Slashdot is very very much a blog, which is a chronologically arranged web page. You're really bitching about personal home pages, which used to exist as regular ole' web pages, but now are blogs because they're easier to setup (no HTML required) and because the "chronological" nature of blogs works very well for journals.
If blogs didn't exist we'd just have more geocities pages getting lots of links.
Blogs are read only by bloggers and the press, and present absolutely no interest to normal people (including me).
Considering that you're reading a blog, I think it's pretty fair that your only counting web pages that you think suck as blogs... so of course you don't like the results. Amazingly, no one is willing to tag their blog as "shohat will think this sucks, so please don't search me."
In short, NASA is faced with a slightly declining budget (not in actual dollars, but in dollars when accounting for inflation) at least partially because of tightening budgets in the U.S. due to rising costs across government and Bush's tax cuts. Recently, the Republicans were both big on tax cuts and big on spending (which IMO was a key to their political success), but the public is finally starting to catch on and demand some sort of responsibility. (I'm not gonna say Democrats would have been particularly better for NASA... only that they were not in power and fairly irrelevant in recent years.) More importantly for NASA, however, is that the agency has been tasked with very expensive priorities to go to the Moon/Mars within its current budget, which means other programs are experiencing cuts.
Iraq spending is obviously a major constraint as well, since it's a bit pricey, although that hasn't really been handled within the normal budget process.
The budget process is long, ugly and usually late, but begins with a proposal by the President, which is then mixed and mashed up by the Congress to meet its fancy. Both the House and Senate then consider the budget and negotiate a final budget, which is sent to the President, who can either sign it or veto it. Inevitably, they miss the deadline and pass a resolution to continue operating the government at previous years' budget levels for a few months before actually passing a bill. Essentially this means all the agencies spend most of the year fretting about how much money they have and not figuring out how best to spend it.
The agencies will also, of course, lobby the government for larger budgets and even threaten to do something crazy like cut an important but very small... say $4 million... program that nobody in their right mind would cut... showing to Congress just how tight their budget is. (Not that this is necessarily a bluff or that this program is actually important... they could be spending $4 million on monkeys and typewriters for all I know.)
The above concept appears in local government budgets as the "cut the fire department budget."
There's a huge huge difference. Sony needs to get millions of PS3s' out into the market quickly so that developers continue to develop the games that make the gaming system worthwhile to own. If they don't get lots of takers, and quickly, the system has a good chance of failing under its own wait.
Conversely, Apple is shooting for 1% of the phone market and they can likely do this much more gracefully. While economies of scale will bring Apple's production costs... the content (a.k.a. access to the phone system and iTMS music & videos) is already there and self-sustainging.
It's still a huge amount of money that I'm not going to pay, but trick is Apple doesn't need the device to be the dominant phone in the market for it to be a roaring success.
How is the U.S. government censoring the information you're want about Iraq? Oh, wait, it isn't. The U.S. is not perfect, but don't throw away perspective because of it.
Yahoo had a directory, but had farmed out the search engine (to Google for a while actually), until about 2 years ago when they bought Inktomi and ramped up development on their own proprietary search engine.
Their point is that their in-house search engine is on par (you can have your own opinion here) with Google's even though they started it just two years ago. Granted, they bought Inktomi, which had been working on its own for quite awhile.
Uh, this is definitely not an "export" tax as the state that is allowing the import is taxing the product. Even an "import" tax would be hard to say, as it's a tax on the sale of that product, not a tax on the importation of that product.
I suppose this is fine for missing a single episode, but for me and episodes of currently running series, I'm thinking a DVR is going to be a better way to go.
Obviously DVR is the better way to go, assuming you're planning to continuing paying the $40+ you're probably paying for cable. I split a cable subscription with my roomates, but if I got my own place and the offerings were a little bit more developed, I'd seriously consider dumping cable and paying iTube.
Aperture, it seems, does the same thing only non-explicitly -- it converts the RAW file into its own internal format and lets you edit the image. This does *not* mean working directly with RAW images -- you just hid away from the user the conversion step. And I doubt very much that if I, say, make some Curves contrast adjustments Aperture will re-mosaic the image and re-create the Bayer pattern RAW file with my contrast adjustments.
I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what Aperture is doing.
As the article says: In Aperture there isn't a one-time RAW import like with the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in or applications like Capture One; it's ostensibly always reimporting the RAW file.
And it does it fast. The problem, as the article points out, is that it also does it sloppily.
It's not strictly "plagarism" because companies and groups that put out press releases HOPE that their release and info gets picked up. A press release won't have "copyright" just for this reason. However, this reporter was doing lazy journalism (well strictly speaking he wasn't even doing journalism). Oddly, however, you continued to contact the/REPORTER/.
The reporter got caught not doing his (or her) job. He's lazy and incompetent and in most news organizations would get severely repremanded for it -- yet you expected him to report this to his boss.
Yes, contact he reporter first, but then contact an editor or someone (anyone) else to bring it to attention to people who will make the reporter regret it.
Hopefully GMail use the most secure, most effective form of virus scanning, block all executable attachments.
Well, I can confirm that GMail does block executable attatchments, even in zip files. I was coincidentally trying to send a zip file of a small program from my office to home and ran google spit the thing back with warning that: "filename.zip contains an executable file. For security reasons, Gmail does not allow you to send this type of file. "
Newspapers -- especially local ones -- have all sorts of issues when it comes to the internet. They're slow changing beasts and the people who run these things often technically minded. I think all of them could learn a lot from your write-up, but you're ignoring the elepant in the room.
Rob, you mention my local paper [The Washington Post] as one that's doing it right, or at least "better," although I believe they still have lots to learn. I agree, not only do they have a great site, but they makes a "profit" off of it.
There's only one problem. That "profit" is largely the result of reporting that is hugely subsidized by the paper. WashingtonPost.com is not paying for the correspondents in Baghdad or the reporter in the schoolboard meetings. They just take ask the paper for it.
People want to read lots for on the web, but the "concentration of advertising value" doesn't support paying a reporter to live in Baghdad and it sure doesn't buy him/her a security team, a bullet proof vest, a translator and the the sattelite link to file his 400 words story that will be largely summarized by 10,000 blogs in 10 minutes.
[See: Slashdot.org]
I don't particularly care if newspapers surivive, although I love newspapers and read the Post or NYT every day and it would be a shame to see them die. What I'm scared by is that the reporting they do will die with them because the internet so dilutes the advertising dollar that no one can afford to do real reporting.
Think you can turn to TV or radio? Well their real reporting is almost completly based off of newspapers. Think the blogs will take it up? Sure, in 200 word tidbits, but say goodbye to the investigative report on the local schools.
If you don't like newspapers, maybe you're not concerned. But they're the base of our news system. They're not perfect, but if all the newspapers went black today -- we'd lose a huge source of information.
As an aside, you mention keyword targeting as the basic solution to the profit problem. And this could be an answer, but expect to start reading a lot about Mesothelioma and Ipods or whatever keywords pay. Don't think newspapers aren't aware of this, they're just also aware of huge ethical consideration that also come along with them. In fact most newspapers go to great pains to do reverse keyword advertising and try to airline ads away from stories about airlines.
You can't copyright facts. You can only copyright how those facts are described.
I can copyright "ExitWindowsEx has Slashdot UserID number 250475," but I can't copyright the fact that ExitWindowsEx has that ID number. In fact, now that I have this knowledge, I can even sell it.
We didn't have enough money to put a man in a track suit up a ladder! I mean, I would've been there,
"Go man, go!" "
I'm going, I'm going! 'Ang on!"
"Just hang on to the ladder!"
"Hello, Swindon, I am here. Swindon, can you hear me?"
"Swindon here, we are monitoring you on our instruments at the moment, we've got you on a tuba." "There should be a bigger laugh for that joke, I think."
"Yeah, I can't quite understand it; I thought it was really funny. Swindon, a knackered, kind of Fresno town."
"They don't seem to be going for it."
"They're obviously bastards."
"Anyway, Swindon, I'm nearly at the Moon... actually, that's a bit of an understatement, that one.
Have you got another big ladder, another bit of ladder? I don't think we're quite at the Moon yet, but I can see right over the top of the houses! Fantastic!"
Does the Washington Post, or any other mainstream media outlet, publish a story whenever an exploit is released in the wild for Internet Explorer? In the last year, maybe if it is actually affecting some media companies. Otherwise no.
God, it appears we have to go all the way back to... well last month to find the last story about an unpatched security flaw on IE on the same washingtonpost.com blog by Brian Krebs, which frequently discusses security flaws.
Stop getting all defensive, just because he wrote about your beloved Firefox. It's not becoming.
Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that companies trying to secure "longterm revenues" are constantly preventing society from progressing as a whole? If a new idea or technology emerges that is going to put you out of business, it's time to do something else. Perpetuating the same crap year after year after year serves no purpose other than hindering progress.
Notice that Sanfilippo didn't say profits? He works for a university press. He's just hoping that small academic presses can survive despite Google making it really easy to view much of their work for free.
The acedemic press is valuable because it both creates and distribute. Google just distributes, so if the technology kills the academic press, which rarely makes a profit anyway, Google will have nothing to distribute.
Yes, Google has set limits, but what if they do away with them. What if they get hacked and Google decides more page views is better -- as long as they made "some" effort. What if some other entity comes along and offers more page views.
I'm trying to find out where in our Constitution does the Federal Government find an enumerated power to pay for this.
Wow, you can access the Constitution? I mean it was written in 1776. That's a long time ago. Good thing somebody thought to save it!
We're saving lots of data, because 1) lots of it is important and 2) we have very little perspective on it yet. In 200 years we might very well have a very different idea of what was important today.
All material in the BBS Documentary Interview Collection is licensed with a Creative Commons Attribute-Sharealike License; it is intended to be duplicated, remixed and used as a foundation for further documentaries or research projects.
CNET was not trying to "out" a Google Exec., they were trying to make a point that lots of seemingly private information is out on the web, made more ever more accessible to Google.
CNET did it with people. Google does it with computers. They're doing the same exact tasks, it's only a matter of degree. That's why Google's objection is so pathetic, they don't want to accept the negatives of the world they've created.
I think it makes my life better overall, but that doesn't mean their arn't negatives.
Ok, here's the thing. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should. Geeks, and it appears Google engineers, think that because something's "cool", it's good, regardless of the use.
I know many people will respond with "Well I can do it, so it's ok, because if it's possible to find out, it's public, and there's no difference between information being buried in the libraries and other physical public records and it being collected published in a publicly accessible and searchable electronic database". No, it isn't ok and yes there is a difference. That's the point. The chances are most of you wouldn't know any of this if Google hadn't made it searchable it because you'd never have bothered to find it out.
Finally, what Google and Schmidt have failed to realize is that he's no longer just a private citizen. He's a public figure. He owns $1.5 billion in Google stock.... well it's gonna be disclosed. He donated money, it's going to be disclosed. He had a bio written for a speach he gave, it's going to be disclosed.
If you don't want to be a public figure, don't become a CEO of a multi-billion company and don't become an actor. Duh.
ME: "Did you just call the man who invented the "world wide web" a troll?"
YOU: "Don't mean for this to be a troll..."
Oh, you didn't. I just can't read. I'm pretty sure this is the crap TBL was talking about. Perhaps, to improve things, Slashdot should have a delete feature.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 3 includes Gecko 1.9, which passes Acid.
Slashdot is very very much a blog, which is a chronologically arranged web page. You're really bitching about personal home pages, which used to exist as regular ole' web pages, but now are blogs because they're easier to setup (no HTML required) and because the "chronological" nature of blogs works very well for journals.
If blogs didn't exist we'd just have more geocities pages getting lots of links.
Blogs are read only by bloggers and the press, and present absolutely no interest to normal people (including me).
Considering that you're reading a blog, I think it's pretty fair that your only counting web pages that you think suck as blogs... so of course you don't like the results. Amazingly, no one is willing to tag their blog as "shohat will think this sucks, so please don't search me."
In short, NASA is faced with a slightly declining budget (not in actual dollars, but in dollars when accounting for inflation) at least partially because of tightening budgets in the U.S. due to rising costs across government and Bush's tax cuts. Recently, the Republicans were both big on tax cuts and big on spending (which IMO was a key to their political success), but the public is finally starting to catch on and demand some sort of responsibility. (I'm not gonna say Democrats would have been particularly better for NASA... only that they were not in power and fairly irrelevant in recent years.) More importantly for NASA, however, is that the agency has been tasked with very expensive priorities to go to the Moon/Mars within its current budget, which means other programs are experiencing cuts.
... say $4 million ... program that nobody in their right mind would cut... showing to Congress just how tight their budget is. (Not that this is necessarily a bluff or that this program is actually important... they could be spending $4 million on monkeys and typewriters for all I know.)
Iraq spending is obviously a major constraint as well, since it's a bit pricey, although that hasn't really been handled within the normal budget process.
The budget process is long, ugly and usually late, but begins with a proposal by the President, which is then mixed and mashed up by the Congress to meet its fancy. Both the House and Senate then consider the budget and negotiate a final budget, which is sent to the President, who can either sign it or veto it. Inevitably, they miss the deadline and pass a resolution to continue operating the government at previous years' budget levels for a few months before actually passing a bill. Essentially this means all the agencies spend most of the year fretting about how much money they have and not figuring out how best to spend it.
The agencies will also, of course, lobby the government for larger budgets and even threaten to do something crazy like cut an important but very small
The above concept appears in local government budgets as the "cut the fire department budget."
There's a huge huge difference. Sony needs to get millions of PS3s' out into the market quickly so that developers continue to develop the games that make the gaming system worthwhile to own. If they don't get lots of takers, and quickly, the system has a good chance of failing under its own wait.
Conversely, Apple is shooting for 1% of the phone market and they can likely do this much more gracefully. While economies of scale will bring Apple's production costs... the content (a.k.a. access to the phone system and iTMS music & videos) is already there and self-sustainging.
It's still a huge amount of money that I'm not going to pay, but trick is Apple doesn't need the device to be the dominant phone in the market for it to be a roaring success.
How is the U.S. government censoring the information you're want about Iraq? Oh, wait, it isn't. The U.S. is not perfect, but don't throw away perspective because of it.
Yahoo had a directory, but had farmed out the search engine (to Google for a while actually), until about 2 years ago when they bought Inktomi and ramped up development on their own proprietary search engine.
Their point is that their in-house search engine is on par (you can have your own opinion here) with Google's even though they started it just two years ago. Granted, they bought Inktomi, which had been working on its own for quite awhile.
Uh, this is definitely not an "export" tax as the state that is allowing the import is taxing the product. Even an "import" tax would be hard to say, as it's a tax on the sale of that product, not a tax on the importation of that product.
It's great they didn't feel the need to DUPElicate efforts!
I suppose this is fine for missing a single episode, but for me and episodes of currently running series, I'm thinking a DVR is going to be a better way to go.
Obviously DVR is the better way to go, assuming you're planning to continuing paying the $40+ you're probably paying for cable. I split a cable subscription with my roomates, but if I got my own place and the offerings were a little bit more developed, I'd seriously consider dumping cable and paying iTube.
It's not strictly "plagarism" because companies and groups that put out press releases HOPE that their release and info gets picked up. A press release won't have "copyright" just for this reason. However, this reporter was doing lazy journalism (well strictly speaking he wasn't even doing journalism). Oddly, however, you continued to contact the /REPORTER/.
The reporter got caught not doing his (or her) job. He's lazy and incompetent and in most news organizations would get severely repremanded for it -- yet you expected him to report this to his boss.
Yes, contact he reporter first, but then contact an editor or someone (anyone) else to bring it to attention to people who will make the reporter regret it.
Hopefully GMail use the most secure, most effective form of virus scanning, block all executable attachments.
Well, I can confirm that GMail does block executable attatchments, even in zip files. I was coincidentally trying to send a zip file of a small program from my office to home and ran google spit the thing back with warning that: "filename.zip contains an executable file. For security reasons, Gmail does not allow you to send this type of file. "
Newspapers -- especially local ones -- have all sorts of issues when it comes to the internet. They're slow changing beasts and the people who run these things often technically minded. I think all of them could learn a lot from your write-up, but you're ignoring the elepant in the room.
Rob, you mention my local paper [The Washington Post] as one that's doing it right, or at least "better," although I believe they still have lots to learn. I agree, not only do they have a great site, but they makes a "profit" off of it.
There's only one problem. That "profit" is largely the result of reporting that is hugely subsidized by the paper. WashingtonPost.com is not paying for the correspondents in Baghdad or the reporter in the schoolboard meetings. They just take ask the paper for it.
People want to read lots for on the web, but the "concentration of advertising value" doesn't support paying a reporter to live in Baghdad and it sure doesn't buy him/her a security team, a bullet proof vest, a translator and the the sattelite link to file his 400 words story that will be largely summarized by 10,000 blogs in 10 minutes.
[See: Slashdot.org]
I don't particularly care if newspapers surivive, although I love newspapers and read the Post or NYT every day and it would be a shame to see them die. What I'm scared by is that the reporting they do will die with them because the internet so dilutes the advertising dollar that no one can afford to do real reporting.
Think you can turn to TV or radio? Well their real reporting is almost completly based off of newspapers. Think the blogs will take it up? Sure, in 200 word tidbits, but say goodbye to the investigative report on the local schools.
If you don't like newspapers, maybe you're not concerned. But they're the base of our news system. They're not perfect, but if all the newspapers went black today -- we'd lose a huge source of information.
As an aside, you mention keyword targeting as the basic solution to the profit problem. And this could be an answer, but expect to start reading a lot about Mesothelioma and Ipods or whatever keywords pay. Don't think newspapers aren't aware of this, they're just also aware of huge ethical consideration that also come along with them. In fact most newspapers go to great pains to do reverse keyword advertising and try to airline ads away from stories about airlines.
You can't copyright facts. You can only copyright how those facts are described.
I can copyright "ExitWindowsEx has Slashdot UserID number 250475," but I can't copyright the fact that ExitWindowsEx has that ID number. In fact, now that I have this knowledge, I can even sell it.
I'd suspect its spammers who set up an accounts to make sure their latest e-mails made it out into the world.
Does the Washington Post, or any other mainstream media outlet, publish a story whenever an exploit is released in the wild for Internet Explorer? In the last year, maybe if it is actually affecting some media companies. Otherwise no.
God, it appears we have to go all the way back to... well last month to find the last story about an unpatched security flaw on IE on the same washingtonpost.com blog by Brian Krebs, which frequently discusses security flaws.
Stop getting all defensive, just because he wrote about your beloved Firefox. It's not becoming.
Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that companies trying to secure "longterm revenues" are constantly preventing society from progressing as a whole? If a new idea or technology emerges that is going to put you out of business, it's time to do something else. Perpetuating the same crap year after year after year serves no purpose other than hindering progress.
Notice that Sanfilippo didn't say profits? He works for a university press. He's just hoping that small academic presses can survive despite Google making it really easy to view much of their work for free.
The acedemic press is valuable because it both creates and distribute. Google just distributes, so if the technology kills the academic press, which rarely makes a profit anyway, Google will have nothing to distribute.
Yes, Google has set limits, but what if they do away with them. What if they get hacked and Google decides more page views is better -- as long as they made "some" effort. What if some other entity comes along and offers more page views.
M.S. Word is a /Word Processor/ not a layout program. If you're that worried about carriage returns, margins, etc., you shouldn't be using Word.
I'm trying to find out where in our Constitution does the Federal Government find an enumerated power to pay for this.
Wow, you can access the Constitution? I mean it was written in 1776. That's a long time ago. Good thing somebody thought to save it!
We're saving lots of data, because 1) lots of it is important and 2) we have very little perspective on it yet. In 200 years we might very well have a very different idea of what was important today.
So your logic is that you have faith in your numbers because they are not representative of the Internet as a whole?
CNET did it with people. Google does it with computers. They're doing the same exact tasks, it's only a matter of degree. That's why Google's objection is so pathetic, they don't want to accept the negatives of the world they've created.
I think it makes my life better overall, but that doesn't mean their arn't negatives.
Finally, what Google and Schmidt have failed to realize is that he's no longer just a private citizen. He's a public figure. He owns $1.5 billion in Google stock.... well it's gonna be disclosed. He donated money, it's going to be disclosed. He had a bio written for a speach he gave, it's going to be disclosed.
If you don't want to be a public figure, don't become a CEO of a multi-billion company and don't become an actor. Duh.
ME: "Did you just call the man who invented the "world wide web" a troll?"
YOU: "Don't mean for this to be a troll..."
Oh, you didn't. I just can't read. I'm pretty sure this is the crap TBL was talking about. Perhaps, to improve things, Slashdot should have a delete feature.