Did you just call the man who invented the "world wide web" a troll?
His comments weren't particularly enlightening, but they were made in reaction to a question that basically asked "Are the good things on the internet worth the bad things?" His answer was a rejection of that question as a yes or no. Basically, all he's saying, is don't look to get rid of the thing, put your effort on improving it, like you would the rest of society.
Don't forget, Firfox involved a lot of work trying to look like IE. It's now gone beyond what IE ever did, but in terms of interface IE had a lot right.
Notably, AOL is also in the race with.... Mapquest. Even though that hasn't received much of an upgrade recently, they've got to be working on something and mapquest is still the 800 lb Gorilla. (Well 250 lb anyway). The threats are just too obvious not to respond to.
With AOL betting the company on free advertisement supported content (see AOL.com BETA these days), I'm sure an updated Mapquest is also on the way.
Interesting enough, Mapquest had satelite data along with road data a few years ago, but it dissappeared. Mapquest also for a time allowed you to click "east" or "west" and it would only change out the image instead of the entire page. It wasn't as good as Google, but it was a better interface. Of course, they killed it.
Consider ethanol as a means to store energy from nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, hydro or other clean energy sources and transport it to your auto's engine.
But, it's not considered that. It's considered a way "reduce pollution" as a fuel additive. It's being made with lots of electricity off the grid... using coal (eek) and natural gas (ok not soo bad).
Why should the government interfere? It's the free market that's finding a replacement for gasoline.
Because the free market does not at this time account for the real cost of environmental pollution.
The free market is so good because it provides very accurate price signals to account for time humans spend to make something. But (car manufacturers) are able to build cars and people are able to run their cars that cost pollution that they are not charged for.
Somebody, eventually, will pay that cost though. Either through increased health care or by eventually being forced to use and even cleaner vehicle because the environment has absorbed all it can.
Remember, purchasing a low-emission or no-emission does nothing to clean my air, so there's a huge free rider problem.
Re:let me explain something about longhorn...
on
Longhorn Beta Begins
·
· Score: 1
First, it's a code name not the official name. It's not really for marketing purposes. Second, its "longhorn" (not "long horn"). A longhorn is a breed of cattle.
Now why I want an OS named after a breed of cattle... I can't answer.
Desktop search is the voice recognition of the new century. It will sort of work, but never well enough to make it worth relying upon.
Uh, desktop search already works. It saves me hours every week. Using just directories is like maintaining a card catalog. Helpful, but limited and time consuming. Desktop search means I have access to every book's index with less work.
While WSJ's "online operations" may have earned more money, this doesn't really mean much. It's "print" operations earned very little money. Companies have operations that lose money all the itme, so if the online segment earned a $1, it earned "more."
Moreover, I suspect the online operation benefits hugely from all the WSJ content generated for the print publication that I suspect is not included in "online operations."
It's comparably easy to make money when you get 80% of your content for free.
within six months. It sort of blows me away that it's not already there. Netflix knows the movies I like much better than Amazon. It knows what I've seen, what I've rented twice. If I wanted to browse some movies to buy I'd go to Netflix and search around, before heading over to Amazon to actually place my order.
This is cute...likening Apple to WorldCom, Enron (trying to cover up massive accounting scandals), and the tobacco industry (trying to pretend they believe tobacco is not a deadly drug), to Apple (trying to protect its trade secrets and intellectual property).
If you don't think that the Tobacco industry's knowledge that it's product killed people was a "trade secret" than I don't know what is.
The one who committed the damage here was the one who talked to the blogger not the blogger.
To find Darwin's book on line to read, rather than buy, just use regular google. Book search seems to be just a commercial venture.
Or am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing something. Google's book feature is not at all aimed at finding you full text books to read. It's designed to add the knowledge stored in book form to Google's search. And, conversely, to add the power of Google's search to books. That's why they're putting copyrighted works up. And that's why publishers can't get too peeved about it.
If you
Blogging isn't journalism.Journalism is journalism
on
Is Blogging Journalism?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Journalism is irrespective of any medium -- and that includes blogs.
A journalist is a journalist whether they spread they spread their work through newspapers, magazines, trade publications, pamphlets, zines, radio, television, web sites, blogs or even as town crier.
Do a search for "Linux," for crying out loud, and take a gander at the first thing that shows up for display: Right, a sponsored link from Microsoft that lies about Linux.
Did you bother trying it on Google? Oh right, same friggin sponsored link. Microsoft Corp. and its marketing unit can buy the sponsored links just like anyone else. That's why they're called sponsored.
The Pew Internet and American Life Project's survey of 2,200 adults (only 1,399 of which are actual internet users, mind you) also indicates that 92% of web searchers feel they are confident in their own searching abilities. When I do the math... Pew/Internet is saying that more people are confident with their web searching skills than actually use the Internet.
"Web searchers" is a subset of internet users. Thus presumably starting with even fewer than 1,399.
are you telling me that "Regular Ol' TVs" are better than flat HDTVs?
No, they are telling you that HDTV's made with CRT technology (The huge, heavy boxes) display a better picture than the thing plasma or LCD screens. The article is pointing out -- quite rightly -- that general consumers have associated "thin" with "high tech and good picture."
In fact, if you have the space, you can buy a sizable CRT HDTV for a relatively affordable price. Not cheap, but something an average consumer could afford if they were willing to sacrifice a bit.
On the other hand, I believe this trend has continued because people genuinely really do like the thin, lighter screens.
Like it or not a television is one of the most dominant objects in a many peoplees homes. They don't want it big, bulky and ugly.
One theory I read awhile back was that there has always been a significant number of wealthy men who wanted to go buy a big screen televeision, but were basically restrained by their wives who didn't want the huge ugly beheamouth in their living room. Sure, that flat screen costs twice as much, but now the wife says go for it because its not ugly.
Nope, Slashdot is a blog. Blog is a derivitive of "web log." Not web journal. A log is a chronologically ordered list of entries.
That's the defining characteristic of blogs that make them a subset of web sites. Chronological order. Obviously this makes them very good for journals, but it means that Slashdot is also a blog.
Well the difference is less dramatic than I thought -- I admitedly wasn't thinking of the Fray --, but accoring to Nielsen, washingtonpost.com had a half million lead in overall audience and nearing triple the time spent per visitor. The unique visitors numbers are obviously are somewhat opposed to the article's figures, but that's web traffic stats for you.
I'm a reader of both Slate and WashingtonPost.com and the fact that Slate competes with the traffice of an entire newspaper with a huge staff is quite a compliment.
I don't mean to say you shouldn't be aware of the issue (Slate makes it pretty clear they they are owned by Microsoft), but that you should actually think for yourself.
Make a decision based on the reality and not your assumptions. Hell Slate endorsed Firefox just a few months ago and it bashed a big huge Washington Post series this week. (And this has been expected for months.)
Slashdot Mirror
Did you just call the man who invented the "world wide web" a troll?
His comments weren't particularly enlightening, but they were made in reaction to a question that basically asked "Are the good things on the internet worth the bad things?" His answer was a rejection of that question as a yes or no. Basically, all he's saying, is don't look to get rid of the thing, put your effort on improving it, like you would the rest of society.
FYI, Cohen says that piece was written as satire. Even if it wasn't, it was written well before he made Bit Torrent.
Don't forget, Firfox involved a lot of work trying to look like IE. It's now gone beyond what IE ever did, but in terms of interface IE had a lot right.
Notably, AOL is also in the race with .... Mapquest. Even though that hasn't received much of an upgrade recently, they've got to be working on something and mapquest is still the 800 lb Gorilla. (Well 250 lb anyway). The threats are just too obvious not to respond to.
With AOL betting the company on free advertisement supported content (see AOL.com BETA these days), I'm sure an updated Mapquest is also on the way.
Interesting enough, Mapquest had satelite data along with road data a few years ago, but it dissappeared. Mapquest also for a time allowed you to click "east" or "west" and it would only change out the image instead of the entire page. It wasn't as good as Google, but it was a better interface. Of course, they killed it.
1. It renders fine
2. Reporters don't code the web pages.
3. "Biggin 'up"????
Consider ethanol as a means to store energy from nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, hydro or other clean energy sources and transport it to your auto's engine.
But, it's not considered that. It's considered a way "reduce pollution" as a fuel additive. It's being made with lots of electricity off the grid... using coal (eek) and natural gas (ok not soo bad).
Ahem.
It's both.
Why should the government interfere? It's the free market that's finding a replacement for gasoline.
Because the free market does not at this time account for the real cost of environmental pollution.
The free market is so good because it provides very accurate price signals to account for time humans spend to make something. But (car manufacturers) are able to build cars and people are able to run their cars that cost pollution that they are not charged for.
Somebody, eventually, will pay that cost though. Either through increased health care or by eventually being forced to use and even cleaner vehicle because the environment has absorbed all it can.
Remember, purchasing a low-emission or no-emission does nothing to clean my air, so there's a huge free rider problem.
First, it's a code name not the official name. It's not really for marketing purposes. Second, its "longhorn" (not "long horn"). A longhorn is a breed of cattle.
Now why I want an OS named after a breed of cattle... I can't answer.
Uh, desktop search already works. It saves me hours every week. Using just directories is like maintaining a card catalog. Helpful, but limited and time consuming. Desktop search means I have access to every book's index with less work.
While WSJ's "online operations" may have earned more money, this doesn't really mean much. It's "print" operations earned very little money. Companies have operations that lose money all the itme, so if the online segment earned a $1, it earned "more."
Moreover, I suspect the online operation benefits hugely from all the WSJ content generated for the print publication that I suspect is not included in "online operations."
It's comparably easy to make money when you get 80% of your content for free.
within six months. It sort of blows me away that it's not already there. Netflix knows the movies I like much better than Amazon. It knows what I've seen, what I've rented twice. If I wanted to browse some movies to buy I'd go to Netflix and search around, before heading over to Amazon to actually place my order.
I'll bet they'd like a cut of those revenues too.
If you don't think that the Tobacco industry's knowledge that it's product killed people was a "trade secret" than I don't know what is.
The one who committed the damage here was the one who talked to the blogger not the blogger.
What was that? Rumors of Apple's imminent *survival*?
I give Apple six months before Jobs shuts the place down just to spite us all.
Yes, you're missing something. Google's book feature is not at all aimed at finding you full text books to read. It's designed to add the knowledge stored in book form to Google's search. And, conversely, to add the power of Google's search to books. That's why they're putting copyrighted works up. And that's why publishers can't get too peeved about it.
If you
Journalism is irrespective of any medium -- and that includes blogs.
A journalist is a journalist whether they spread they spread their work through newspapers, magazines, trade publications, pamphlets, zines, radio, television, web sites, blogs or even as town crier.
The medium is not the message.
Do a search for "Linux," for crying out loud, and take a gander at the first thing that shows up for display: Right, a sponsored link from Microsoft that lies about Linux.
Did you bother trying it on Google? Oh right, same friggin sponsored link. Microsoft Corp. and its marketing unit can buy the sponsored links just like anyone else. That's why they're called sponsored.
The Pew Internet and American Life Project's survey of 2,200 adults (only 1,399 of which are actual internet users, mind you) also indicates that 92% of web searchers feel they are confident in their own searching abilities. When I do the math... Pew/Internet is saying that more people are confident with their web searching skills than actually use the Internet.
"Web searchers" is a subset of internet users. Thus presumably starting with even fewer than 1,399.
are you telling me that "Regular Ol' TVs" are better than flat HDTVs?
No, they are telling you that HDTV's made with CRT technology (The huge, heavy boxes) display a better picture than the thing plasma or LCD screens. The article is pointing out -- quite rightly -- that general consumers have associated "thin" with "high tech and good picture."
In fact, if you have the space, you can buy a sizable CRT HDTV for a relatively affordable price. Not cheap, but something an average consumer could afford if they were willing to sacrifice a bit.
On the other hand, I believe this trend has continued because people genuinely really do like the thin, lighter screens.
Like it or not a television is one of the most dominant objects in a many peoplees homes. They don't want it big, bulky and ugly.
One theory I read awhile back was that there has always been a significant number of wealthy men who wanted to go buy a big screen televeision, but were basically restrained by their wives who didn't want the huge ugly beheamouth in their living room. Sure, that flat screen costs twice as much, but now the wife says go for it because its not ugly.
Nope, Slashdot is a blog. Blog is a derivitive of "web log." Not web journal. A log is a chronologically ordered list of entries.
That's the defining characteristic of blogs that make them a subset of web sites. Chronological order. Obviously this makes them very good for journals, but it means that Slashdot is also a blog.
I click "read more" and up pops.
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
I for one welcome my old NSA overlords.
Well the difference is less dramatic than I thought -- I admitedly wasn't thinking of the Fray --, but accoring to Nielsen, washingtonpost.com had a half million lead in overall audience and nearing triple the time spent per visitor. The unique visitors numbers are obviously are somewhat opposed to the article's figures, but that's web traffic stats for you.
I'm a reader of both Slate and WashingtonPost.com and the fact that Slate competes with the traffice of an entire newspaper with a huge staff is quite a compliment.
Slate has 4.8 million unique visitors per month and is profitable. How is that displaced?
And how much of that slate traffic is caused because slate is so tied in to MSN which is the default startpage for 90% of the home computer market?
Much of it. And if you RTFA, you'll find that that partnership has been retained.
I don't mean to say you shouldn't be aware of the issue (Slate makes it pretty clear they they are owned by Microsoft), but that you should actually think for yourself.
Make a decision based on the reality and not your assumptions. Hell Slate endorsed Firefox just a few months ago and it bashed a big huge Washington Post series this week. (And this has been expected for months.)