This is why News sites are switching to paywalls. Sponsors are learning that people tune out or adblock ads; based on this knowledge, they are collectively offering less and less money per pageview, and advert click not resulting in a purchase. This means it's no longer profitable to run the site, meaning either the company goes out of business, or they come up with a different business model, such as paywalls.
So you have paid subscriptions to services like YouTube Red, Hulu Plus, and Netflix? Otherwise, I think you fail to understand the concept of profit-motive. Good ads serve a benefit to the viewer. They inform the viewer of products and services they never knew they wanted, and wouldn't have thought to seek out. On TV, sponsors are forced to guess what a show's viewers want. Potentially, on the Internet, advertisers like Google can make an educated guess about products you would like to know about; however, it's far from perfect right now. What you hate isn't ads; you hate ads that tell you nothing useful.
Without ads, entities like video creators need some other business model to generate enough revenue to make video creation worthwhile. So yeah, YouTube Red, or Patreon, or GoFundMe, or buy their T-Shirts (which are generally mentioned in the form of an advertisement). But these things only very rarely work well enough that well made videos can happen without sponsorship.
I'm the oldest of the age-range that technically counts as a millennial, and for the most part, I think the article's number is about right. 6 seconds is plenty of time to tell me about your product and why I want it. 15 seconds is the cusp of frustration, and if you dare bother me for 30 seconds or longer on product information that i didn't actively request, then I will potentially actively avoid your product when otherwise, I might consider it. 30 second spots made sense in the 50s when there was just a single sponsor, and it took time to explain the product. I also don't mind long spots when they are YouTuber endorsements that manage to be sincere and actually gives real details about the product-experience.
A lot of articles and studies word things like we are unable to pay attention, and that isn't the situation. We can pay attention to things so long as they are worth paying attention to, and ads rarely are for more than 6 seconds. If you are wasting our time by inefficiently organizing your message, we see it as disrespectful. 30 seconds of that same car advertisement that all companies do, with shots of the car driving around a snowy mountain does nothing more to me that 5 seconds of it hasn't already done. Name your product, show it to me, if it does something that your competition genuinely can't do, show that. Then leave me alone. Oh, and if you're pretty certain I've already seen an ad a few times, maybe either show some other ad, or allow me to go ad-free until you get some new sponsors (LOOKING AT YOU, HULU).
Right, none of the data sets show anything remotely hockey-stick like. Even the table that isn't charted turns out to be very linear, minus the drop in 2004. At best, small portions of some charts are quadratic. Hockey-stick is a long period of no growth followed by sudden exponential growth. It's not just some term you throw around as a new hyperbole buzzword >_
And last time I checked, basically no interest to improve it, which baffles me. Besides, the GIMP is photo-editing software. MSPaint is primarily for simple friendly pixel editing.
It's useful because I know the tool will be on any random machine I find myself sitting at. I know there are lots of good free pixel editing tools online, but that's not the point. When forced to work on machines that have things locked down tight, downloading and installing a new tool is not always an option. It's aggravating to track down tools that allow for a user-level execution; and often policy doesn't even want you doing that without approval. MSPaint is useful for the same reason that vi is useful in the *nix world; you know it's already installed and how it will basically behave.
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard from MS in quite awhile. The backlash on this is gonna be loud. You'd think with all the evil metrics Win10 collects, they'd have some idea about how heavily used this tool is. If Paint3D is a feature-complete replacement, that's fine, but I have no indication that this is the case. And if "deprecated" is just a poorly worded category for "no longer in development" then MS needs to fix it's project categorization terms. If they stop developing it and merely provide it for the foreseeable future, that's perfectly reasonable. But not providing an image editing tool on a modern desktop OS is simply ridiculous. It's like not providing a plaintext editor. It's too useful to know that any install of desktop windows will have the tool, and too aggravating to even need to manually download and install the app on modern installs. Microsoft, if you want to keep your customer base at least mildly satisfied, you're stuck with this tool.
This is one of the most interesting things I've heard in quite awhile. I'm interested in learning more about this, but when I look into tracking down the primary-source, peer-reviewed publication, I am dismayed to find that it would cost $25 to read it. I understand that running a science journal costs money, and I'd be happy to pay a fee to read something like this. I understand that most physics journal publications have a limited audience, and I understand that professional physicists are generally tied to an entity such as a university or laboratory that provide them with a costly-but-worthwhile subscription service, meaning they don't need to purchase papers a la carte. Still, I am confused by this pricing model. I feel as though one would generate far more revenue by lowering the cost for a single article. The actual cost per download, obviously, is so low as to be immeasurable. So the only thing defining the price charged per download is that it needs to cost more to purchase more than a handful of articles than it does to subscribe, thus incentivizing subscriptions. So I looked into it: depending on the state of your academic career, this translates to $85 for undergrad students to $213 for established professionals per year. This gets you 51 issues, containing around 7 featured "editor's picks" papers each. That means, in the most expensive group, it's presuming that you are only going to find actual interest and satisfaction out of 213/25 = 8.5 papers a year. Now technically, the subscription is only $60, the rest is cost for membership in the American Physical Society. If you go by that number, then it's implying that you're going to get significant interest out of around 2 papers a year. These numbers just do not make any sense to me.
I understand that there's a good chance that I'm able to access this source for free though one of my state's local libraries, and that's wonderful. I tried and failed to access it through one library card. I still feel as though more this entity would generate more net revenue and have the side effect of more people able to speak intelligently on the subject if the cost of a single paper was $2-$5 each.
In writing out this frustration, I think I'm beginning to understand, and I'm wondering if I might have a possible solution. I believe the average paper out of a scolarly journal produces effectively zero interest from the general public. They are too niche or too complicated or the findings are too unsurprising. For these papers, it doesn't matter if it costs $25 dollars or if it costs $1, you're still selling about the same number of copies. So it makes sense to charge the higher price. Every month or so, a decent journal such as this manages to publish an article that some science-news entity thinks is interesting enough to post a writeup. Every few months, they publish something that interests a number of science-writers, and manages to hit the slashdot level of interest. Once or twice a year, they publish something that gets mainstream attention and shows up on the level of something like SciShow (one of the few entities that makes science friendly and digestible, but also fact-checks and doesn't constantly get details plain wrong like so many other pop-sci media sources). The lower pricing would only make sense on those higher tiers, where greater demand for the original paper is generated. So now I'm wondering, why don't journals re-actively price accordingly? When a paper gets wider attention, slash the price. I suppose the response to this is that this isn't done for fear of it generating bias in publication selection. And I get that; greed is the enemy of integrity; it's why MTV stopped playing music videos long before the days where we could just stream them, it's why History channel and Discovery Networks bailed on quality educational programming. You don't want your academic journals vying to go viral; so you isolate yourself from that business. But in rea
Get over yourself, fellow slashdotter. Ellipsis is a long standing quoting technique. It's well known that when present, it can mean someone is being taken out of context, so it should be critically considered. However, since your original quote is right there, it's pretty clear that's not his intent. He was quoting the portions he wanted to talk about. And I won't have you trashing 'I Like Little Girls'. It's a classic Oingo Boingo lyric. Danny Elfman is a national TREASURE.
You can't just point a laser, high powered or not at an ICBM and cause it to detonate. Even with traditional high-explosives, they don't detonate, they just burn. You would need to either break the thing such that it lands in the sea, or punch through the heat-shield and case and hope you hit a critical spot that defuses it. All the while, hoping that it's not a foggy or cloudy day because water-vapor is quite good at cutting down the power-factor of even strong lasers.
I mean, it's certainly a step along the way, but, self-driving does not mean "driverless". This bill has nothing to do with allowing autonomous vehicles to drive without a licensed driver at the wheel. That's going to take years. It's an inevitability but drivers are going to have plenty of warning to shift towards a new line of work as the industry makes the shift. I'm not saying that the shift is going to be all sunshine and lollipops, and I support programs that make it easy for people who's job is being made redundant to get grants and extremely low interest or interest-free loans to train for more future-proof occupations, but there's no need to full-luddite and start chucking our wooden shoes into the machine. Particularly once vehicles have swarming technology, this stuff stands to drastically reduce pollution, traffic, stop-lights, commute-times, auto-insurance rates, gas-prices, automobile injuries & deaths.
100k vehicles is not nothing but it's not massive either. If they were to similarly do a slowly titrated rollout of the ability for unmanned vehicles when it finally is time for that, then that could serve as a potentially useful tactic to slows the labor-market shift. And even without that, the entire transportation industry won't be able to transition at once. There won't be enough new vehicle production, the approval process for new models will be slow; any retrofitting kit for existing vehicles will have the same problems. existing fleets won't have enough capital for the investment of new vehicles. Some companies will have a greater interest in early adoption, others will wait for the technology to mature.
The sky is not falling here. As long as the skirted regulations don't present some sort of significant risk, then most everyone is in favor of this sort of bill; and that's rather refreshing.
Yes, it's news. It's not headline stuff, but it is standard journalism. It might not be news that you care about, but that doesn't make it not-news. It doesn't matter if someone else altered the image if that wasn't the story they were investigating; it doesn't matter if CNN doesn't investigate the entire chain of custody. They wanted to investigate where it came from originally, and apparently that's something that people were interested in. If the journalist was lying and the troll really had been threatened, then he could tell his side of the story to another news entity, that entity could report the story anonymously, and if there was any truth to what he had to say, CNN would be in no position to reveal the person's name. This has not happened. You're welcome to not like CNN. You're also welcome to believe that CNN made actual threats and demands of this guy; but your only proof of that is a gut-feeling.
I think you'll find that it is not "most people". The guy admitted he made the thing. It may have been modified after him, but that doesn't matter. His account was outed, I'm sure he just didn't want to put up with the abuse from assholes on the left, and didn't want investigation into his public post history. CNN was able to track him down by browsing his post history, deleting your account is a common method for attempting to prevent others from doing the exact same thing.
The implication of the second conversation where he said he "was not threatened in any way" is that, upon realizing the possibility of his identity being revealed, he cold-contacted CNN, and successfully prevented it by explaining his situation. So he was threatened with a possibility, not threatened by CNN. It's not CNN's fault that the person is ashamed of being an online troll.
.......................Did you just watch that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Barclay builds a thing on the holodeck to interface his mind directly to the ship's Computer?
No. There is a difference between publishing a name, and publishing contact information. Moreover there's a difference between naming a name, and doing that tacit-denial thing saying "I'm not responsible for anything that happens", shifting into passive voice. Those tactics are inciting attacks and completely inappropriate.
In this case, all the person had to do was not respond to the journalist reaching out on FB, and it would've been a cold-lead that a journalist wouldn't publish because it lacked confirmation. Instead, he responded, and confirmed it. After this mess, the journalist then contacted the guy again, asked if he felt threatened, and the guy emphatically said that no, he did not.
The closest thing to a source in this clickbait article is a crummy YouTube-like video. The other links are just links to tags on that same woefully named "hothardware" site. EditorDavid, don't accept submissions like this.
Implants already exist, in humans, no less. Biologically speaking, if they don't need to break the skin, we're pretty good at making stuff that won't cause harm. On the input side, we already have technology to electro-stimulate the brain to prevent seizures and that technology looks very promising. Now, if you want a wire dangling down the back of your head, or a jack mounted to your skin, those can happen, but they're fraught with problems regarding infection. If we actually needed something that handled I/O that's directly connected to the brain, it'd make more sense to power it and communicate with it wirelessly. But as far as "large bandwidth", it's not really an appropriate metaphor for this problem. The brain's I/O operations are not particularly high bandwidth. The problem is that unlike computer network communication, which is serial; just a few wires with lots of data strung together, the brain is highly parallel; separate "wire" for everything. It's not about moving data to the brain fast enough, it's about being connected to all of the mechanisms within the brain that we care about. And as far as interaction, we long ago concluded that it makes the most sense to communicate with the same nerves that are already intended to handle the senses. We have technology that interfaces the optic nerve and can make the blind "see" low-resolution images; similar with hearing. On the output side, Technology to read muscle nerve impulses is out there, but often not feasible for amputees, compared to systems that read activity from muscle groups, that technology is likely to advance and it's a pretty exciting field. We have the ability for paralyzed people to, with a good deal of practice, vaguely move a mouse cursor. But it's not like we would want it to work, where you move the cursor by visualizing the cursor moving. Actually connecting to the portions of the brain that deal with thought and then being able to interpret that information as useful things like internal monologue or mental images is so ridiculously far away right now. And even if we are able to listen in on those regions with high enough clarity, it likely doesn't solve the problems of overriding those regions to "write" information.
Yeah, this appears to be the ignorant sentiment of a person with a doctorate in holography and optics. She either doesn't understand neuroscience at all beyond a level of armchair pop-sci, or she's making stuff up to get publicity for her company.
I'm sure they'd still be concerned for his safety. That doesn't mean that it's on them to protect it. When you do fucked up stuff, you may get in the news for it. And if someone attacks him or his family, then they are the people committing a felony, not CNN or this journalist.
If you want to call it extortion, that's fine by me. But it does not fall within the realm of the criminal definition of extortion; it is not felonious. That would require CNN calling for the person to come to harm; and it would potentially require the demand of property. If CNN released the name and someone went and assaulted the guy, the crime would be on the part of whoever assaulted him.
That's not what hate crime means at all. The term refers to crimes motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. In other words, it must already be a crime, and based on the motivation, it might also be a hate-crime. It's not a crime, and it's not motivated by prejudice, so it is entirely unrelated.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why News sites are switching to paywalls. Sponsors are learning that people tune out or adblock ads; based on this knowledge, they are collectively offering less and less money per pageview, and advert click not resulting in a purchase. This means it's no longer profitable to run the site, meaning either the company goes out of business, or they come up with a different business model, such as paywalls.
Without ads, entities like video creators need some other business model to generate enough revenue to make video creation worthwhile. So yeah, YouTube Red, or Patreon, or GoFundMe, or buy their T-Shirts (which are generally mentioned in the form of an advertisement). But these things only very rarely work well enough that well made videos can happen without sponsorship.
A lot of articles and studies word things like we are unable to pay attention, and that isn't the situation. We can pay attention to things so long as they are worth paying attention to, and ads rarely are for more than 6 seconds. If you are wasting our time by inefficiently organizing your message, we see it as disrespectful. 30 seconds of that same car advertisement that all companies do, with shots of the car driving around a snowy mountain does nothing more to me that 5 seconds of it hasn't already done. Name your product, show it to me, if it does something that your competition genuinely can't do, show that. Then leave me alone. Oh, and if you're pretty certain I've already seen an ad a few times, maybe either show some other ad, or allow me to go ad-free until you get some new sponsors (LOOKING AT YOU, HULU).
Right, none of the data sets show anything remotely hockey-stick like. Even the table that isn't charted turns out to be very linear, minus the drop in 2004. At best, small portions of some charts are quadratic. Hockey-stick is a long period of no growth followed by sudden exponential growth. It's not just some term you throw around as a new hyperbole buzzword >_
Nah, you can only get Photoshop after pages of justification why FOSS isn't sufficient.
And last time I checked, basically no interest to improve it, which baffles me. Besides, the GIMP is photo-editing software. MSPaint is primarily for simple friendly pixel editing.
It's useful because I know the tool will be on any random machine I find myself sitting at. I know there are lots of good free pixel editing tools online, but that's not the point. When forced to work on machines that have things locked down tight, downloading and installing a new tool is not always an option. It's aggravating to track down tools that allow for a user-level execution; and often policy doesn't even want you doing that without approval. MSPaint is useful for the same reason that vi is useful in the *nix world; you know it's already installed and how it will basically behave.
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard from MS in quite awhile. The backlash on this is gonna be loud. You'd think with all the evil metrics Win10 collects, they'd have some idea about how heavily used this tool is. If Paint3D is a feature-complete replacement, that's fine, but I have no indication that this is the case. And if "deprecated" is just a poorly worded category for "no longer in development" then MS needs to fix it's project categorization terms. If they stop developing it and merely provide it for the foreseeable future, that's perfectly reasonable. But not providing an image editing tool on a modern desktop OS is simply ridiculous. It's like not providing a plaintext editor. It's too useful to know that any install of desktop windows will have the tool, and too aggravating to even need to manually download and install the app on modern installs. Microsoft, if you want to keep your customer base at least mildly satisfied, you're stuck with this tool.
I understand that there's a good chance that I'm able to access this source for free though one of my state's local libraries, and that's wonderful. I tried and failed to access it through one library card. I still feel as though more this entity would generate more net revenue and have the side effect of more people able to speak intelligently on the subject if the cost of a single paper was $2-$5 each.
In writing out this frustration, I think I'm beginning to understand, and I'm wondering if I might have a possible solution. I believe the average paper out of a scolarly journal produces effectively zero interest from the general public. They are too niche or too complicated or the findings are too unsurprising. For these papers, it doesn't matter if it costs $25 dollars or if it costs $1, you're still selling about the same number of copies. So it makes sense to charge the higher price. Every month or so, a decent journal such as this manages to publish an article that some science-news entity thinks is interesting enough to post a writeup. Every few months, they publish something that interests a number of science-writers, and manages to hit the slashdot level of interest. Once or twice a year, they publish something that gets mainstream attention and shows up on the level of something like SciShow (one of the few entities that makes science friendly and digestible, but also fact-checks and doesn't constantly get details plain wrong like so many other pop-sci media sources). The lower pricing would only make sense on those higher tiers, where greater demand for the original paper is generated. So now I'm wondering, why don't journals re-actively price accordingly? When a paper gets wider attention, slash the price. I suppose the response to this is that this isn't done for fear of it generating bias in publication selection. And I get that; greed is the enemy of integrity; it's why MTV stopped playing music videos long before the days where we could just stream them, it's why History channel and Discovery Networks bailed on quality educational programming. You don't want your academic journals vying to go viral; so you isolate yourself from that business. But in rea
Get over yourself, fellow slashdotter. Ellipsis is a long standing quoting technique. It's well known that when present, it can mean someone is being taken out of context, so it should be critically considered. However, since your original quote is right there, it's pretty clear that's not his intent. He was quoting the portions he wanted to talk about. And I won't have you trashing 'I Like Little Girls'. It's a classic Oingo Boingo lyric. Danny Elfman is a national TREASURE.
Sorry dude, can confirm, AC quoted you correctly.
...You just described MAD.
You can't just point a laser, high powered or not at an ICBM and cause it to detonate. Even with traditional high-explosives, they don't detonate, they just burn. You would need to either break the thing such that it lands in the sea, or punch through the heat-shield and case and hope you hit a critical spot that defuses it. All the while, hoping that it's not a foggy or cloudy day because water-vapor is quite good at cutting down the power-factor of even strong lasers.
100k vehicles is not nothing but it's not massive either. If they were to similarly do a slowly titrated rollout of the ability for unmanned vehicles when it finally is time for that, then that could serve as a potentially useful tactic to slows the labor-market shift. And even without that, the entire transportation industry won't be able to transition at once. There won't be enough new vehicle production, the approval process for new models will be slow; any retrofitting kit for existing vehicles will have the same problems. existing fleets won't have enough capital for the investment of new vehicles. Some companies will have a greater interest in early adoption, others will wait for the technology to mature.
The sky is not falling here. As long as the skirted regulations don't present some sort of significant risk, then most everyone is in favor of this sort of bill; and that's rather refreshing.
Sorry, no, not far worse; not until the criticized reporters start turning up dead.
Yes, it's news. It's not headline stuff, but it is standard journalism. It might not be news that you care about, but that doesn't make it not-news. It doesn't matter if someone else altered the image if that wasn't the story they were investigating; it doesn't matter if CNN doesn't investigate the entire chain of custody. They wanted to investigate where it came from originally, and apparently that's something that people were interested in. If the journalist was lying and the troll really had been threatened, then he could tell his side of the story to another news entity, that entity could report the story anonymously, and if there was any truth to what he had to say, CNN would be in no position to reveal the person's name. This has not happened. You're welcome to not like CNN. You're also welcome to believe that CNN made actual threats and demands of this guy; but your only proof of that is a gut-feeling.
The implication of the second conversation where he said he "was not threatened in any way" is that, upon realizing the possibility of his identity being revealed, he cold-contacted CNN, and successfully prevented it by explaining his situation. So he was threatened with a possibility, not threatened by CNN. It's not CNN's fault that the person is ashamed of being an online troll.
.......................Did you just watch that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Barclay builds a thing on the holodeck to interface his mind directly to the ship's Computer?
In this case, all the person had to do was not respond to the journalist reaching out on FB, and it would've been a cold-lead that a journalist wouldn't publish because it lacked confirmation. Instead, he responded, and confirmed it. After this mess, the journalist then contacted the guy again, asked if he felt threatened, and the guy emphatically said that no, he did not.
The closest thing to a source in this clickbait article is a crummy YouTube-like video. The other links are just links to tags on that same woefully named "hothardware" site. EditorDavid, don't accept submissions like this.
Implants already exist, in humans, no less. Biologically speaking, if they don't need to break the skin, we're pretty good at making stuff that won't cause harm. On the input side, we already have technology to electro-stimulate the brain to prevent seizures and that technology looks very promising. Now, if you want a wire dangling down the back of your head, or a jack mounted to your skin, those can happen, but they're fraught with problems regarding infection. If we actually needed something that handled I/O that's directly connected to the brain, it'd make more sense to power it and communicate with it wirelessly. But as far as "large bandwidth", it's not really an appropriate metaphor for this problem. The brain's I/O operations are not particularly high bandwidth. The problem is that unlike computer network communication, which is serial; just a few wires with lots of data strung together, the brain is highly parallel; separate "wire" for everything. It's not about moving data to the brain fast enough, it's about being connected to all of the mechanisms within the brain that we care about. And as far as interaction, we long ago concluded that it makes the most sense to communicate with the same nerves that are already intended to handle the senses. We have technology that interfaces the optic nerve and can make the blind "see" low-resolution images; similar with hearing. On the output side, Technology to read muscle nerve impulses is out there, but often not feasible for amputees, compared to systems that read activity from muscle groups, that technology is likely to advance and it's a pretty exciting field. We have the ability for paralyzed people to, with a good deal of practice, vaguely move a mouse cursor. But it's not like we would want it to work, where you move the cursor by visualizing the cursor moving. Actually connecting to the portions of the brain that deal with thought and then being able to interpret that information as useful things like internal monologue or mental images is so ridiculously far away right now. And even if we are able to listen in on those regions with high enough clarity, it likely doesn't solve the problems of overriding those regions to "write" information.
Yeah, this appears to be the ignorant sentiment of a person with a doctorate in holography and optics. She either doesn't understand neuroscience at all beyond a level of armchair pop-sci, or she's making stuff up to get publicity for her company.
I'm sure they'd still be concerned for his safety. That doesn't mean that it's on them to protect it. When you do fucked up stuff, you may get in the news for it. And if someone attacks him or his family, then they are the people committing a felony, not CNN or this journalist.
If you want to call it extortion, that's fine by me. But it does not fall within the realm of the criminal definition of extortion; it is not felonious. That would require CNN calling for the person to come to harm; and it would potentially require the demand of property. If CNN released the name and someone went and assaulted the guy, the crime would be on the part of whoever assaulted him.
That's not what hate crime means at all. The term refers to crimes motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. In other words, it must already be a crime, and based on the motivation, it might also be a hate-crime. It's not a crime, and it's not motivated by prejudice, so it is entirely unrelated.