where's the video's of him masturbating to pictures of George Orwell? The blog describing his plushy fantasies. The tweets giving everyone blow-by-blow updates to the size of his bank balance.
The reality is that even the unthinking morons that post pics/vids/words of themselves doing cringeworthy, career-limiting, dumb shit, STILL make a choice about what to post. There's still plenty of stuff that they don't want ANYONE knowing. The line may have moved over the last 20 years, but it hasn't disappeared.
Would that be paper tapes or those new fangled magnetic ones?
And it's less than 140 characters.
Just saying...
The best thing you can do is internal advocacy. Keep reminding people how this "open source stuff" has helped deliver projects on time and under-budget (if it has). Keep reminding managers how well they've done to save taxpayers' money. By helping to change attitudes of management and raising the visibility of OSS to other stakeholders, you're making it easier for the next project for which OSS could be considered.
Always remember though that the business case trumps all. Just make sure that your business case includes all the relevant factors (TCO, maintainability, flexibility, ...) in which OSS often shines. If your business case for OSS doesn't stack up for a particular project - then don't push it. You are an advocate for doing your own job for your own company the best way possible - this may often mean using OSS. You are (most probably) NOT paid to be an OSS zealot or fanboi.
Spot on. I'd also add that since telcos are already complaining about the data-load that the iPhone (and others) are adding to their networks, the cost of the kind of volumes that would be needed make the "web" a decent mobile app platform is (for the moment) prohibitive.
But let's say that bandwidth goes up and cost comes down, your final point "can you access them all in the same way from web apps?" is the final nail in the coffin. As a result of the differences, developers will make (again) the same decision that they've often faced in the past i.e. develop for the platform with the biggest market share, OR can I make enough money of the others to justify the extra cost in custom code for their platforms?
Ahh yes, the selfish. Completely missed them, so the list now stands at:
- confused
- suspicious
- selfish
- liars
- crazies
Actually, selfish & liars are probably variations on a theme. Both have something they are protecting/benefiting from.
> I am thoroughly convinced that no amount of evidence at this point can convince the skeptics.
You've hit the nail on the head. In Australia, the Senator (Nick Minchin) that led the putsch against his own party leader (the one who was negotiating amendements to the government's proposed ETS scheme), is as hardcore a denier as they come. And I say denier, because he was (mid-90's) as equally opposed to the links between passive smoking and ill-health (at that time he was trumpeting a study by the Tobacco Institute as validating his views).
Check out:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbotts-warriors-place-their-trust-in-an-ancient-virtue-20091211-kokj.html?skin=text-only
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/nick-minchin-was-a-sceptic-on-tobacco/story-e6frgczf-1225805535960
Most people currently questioning the reality of anthropogenic climate change can be categorised as follows:
- genuinely confused or skeptical people who have often been on the receiving end of mixed messages
- those that just can't trust what they don't (or won't put the effort to) understand (e.g. science, scientists)
- oil/coal lobby shills/politicians who are happy to sell their mother if it suits their agenda/bank-balance
- complete kooks (TimeCube guy; the LaRouchies; David Icke; NWO conspiracy nuts etc)
Of these groups, only the first is really open to persuasion. Nick Minchin is at best in the second group, although he is more than likely in the third.
Wow.
Just wow.
Have any of the principles responded to why they said what they did?
Not that this changes the fundamentals of the science, which I believe are quite simple, ie:
- CO2 is a known greenhouse gas (experimentally confirmed since 19th century)
- natural CO2 output is being added to by human activity.
= more energy being trapped by the atmosphere and added to this system we call the Earth.
All the rest, models and predictions are arguing the when and the how rather than the if. The "if" is so simple (to my mind) that it surely is beyond scientific dispute.
Still - wow.
Translating freely... from what? Show us some specific emails! Where's the so smoking gun? Or are you parroting a line you blindly believe from some right-wing blog?
C'mon - I'm still waiting for someone to actually quote one of the specific emails verbatim with a "smoking gun" quote, that unmasks the great leftist conspiracy. Where are the command emails from the Illuminati ordering the suppression of data? Where are the threats to keep wavering conspirators in line?
Whoever modded you up to +5 insightful obviously has no fucking idea what insight is.
OK buddy. Link to the actual emails that support your statements or I call complete bullshit.
To review, you state (grammatical errors aside):
- "data was being manipulated"
- "material subject to FOIA was being systematically and deliberately purged"
- "the system was being manipulated to keep out opposing views and get editors removed"
The raw-data (i.e. stolen emails) that you're basing this on are presumably available on some right-wing/skeptic web site. So why don't you cite some specific instances? Specific phrases and paragraphs from specific emails.
Go ahead, make my day.
> Who knows what world leaders will do? Cheapest thing is probably just to beef up their militaries and shoot incoming refugees.
Precisely.
http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/SecurityandClimate_Final.pdf
"By 2025, 40% of the world's population will live in areas suffering severe water shortages"
"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."
Cardinal Richelieu
> Water beats rock every time.
I thought it was paper that beat rock?
As the story tag says...NetHack.
I've lost more productivity to NetHack in various forms and platforms since the late 80's (at that time on a VAX 780 running VMS) than any other game.
I'm currently playing iNetHack on the iPhone.
There's no reason to play in ascii any more - almost every port supports graphical tile-sets if the thought of ASCII puts you off.
There are excellent guides available as well (http://nethack.wikia.com/).
Its not the easiest game to "win" (I've only ascended 3 times in over 20 years), however if you define "win" as hours of rewarding game play and depth of detail that is pretty amazing then you'll love NetHack.
My favourite feature of NetHack? Coming across the "bones" of previous games with the (now cursed) inventory you were carrying at the time you died.
Random nethack tip: if you come across a grey stone - kick it first. If it "thumps" - DO NOT PICK IT UP!