Are you dinging the Archos because they gave it a large hard drive??? So what if the batteries run out before the storage is filled. Are we supposed to like a lesser product because it has less storage? "Oh, that's too much storage for me, thanks. I'll take this dinky one over here."
And yes, a journalist will lug around an extra set of rechargeable batteries, *in case* they are needed (which is unlikely to begin with). They already do that for analog tape recorders and digital cameras.
If journalists are the target audience, they'd be better off with something like the Archos Recorder (or the 20GB version coming soon. Far greater storage and useful for recording notes or radio sound bites.
So when I read on/. about an anime 'Metrpolis,' my immediate assumption is that we're talking about an anime-version of Fritz Lang's Metropolis, the world-famous movie by that title.
The point is that, a least among film buffs, "Metropolis" is a major film. That's why I gave a "what if" example of two films named "Star Wars."
If you think it's fine to talk about an anime film called "Star Wars" without explaining that the film does not have the same plot as the film by George Lucas, then there's really nothing more I can say.
You missed the point. The anime icon merely indicates the movie is anime. It does not indicate anything about the content of the anime movie 'Metropolis.' The point of confusion is that this is not an anime-version of Metropolis, it is a completely different movie in its own right.
In my job, before I embark on a course of action that has huge ramifications for the livelihood of my employer, my coworkers or our customers, I seek peer comment (listservs, web forums, etc.). I do this so I'm sure to see all sides of an issue and make the best decision possible. [Side note explanation: I do not have comparably knowledgeable peers at my workplace.]
The Patent Office should open itself up (or open itself up more). It's gotten rather old to hear about some crazy patent that was just awarded, then read a few hundred messages on/. about how bogus it is. Surely a few of those hundred posts have credible points. If a bunch of geeks can poke gaping holes in government thinking, surely something is amiss.
Serious movie viewers know Fritz Lang's Metropolis. It is a testiment to someone's lack of knowledge that Slashdot could post a news link about a different Metropolis and fail to note the distinction.
This is like posting a link about an anime Star Wars without stating up-front that you're talking about a film with a completely different plot and a confusingly similar name. "No, it's not an anime-version of Star Wars. It just has the same name." Frankly, this is embarassing.
Yeah, go ahead anime lovers. Mod me down. I've got the karma to take your wrath.
I was rather excited at the prospect of an animated Metropolis, only to find out this recent news is about something else.
I know this is Slashdot, but I would still be very surprised to learn that Fritz Lang's Metropolis is lesser known than this anime thing.
Re:At least he's holding his convictions
on
The End of Cyber BS
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
can't still change our lives
It has already transformed our lives in fundamental ways we don't even think about. They just seem "normal" now.
Example: an irate customer enters your workplace and makes a scene. Afterward, you Google his name and discover a history of outbursts (being ejected from city council meetings), some arrests, some allegations of knife wielding, and some fisticuffs in professional disagreements. So you give a print-out of some web pages to your boss and he hires a security guard and implements other security procedures.
You get a quick thank you for your five minutes of research, then go back to work. You think nothing of what you just did, even though it would have been impossible - unthinkable - just a few years ago. Well, that was my reaction anyway.
The news organization defines what is newsworthy, not the audience. That is the role of the gatekeeper. You can be unhappy, complain to and boycott the news organization -- thus influencing how the news organization defines and reports future news. But to demand a retraction (as was implied by the original/. posting) indicates a misunderstanding of the role of news organizations. A retraction would be called for if the whole story was false. For example, if someone discovered that the reporter fabricated the "inventor" who made the claims. If the "inventor" really did make the claims, then the news organization is only guilty of poor journalism.
No, not really. Journalists do not have a responsibility to print the truth. They have a responsibility to not knowingly print a falsehood. There is a big difference.
Example:
You utter the words, "John Doe robbed a bank when he was a teenager."
I publish your quote.
John Doe sues both of us for libel.
I do some research and determine John Doe is correct. I print a retraction.
I likely get absolved of wrongdoing, while you have to prove in court that you did not lie. Truth is the defense for libel. However, journalists do have special rights above regular citizens and printing a retraction goes a long way toward protecting me from litigation.
Yes, a good reporter does his research beforehand to know you are lying. Bad reporters quickly lose their jobs or their readership. But John Doe would have to prove gross negligence (say, a specific intent) in reporting to get a judgement against me in court.
A retraction by Reuters is not necessary unless the story is not true. I'm pretty sure this hoaxter made the claims, and Reuters merely reported the claims. Corrections are fine, like if Reteurs made a math error or spelled someone's name incorrectly. Wild claims are not a retractable issue because they are just that - claims. Not facts.
If this hoaxter who got national attention, too bad. But the job of a reporter is to report. Reuters did not make an extraordinary claim. The hoaxter did. Yes, Reuters looks stupid when reporting a hoax. Yes, if Reuters regularly reports hoaxes, people will seriously question whether it's worthwhile to read Reuters reports.
If you want analysis of the report, read a science publication. This report is no different than other legitimate reporting. Every day we hear about a *real* scientific study that tells us X causes cancer or X is good for you, and it's up to the public to interpret the news. A prudent person doesn't rush out to the grocery store to begin eating lots of X (or stop eating it) until the evidence is so overwhelming that it's accepted as fact.
A prudent person, when reading this Reuters energy article, would simply say, "OK, come back and tell me again after the invention has undergone peer review and the whole world is excited. Until then, I'll stay connected to the grid."
However, let's not confuse the quackery with legitimate opposition to cell towers. They are massive, unsightly structures, often put in the most serene beautiful places. I hope/trust such obvious structures are kept well out of common public view. (It can be a difficult idea to understand if you live in a cement metropolis.)
The sad thing is that people feel wireless and fast Internet access are essential for a good economy. If you take one of the most beautiful places on earth and give it a "healthy economy," that means extreme land development and infrastructure that ruins everything about the place that made people want to live there in the first place. Why is it "unhealthy" to have an economy that is not growing, that merely sustains itself?
What good would it do? ICANN would give trademark holders first dibbs at registration and then every sucky company would own its own.sucks domain. Sounds more like a ploy to keep the registrars plump.
social groups and gatekeeping
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 2
Why is people "shouting out" bad? If anything, it's the beginning of new social groups and societal gatekeepers.
Social Group - Bloggers create group knowledge. If I frequent 10 blogs and you regularly visit only 3 or 4 of them, chances are you are exposed to the same sorts of information and you're thinking about the same news and issues as me. This has created two distinct social groups in my life- bloggers and everyone else. (Bloggers do communicate with each other.)
Gatekeeper - TV networks, newspapers and radio networks are the traditional gatekeepers. They collect all of the information and decide which bits to show you in your geographic region. Well, bloggers are now picking through the randomness of the world and assembling their own messages. I see more news from CNN and MSNBC through blogging than I would ever see through casual browsing of CNN's and MSNBC's own web sites! Why? Because part of the corporate gatekeeper's mission is to prioritize news and they bury important issues (important to me) in places I'm not likely to casually discover. Many times CNN & MSNBC keep the gate closed and it's the bloggers who find alternate information sources and sneek me past the gates of the corporate American media.
Slashdot is Social Capital
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 2
Putman defines social capital as "features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit."
Well dang, he just described the Internet. I participate in listservs and web forums every day for cooperation and mutual benefit. I apologize if Putman prefers in-person contact (which for me would only happen at an expensive conference, because there just aren't many like-minded folk who live near me).
Masons, Elks Lodges, and other social organizations were hugely popular in the late 1800s. Now they operate in obscurity because people fill their time with other activities. Is that bad? It is out of elitism or fear that people blindly tell us the status quo is better than change.
This/. article was entitled "Browsing Alone." The last thing I feel on the Internet is alone. Maybe Putman should stop being a lurking grue and start communicating.
For you, Ebay is the worst place to buy retail. For me, if I cannot buy a product from a local retailer (e.g., anywhere in my town), then an online purchase makes sense. For many, it's simpler to buy via Ebay than to search dozens of retail sites for each individual product. Why? Personally, I get far better service from individuals than I do from e-commerce companies. Sad, but true. (I've never been defrauded, but I also don't buy things costing hundreds of dollars. Major purchases are still worth driving a few hours to the nearest brick-and-mortar retailer.)
Well, Anonymous Coward, you have a lot to learn. I can spend 5 minutes on Ebay finding what I need (sold New-In-Box, probably purchased by the seller directly from a box store), or two hours looking through dozens of e-commerce sites for each individual item I need. Ebay sells items at prices that individuals are willing to pay. If a person wants to pay 20% over retail, who are you to call them morons? Oh yeah, you're a coward.
Have you seen the return lines at Wal*Mart, Kmart and Target? People buy retail crap and return it too because it was not what they thought it was, despite their seeing photos on the box in-person, and maybe even seeing a display model. Why should Ebay be held to a higher standard?
The one thing that was missed is the ever-increasing number of morons who will pay full-retail price + 20% for things on eBay."
Bypassing the obvious trollish nature of the word "morons," allow me to educate you. People who live in rural areas cannot walk down to the corner Wal*Mart, Kmart or Target to buy cheap crap. Contrary to popular believe, box stores have not infiltrated every city and town yet. Some people have to drive 100 miles or 6 hours, whichever is more inconvenient.
Much of this cheap crap is not sold online, so these people must use sites like Ebay to buy products that are otherwise unavailable to them. Paying more on Ebay is cheaper than the alternative.
The article fails to note that the Atari Lynx color handheld accommodated left-handed users. Game buttons were placed on both sides of the unit and you could flip the screen.
It ran circles around the gray Nintendo Gameboy (256 colors, stereo sound, multiplayer option), but Atari knew squat about marketing. A single commercial on MTV once in a blue moon, while Nintendo smothered every nook and cranny of the market. It was like Atari was satisfied if it produced X units and sold those units, instead of being more ambitious.
If you are wondering, "How the hell did a web site this crappy get built?" then the good news is... you too can be a web designer.
I have a friends who made web development their successful career after getting frustrated by bloated, unfocused motion picture (and other corporate) web sites. Their thought process went something like this... "Someone made a load of dough building this site. I know nothing, but I could still run circles around this design. Damn, I'm changing careers."
If I can't tape TV shows, I'll set up a video camera on a tripod, get a tightly cropped picture and use a timing device to record my damn shows. Or maybe I'll finally get so pissed off I withdraw from all corporate entertainment consumption.
Dammit, could the entertainment industry be bigger assholes?
Slashdot Mirror
Are you dinging the Archos because they gave it a large hard drive??? So what if the batteries run out before the storage is filled. Are we supposed to like a lesser product because it has less storage? "Oh, that's too much storage for me, thanks. I'll take this dinky one over here."
And yes, a journalist will lug around an extra set of rechargeable batteries, *in case* they are needed (which is unlikely to begin with). They already do that for analog tape recorders and digital cameras.
If journalists are the target audience, they'd be better off with something like the Archos Recorder (or the 20GB version coming soon. Far greater storage and useful for recording notes or radio sound bites.
OK, to the uninitiated... Fritz Lang's 1927 Metropolis has influenced everything from Blade Runner's iconography to Madonna's 'Express Yourself' video to virtually every subsequent film rendition of Frankenstein.
/. about an anime 'Metrpolis,' my immediate assumption is that we're talking about an anime-version of Fritz Lang's Metropolis, the world-famous movie by that title.
So when I read on
The point is that, a least among film buffs, "Metropolis" is a major film. That's why I gave a "what if" example of two films named "Star Wars."
If you think it's fine to talk about an anime film called "Star Wars" without explaining that the film does not have the same plot as the film by George Lucas, then there's really nothing more I can say.
You missed the point. The anime icon merely indicates the movie is anime. It does not indicate anything about the content of the anime movie 'Metropolis.' The point of confusion is that this is not an anime-version of Metropolis, it is a completely different movie in its own right.
In my job, before I embark on a course of action that has huge ramifications for the livelihood of my employer, my coworkers or our customers, I seek peer comment (listservs, web forums, etc.). I do this so I'm sure to see all sides of an issue and make the best decision possible. [Side note explanation: I do not have comparably knowledgeable peers at my workplace.]
/. about how bogus it is. Surely a few of those hundred posts have credible points. If a bunch of geeks can poke gaping holes in government thinking, surely something is amiss.
The Patent Office should open itself up (or open itself up more). It's gotten rather old to hear about some crazy patent that was just awarded, then read a few hundred messages on
Serious movie viewers know Fritz Lang's Metropolis. It is a testiment to someone's lack of knowledge that Slashdot could post a news link about a different Metropolis and fail to note the distinction.
This is like posting a link about an anime Star Wars without stating up-front that you're talking about a film with a completely different plot and a confusingly similar name. "No, it's not an anime-version of Star Wars. It just has the same name." Frankly, this is embarassing.
Yeah, go ahead anime lovers. Mod me down. I've got the karma to take your wrath.
I was rather excited at the prospect of an animated Metropolis, only to find out this recent news is about something else.
I know this is Slashdot, but I would still be very surprised to learn that Fritz Lang's Metropolis is lesser known than this anime thing.
can't still change our lives
It has already transformed our lives in fundamental ways we don't even think about. They just seem "normal" now.
Example: an irate customer enters your workplace and makes a scene. Afterward, you Google his name and discover a history of outbursts (being ejected from city council meetings), some arrests, some allegations of knife wielding, and some fisticuffs in professional disagreements. So you give a print-out of some web pages to your boss and he hires a security guard and implements other security procedures.
You get a quick thank you for your five minutes of research, then go back to work. You think nothing of what you just did, even though it would have been impossible - unthinkable - just a few years ago. Well, that was my reaction anyway.
The news organization defines what is newsworthy, not the audience. That is the role of the gatekeeper. You can be unhappy, complain to and boycott the news organization -- thus influencing how the news organization defines and reports future news. But to demand a retraction (as was implied by the original /. posting) indicates a misunderstanding of the role of news organizations. A retraction would be called for if the whole story was false. For example, if someone discovered that the reporter fabricated the "inventor" who made the claims. If the "inventor" really did make the claims, then the news organization is only guilty of poor journalism.
Example:
A retraction by Reuters is not necessary unless the story is not true. I'm pretty sure this hoaxter made the claims, and Reuters merely reported the claims. Corrections are fine, like if Reteurs made a math error or spelled someone's name incorrectly. Wild claims are not a retractable issue because they are just that - claims. Not facts.
If this hoaxter who got national attention, too bad. But the job of a reporter is to report. Reuters did not make an extraordinary claim. The hoaxter did. Yes, Reuters looks stupid when reporting a hoax. Yes, if Reuters regularly reports hoaxes, people will seriously question whether it's worthwhile to read Reuters reports.
If you want analysis of the report, read a science publication. This report is no different than other legitimate reporting. Every day we hear about a *real* scientific study that tells us X causes cancer or X is good for you, and it's up to the public to interpret the news. A prudent person doesn't rush out to the grocery store to begin eating lots of X (or stop eating it) until the evidence is so overwhelming that it's accepted as fact.
A prudent person, when reading this Reuters energy article, would simply say, "OK, come back and tell me again after the invention has undergone peer review and the whole world is excited. Until then, I'll stay connected to the grid."
However, let's not confuse the quackery with legitimate opposition to cell towers. They are massive, unsightly structures, often put in the most serene beautiful places. I hope/trust such obvious structures are kept well out of common public view. (It can be a difficult idea to understand if you live in a cement metropolis.)
The sad thing is that people feel wireless and fast Internet access are essential for a good economy. If you take one of the most beautiful places on earth and give it a "healthy economy," that means extreme land development and infrastructure that ruins everything about the place that made people want to live there in the first place. Why is it "unhealthy" to have an economy that is not growing, that merely sustains itself?
a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"
.sucks domain. Sounds more like a ploy to keep the registrars plump.
What good would it do? ICANN would give trademark holders first dibbs at registration and then every sucky company would own its own
Why is people "shouting out" bad? If anything, it's the beginning of new social groups and societal gatekeepers.
Social Group - Bloggers create group knowledge. If I frequent 10 blogs and you regularly visit only 3 or 4 of them, chances are you are exposed to the same sorts of information and you're thinking about the same news and issues as me. This has created two distinct social groups in my life- bloggers and everyone else. (Bloggers do communicate with each other.)
Gatekeeper - TV networks, newspapers and radio networks are the traditional gatekeepers. They collect all of the information and decide which bits to show you in your geographic region. Well, bloggers are now picking through the randomness of the world and assembling their own messages. I see more news from CNN and MSNBC through blogging than I would ever see through casual browsing of CNN's and MSNBC's own web sites! Why? Because part of the corporate gatekeeper's mission is to prioritize news and they bury important issues (important to me) in places I'm not likely to casually discover. Many times CNN & MSNBC keep the gate closed and it's the bloggers who find alternate information sources and sneek me past the gates of the corporate American media.
Putman defines social capital as "features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit."
/. article was entitled "Browsing Alone." The last thing I feel on the Internet is alone. Maybe Putman should stop being a lurking grue and start communicating.
Well dang, he just described the Internet. I participate in listservs and web forums every day for cooperation and mutual benefit. I apologize if Putman prefers in-person contact (which for me would only happen at an expensive conference, because there just aren't many like-minded folk who live near me).
Masons, Elks Lodges, and other social organizations were hugely popular in the late 1800s. Now they operate in obscurity because people fill their time with other activities. Is that bad? It is out of elitism or fear that people blindly tell us the status quo is better than change.
This
Fraud is a completely separate issue.
For you, Ebay is the worst place to buy retail. For me, if I cannot buy a product from a local retailer (e.g., anywhere in my town), then an online purchase makes sense. For many, it's simpler to buy via Ebay than to search dozens of retail sites for each individual product. Why? Personally, I get far better service from individuals than I do from e-commerce companies. Sad, but true. (I've never been defrauded, but I also don't buy things costing hundreds of dollars. Major purchases are still worth driving a few hours to the nearest brick-and-mortar retailer.)
Well, Anonymous Coward, you have a lot to learn. I can spend 5 minutes on Ebay finding what I need (sold New-In-Box, probably purchased by the seller directly from a box store), or two hours looking through dozens of e-commerce sites for each individual item I need. Ebay sells items at prices that individuals are willing to pay. If a person wants to pay 20% over retail, who are you to call them morons? Oh yeah, you're a coward.
Have you seen the return lines at Wal*Mart, Kmart and Target? People buy retail crap and return it too because it was not what they thought it was, despite their seeing photos on the box in-person, and maybe even seeing a display model. Why should Ebay be held to a higher standard?
The one thing that was missed is the ever-increasing number of morons who will pay full-retail price + 20% for things on eBay."
Bypassing the obvious trollish nature of the word "morons," allow me to educate you. People who live in rural areas cannot walk down to the corner Wal*Mart, Kmart or Target to buy cheap crap. Contrary to popular believe, box stores have not infiltrated every city and town yet. Some people have to drive 100 miles or 6 hours, whichever is more inconvenient.
Much of this cheap crap is not sold online, so these people must use sites like Ebay to buy products that are otherwise unavailable to them. Paying more on Ebay is cheaper than the alternative.
The article fails to note that the Atari Lynx color handheld accommodated left-handed users. Game buttons were placed on both sides of the unit and you could flip the screen.
It ran circles around the gray Nintendo Gameboy (256 colors, stereo sound, multiplayer option), but Atari knew squat about marketing. A single commercial on MTV once in a blue moon, while Nintendo smothered every nook and cranny of the market. It was like Atari was satisfied if it produced X units and sold those units, instead of being more ambitious.
If you are wondering, "How the hell did a web site this crappy get built?" then the good news is... you too can be a web designer.
I have a friends who made web development their successful career after getting frustrated by bloated, unfocused motion picture (and other corporate) web sites. Their thought process went something like this... "Someone made a load of dough building this site. I know nothing, but I could still run circles around this design. Damn, I'm changing careers."
If I can't tape TV shows, I'll set up a video camera on a tripod, get a tightly cropped picture and use a timing device to record my damn shows. Or maybe I'll finally get so pissed off I withdraw from all corporate entertainment consumption.
Dammit, could the entertainment industry be bigger assholes?
You missed my point. I appreciate that Google is minimalist and that's why I refer my friends to it.