Just by that statement it's clear you're buying right into that same allusion that Time Warner ran into. There is no "old media." Newspapers, magazines, television, radio. They're still around.
Yes, the bloggers are "new" and they're having some influence, but conduct a survey of most news oriented bloggers and I'll lay odds you'll find they're the biggest readers on the mainstream media out there.
The WashPost is no straggler in the online world. They have lots of figure out, but they're far ahead of all but a few major news sites.
I could never accept that Slate had genuine editorial independence from Microsoft.
And yet Slate does and did have that independence. Perhaps one should judge a book by it's content and not its cover.
P.S. Newsweek is actually owned by The Washington Post Co.. MSNBC.com does provide the online site for the magazine, but it controls no content -- except the occasional online exclusive multimedia production.
Either way, Slate's audience is larger than the Post's online edition.
Well, sort of. Slate's audience may be bigger in terms of "unique vistors," but washingtonpost.com recieves many more hits / page views for each visitor.
There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
No, that's not the most scary thing. Many here will critisize the current incarnation of near perpetual copyright and many will critisize how the Big Media have treated that right--as well as their customers.
But to say that I -- as an American -- should not be able to protect a work of art/media across a foreign boundry is a pretty extremest view. And in my view, it would be quite harmful.
Remember the ability to create your own terms of an open source project is made possible only because the creator is GRANTING those rights to add, change and distribute source code. It's copyright that protects that code from just being taken by Microsoft without the company agreeing to contribute back to the project.
Copyright is also what protects some huge media corp from stealing a young artist's song without even "signing" him. They just take it and give it to Pop Artist #122b.
What scares ME is that this is an attack on the freedom of speech and information. SuprNova was linking to illegal media, but it wasn't hosting it. It should not be illegal to say where the red light district is and it shouldn't be illegal to point someone to one of the prostitutes.
It should only be illegal when one actually gets into the act.
I'm still wondering why they don't mention solar panels. Even in Montreal, Quebec where hydro power rules solar panels are still an investment worth having as soon as you paid your student loan.
Basically, solar panels are not competitive -- even with subsidies -- with the traditional energy sources on an industrial scale.
Solar power is really still experimental at that scale.
A long-awaited federal report on the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound says the project would do little or no harm to fish, birds, and the surrounding seafloor, and would not drive down local property values -- all key findings as Cape Wind Associates seeks final approval to start construction next year.
The 4,000-page draft environmental impact statement by the Army Corps of Engineers will be formally released tomorrow. But a detailed 26-page executive summary obtained by the Globe seems to undercut opponents' arguments that the 130-turbine wind farm would cause deep, lasting damage to the environment.
Specifically, the draft says the estimated 420-foot-tall turbines could kill as many as 364 birds per year -- about one a day -- but notes that number is unlikely to affect endangered species or specific populations of birds. In predicting the project's impact on shellfish and fish populations -- a concern of environmentalists as well as fishermen -- the report says any effects would probably be felt only during construction.[/quote]
I can't say I've done some detailed search on this, but I'm pretty suspicious of the bird deaths specifically because VIRTUALLY EVERY article critisizing bird deaths brings up Altamont Pass, which is only one of many wind farms across the country/world. Moreover, it uses old, outdated turbines that spin much faster than modern turbines.
Coal kills a lot of birds too. There is no free energy source -- in financial or environmental effects.
As most of AOL's most recent ideas, I'm sure the majority of Slashdotters will pretty much call this idea dead in the water, but it seems to me as one of AOL's better ideas in awhile. (Not hard)
It's amazing it didn't happen earlier. I mean hell, Microsoft has an online music store--and Microsoft has proven it's pretty poor at recognizing good content (Slate excluded... MSNBC is basically an NBC venture content-wise).
AOL actually sort of gets what the masses want for content and they want to be a content company. And there content divisions are performing the best internally. After all they merged (essentially bought at this now) with Time Warner--where content is King.
Remember, AOL still has a large, captive audience of users with a decent amount of money and usually like popular culture. Plus, they have a direct route to install software onto the PC's of milions of their users.
That's a pretty big foot in the door. Add in the music library of Time Warner and you may have a serious competitor.
This is not entirely accurate. The Washington Post's archive is available from 1877 to present day if you're willing got pay.
From 1877-1986, the Post offers the full page scans of the articles as they appeared in the newspaper. Begining in 1987, the full text versions of articles (without photos) are available.
It seems to me that auto update isn't working at all. I've gotten no notification of any kind on any of our boxes.
With Mozilla.org down, I doubt they're looking to announce that the update is available to even MORE people. Since there are presumably no major security fixes, they'll probably put out the notification over the next couple days.
Slashdot has long been associated with a number of technology issues. If done right, I think an organization connected to Slashdot that lobbied on a select number of technology only issues might be able to really shape the debate in some ways.
Might be difficult not to piss off half of Slashdot readers each year, but if it was kept limited enough in scope and specific enough it could do very well. And clearly Slashdot has the mechanism for fundraising etc.
Just a FYI, but the fact that troops guarded the ministry of oil was well publisized to anyone who at least reads the paper or watches the news with any regularity in the U.S.
It was often repeated pre-invasion that U.S. troops would go in an secure the oil fields and infastructure to 1) protect them against being blown up Hussein and 2) get them up and running quickly because it's Iraq's only real way of making money.
This continued during the original invasion.
I agree on your point of reading foreign media, but just wanted to stand up and say I don't think the U.S. press really dropped the ball on that one.
On a related note, Soople.com offers a sort of "GUI" for Google's more advanced features. Yes most of us on Slashdot can remember/figure out how to search for specific file types or look up a phone number via the command-prompt framework, but Soople puts them out front.
It can work pretty well for those proverbial parents/grandparents who don't quite "get" it.
The Chicago Tribue recently published a list of the year's "50 Best Magazines."
Notably, Wired took the #1 spot:
1. Wired: After a wobbly post-boom period, Wired has transformed itself from an insider computer monthly into a slick, smart and playful cultural journal. The reporting is excellent ("The Future of Food," "The New Diamond Age," for instance) and the graphics deliver some of the best short-form journalism in the business. The back-page feature Found" and the upfront section "Start" are consistently strong, and even the "Letters" page crackles with energy. The writing staff is lively yet authoritative, and columnists Lawrence Lessig and Bruce Sterling are smart without being snooty. Even the ads are cool. Finally: We dare you to show us a better magazine Web site (Wired.com). 2. Real Simple 3. The Economist 4. Cook's Illustrated 5. Esquire 6. The New Yorker 7. American Demographics 8. Men's Healthy 9. Jane 10. Consumer Reports
Myself, I read Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, The New Republic, Aperture, Harpers and Scientific American. I'm thinking of picking up Reason, Foreign Affairs, The Economist and The Weekly Standard.
Let's actually think about this for a second. How far is the movie rental place from your home. How often have you made a trip there specifically just to RETURN a movie.
What's that cost in gas usage, air pollution and car maintenance. (Remember that first few miles is always the toughest on a car).
How does this compare to a tiny disc that costs a few pennies (maybe) to manufacture. A disc that if you watch a movie EVERY DAY will hardly change the amount of trash that goes out from your home.
There may be some perfectly good reasons not to want these things. I've seen no evidence that environmental reasons have any bearing.
We're quibbling over how to define a word here (a subjective argument), but I'm going to disagree with you here. There is no reason that the ability for readers to submit articles means it can't be a blog.
Most blogs have such a mechanism, it's called "e-mail me." Slashdot is a blog, but it happens to have a rather extensive back end. It also has lazy editors who like readers to do much of their work for them.
Take AndrewSullivan.com (one of the quintessential blogs). He regularly posts e-mails he recieves. If he added comments, posted more recieved e-mails and halved his posting his site might seem a lot more like Slashdot. It woud still be a blog.
Re:Bloggers?
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm not a blogger, and I don't read any blogs. I don't understand how the blog thing works.
My God. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult. You just posted to a blog. At its most basic all that's required is the notion that the posts are chronological.
Blog = Web Log = Chronologically arranged web site = Slashdot.org.
You will find, however, that blogging (as a medium) is particlarly good for certain subjects and they share certain qualities. These are not mandatory to be called a blog, but they are common. For example, blogs are frequently 1) narrowly focused on a single topic (i.e. "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters") or person (i.e. a personal journal). They also often tend to be opinionated and have a strong "voice." Finally, many, but not all allow comments as Slashdot does.
How do they know which ones to read?
And not to be mean spirited, but wow you did it again. Your logic could easily (and frequently is) used on web sites, but I'm going to presume you've found good web sites.
I tried out some of these services when there was little or no delivery charge, but I still couldn't make it make sense.
The problem was the 4-5 hour delivery window. The main attraction of such a service is for busy people to save time. I realized pretty quickly that I could just get off my ass and go get my grocieries in that time--no waiting around.
Now I'm sure many people have easily schedulable chores/work at home etc., but as a young guy I don't have 4 hours when I want to chain myself to my house each week.
I'm your regular run-of-the-mill pretentious journalist. I read the Washington Post every day. I read Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, The National Review, Harpers and others. I find Time and Newsweek basically worthless. And I can't stand most television news.
I love Wonkette.
Wonkette is not journalism.
Her goal is not to inform, her goal is to entertain. Most importantly, she is upfront about this. She makes no proclamation that she will tell the whole truth. Her level of credibility is just a hair above The Onion and that's fine because she's entertaining and doesn't claim to be anything else.
Guess what: The people who read Wonkette know not to go to her for the news. Wonkette is just Entertainment Tonight for people who care about the stars of politics instead of the stars of hollywood etc. I couldn't care less if David Beckham had an affair, but I got a kick out of knowing that Mathew Yglesias was in Best Buy.
But, to get to why this is on Slashdot. Yes, the Internet is different. Previously, the news mediums available to us before were push only. They lectured to us. So, it was natural that articles looked like lectures.
The Internet instead is a conversational medium. As a result, much of it will inevitably look much more like what people are talking about, than a newspaper or even television.
Re:The bad side of course...
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Instead, it launched the first cold war, and cost the planet millions of lives and a lot of karma.
Launched the first cold war? Nukes, kept the cold war cold. Without nukes, it's pretty fair to say there would have been much more violence in the 20th century.
Further, the only two nukes ever used militarily (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) took ~200,000 lives directly. Not millions. (Yes, obviously increased radiation for a period of time took some more).
It's also relatively certain that a traditional invasion of Japan would have cost many more lives than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Just by that statement it's clear you're buying right into that same allusion that Time Warner ran into. There is no "old media." Newspapers, magazines, television, radio. They're still around.
Yes, the bloggers are "new" and they're having some influence, but conduct a survey of most news oriented bloggers and I'll lay odds you'll find they're the biggest readers on the mainstream media out there.
The WashPost is no straggler in the online world. They have lots of figure out, but they're far ahead of all but a few major news sites.
I could never accept that Slate had genuine editorial independence from Microsoft.
And yet Slate does and did have that independence. Perhaps one should judge a book by it's content and not its cover.
P.S. Newsweek is actually owned by The Washington Post Co.. MSNBC.com does provide the online site for the magazine, but it controls no content -- except the occasional online exclusive multimedia production.
Either way, Slate's audience is larger than the Post's online edition.
Well, sort of. Slate's audience may be bigger in terms of "unique vistors," but washingtonpost.com recieves many more hits / page views for each visitor.
There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
No, that's not the most scary thing. Many here will critisize the current incarnation of near perpetual copyright and many will critisize how the Big Media have treated that right--as well as their customers.
But to say that I -- as an American -- should not be able to protect a work of art/media across a foreign boundry is a pretty extremest view. And in my view, it would be quite harmful.
Remember the ability to create your own terms of an open source project is made possible only because the creator is GRANTING those rights to add, change and distribute source code. It's copyright that protects that code from just being taken by Microsoft without the company agreeing to contribute back to the project.
Copyright is also what protects some huge media corp from stealing a young artist's song without even "signing" him. They just take it and give it to Pop Artist #122b.
What scares ME is that this is an attack on the freedom of speech and information. SuprNova was linking to illegal media, but it wasn't hosting it. It should not be illegal to say where the red light district is and it shouldn't be illegal to point someone to one of the prostitutes.
It should only be illegal when one actually gets into the act.
I'm still wondering why they don't mention solar panels. Even in Montreal, Quebec where hydro power rules solar panels are still an investment worth having as soon as you paid your student loan.
Basically, solar panels are not competitive -- even with subsidies -- with the traditional energy sources on an industrial scale.
Solar power is really still experimental at that scale.
RE: HTML
Been spending to much time on a UBB board. Oops.
[quote]Boston Globe: Nov. 8, 2004.
A long-awaited federal report on the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound says the project would do little or no harm to fish, birds, and the surrounding seafloor, and would not drive down local property values -- all key findings as Cape Wind Associates seeks final approval to start construction next year.
The 4,000-page draft environmental impact statement by the Army Corps of Engineers will be formally released tomorrow. But a detailed 26-page executive summary obtained by the Globe seems to undercut opponents' arguments that the 130-turbine wind farm would cause deep, lasting damage to the environment.
Specifically, the draft says the estimated 420-foot-tall turbines could kill as many as 364 birds per year -- about one a day -- but notes that number is unlikely to affect endangered species or specific populations of birds. In predicting the project's impact on shellfish and fish populations -- a concern of environmentalists as well as fishermen -- the report says any effects would probably be felt only during construction.[/quote]
I can't say I've done some detailed search on this, but I'm pretty suspicious of the bird deaths specifically because VIRTUALLY EVERY article critisizing bird deaths brings up Altamont Pass, which is only one of many wind farms across the country/world. Moreover, it uses old, outdated turbines that spin much faster than modern turbines.
Coal kills a lot of birds too. There is no free energy source -- in financial or environmental effects.
As most of AOL's most recent ideas, I'm sure the majority of Slashdotters will pretty much call this idea dead in the water, but it seems to me as one of AOL's better ideas in awhile. (Not hard)
It's amazing it didn't happen earlier. I mean hell, Microsoft has an online music store--and Microsoft has proven it's pretty poor at recognizing good content (Slate excluded... MSNBC is basically an NBC venture content-wise).
AOL actually sort of gets what the masses want for content and they want to be a content company. And there content divisions are performing the best internally. After all they merged (essentially bought at this now) with Time Warner--where content is King.
Remember, AOL still has a large, captive audience of users with a decent amount of money and usually like popular culture. Plus, they have a direct route to install software onto the PC's of milions of their users.
That's a pretty big foot in the door. Add in the music library of Time Warner and you may have a serious competitor.
Moreover, these cuts include employees from its other properties too. Winamp, Netscape, Mapquest, City Guide, AIM, ICQ, Love.com, Moviephone.
The list goes on.
This is not entirely accurate. The Washington Post's archive is available from 1877 to present day if you're willing got pay.
From 1877-1986, the Post offers the full page scans of the articles as they appeared in the newspaper. Begining in 1987, the full text versions of articles (without photos) are available.
It seems to me that auto update isn't working at all. I've gotten no notification of any kind on any of our boxes.
With Mozilla.org down, I doubt they're looking to announce that the update is available to even MORE people. Since there are presumably no major security fixes, they'll probably put out the notification over the next couple days.
So when do we start throwing the virgins in? ... I think some Slashdotters better watch out o_O.
I believe those are called Macs.
Slashdot has long been associated with a number of technology issues. If done right, I think an organization connected to Slashdot that lobbied on a select number of technology only issues might be able to really shape the debate in some ways.
Might be difficult not to piss off half of Slashdot readers each year, but if it was kept limited enough in scope and specific enough it could do very well. And clearly Slashdot has the mechanism for fundraising etc.
Just a FYI, but the fact that troops guarded the ministry of oil was well publisized to anyone who at least reads the paper or watches the news with any regularity in the U.S.
It was often repeated pre-invasion that U.S. troops would go in an secure the oil fields and infastructure to 1) protect them against being blown up Hussein and 2) get them up and running quickly because it's Iraq's only real way of making money.
This continued during the original invasion.
I agree on your point of reading foreign media, but just wanted to stand up and say I don't think the U.S. press really dropped the ball on that one.
On a related note, Soople.com offers a sort of "GUI" for Google's more advanced features. Yes most of us on Slashdot can remember/figure out how to search for specific file types or look up a phone number via the command-prompt framework, but Soople puts them out front.
It can work pretty well for those proverbial parents/grandparents who don't quite "get" it.
Actually the best part is that the site now returns this:
Notably, Wired took the #1 spot:
Myself, I read Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, The New Republic, Aperture, Harpers and Scientific American. I'm thinking of picking up Reason, Foreign Affairs, The Economist and The Weekly Standard.
*Sigh*
Let's actually think about this for a second. How far is the movie rental place from your home. How often have you made a trip there specifically just to RETURN a movie.
What's that cost in gas usage, air pollution and car maintenance. (Remember that first few miles is always the toughest on a car).
How does this compare to a tiny disc that costs a few pennies (maybe) to manufacture. A disc that if you watch a movie EVERY DAY will hardly change the amount of trash that goes out from your home.
There may be some perfectly good reasons not to want these things. I've seen no evidence that environmental reasons have any bearing.
We're quibbling over how to define a word here (a subjective argument), but I'm going to disagree with you here. There is no reason that the ability for readers to submit articles means it can't be a blog.
Most blogs have such a mechanism, it's called "e-mail me." Slashdot is a blog, but it happens to have a rather extensive back end. It also has lazy editors who like readers to do much of their work for them.
Take AndrewSullivan.com (one of the quintessential blogs). He regularly posts e-mails he recieves. If he added comments, posted more recieved e-mails and halved his posting his site might seem a lot more like Slashdot. It woud still be a blog.
I'm not a blogger, and I don't read any blogs. I don't understand how the blog thing works.
My God. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult. You just posted to a blog. At its most basic all that's required is the notion that the posts are chronological.
Blog = Web Log = Chronologically arranged web site = Slashdot.org.
You will find, however, that blogging (as a medium) is particlarly good for certain subjects and they share certain qualities. These are not mandatory to be called a blog, but they are common. For example, blogs are frequently 1) narrowly focused on a single topic (i.e. "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters") or person (i.e. a personal journal). They also often tend to be opinionated and have a strong "voice." Finally, many, but not all allow comments as Slashdot does.
How do they know which ones to read?
And not to be mean spirited, but wow you did it again. Your logic could easily (and frequently is) used on web sites, but I'm going to presume you've found good web sites.
Agnostic : ---------------
Democrat : +
Male : ++
Moderate : -------
Young : ++
Yuppie : ---------
White : --------------------
<i>I'll</i> be fine, but thanks for asking.
I tried out some of these services when there was little or no delivery charge, but I still couldn't make it make sense.
The problem was the 4-5 hour delivery window. The main attraction of such a service is for busy people to save time. I realized pretty quickly that I could just get off my ass and go get my grocieries in that time--no waiting around.
Now I'm sure many people have easily schedulable chores/work at home etc., but as a young guy I don't have 4 hours when I want to chain myself to my house each week.
I'm your regular run-of-the-mill pretentious journalist. I read the Washington Post every day. I read Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, The National Review, Harpers and others. I find Time and Newsweek basically worthless. And I can't stand most television news.
I love Wonkette.
Wonkette is not journalism.
Her goal is not to inform, her goal is to entertain. Most importantly, she is upfront about this. She makes no proclamation that she will tell the whole truth. Her level of credibility is just a hair above The Onion and that's fine because she's entertaining and doesn't claim to be anything else.
Guess what: The people who read Wonkette know not to go to her for the news. Wonkette is just Entertainment Tonight for people who care about the stars of politics instead of the stars of hollywood etc. I couldn't care less if David Beckham had an affair, but I got a kick out of knowing that Mathew Yglesias was in Best Buy.
But, to get to why this is on Slashdot. Yes, the Internet is different. Previously, the news mediums available to us before were push only. They lectured to us. So, it was natural that articles looked like lectures.
The Internet instead is a conversational medium. As a result, much of it will inevitably look much more like what people are talking about, than a newspaper or even television.
Instead, it launched the first cold war, and cost the planet millions of lives and a lot of karma.
Launched the first cold war? Nukes, kept the cold war cold. Without nukes, it's pretty fair to say there would have been much more violence in the 20th century.
Further, the only two nukes ever used militarily (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) took ~200,000 lives directly. Not millions. (Yes, obviously increased radiation for a period of time took some more).
It's also relatively certain that a traditional invasion of Japan would have cost many more lives than that.