I know, I know. It's just a little discouraging when people's top priorities are adjusting the volume on the inane, vacuous blather on TV when there are so many other pressing issues. I wonder how long and how many resources they wasted on this? Was it really taking a break, or did it take away resources from the stuff that actually matters?
Now I can rest easy, knowing that the folks in charge are focusing on the really important matters. It was just last night, I was jolted out of a nap in front of some program on global warming or something by an ad for American Idol...
I was wondering about that too. I don't think they'll eat a frozen mouse dangling on a string. We have a constrictor at home that we feed frozen mice - you have to un-freez them and kinda wiggle them around to get her attention. Since they've gone to all this trouble so far, maybe they can implant a little electric motor in each mouse. Perhaps some usability testing might be in order.
FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".
Brilliant! So you're assuming that all the discoveries have been made by people at night using telescopes. Oh, wait...we have these things called satellites around here.
It's interesting how the video highlights the fact that the bulk of the asteroids seem to be discovered in a direction of the earth's orbit opposite the sun. Seems obvious when you think about it, but it really becomes apparent from watching the vid.
I was going to write a clever response to this article, but I'm having too much trouble finding the Slashdot automatic clever response generator. Can you guys send over someone from tech support to help me?
Hey Turtle - I agree that your new paradigm could work to an extent (Open Source News!). However, I don't think everyone know how to report news. There is an art to reporting concisely, editing, and researching. What you propose could end up in some disgusting shallow Facebook like morass. I can see 50 reports along the lines of "Dude, some n00b just got PWNED by a car on frickin 3rd streed. What a tard".
I was also going to say that the common folk would be more inclined to bias their reports, but never mind.
No logic gap, my friend. IMHO, there is a fundamental difference between television and website advertising. I've done a number of eyetracking studies on websites that show how routinely and effectively the users completely tune out web advertising. Since television advertising is presented serially (it's the only thing you *can* look at), the user has no choice but to view it. Unless you have TIVO, in which case you're paying through that service. I do agree that the owners recoup lots with the low overhead of the web content though.
So if the advertisers don't understand the net, what do you propose as an alternative?
Good points! In fact, it was the assumption of the demise of the hard-copy newspaper that triggered the original post. Sorry, pal - I'm reasonable certain that you'll have to change your morning routine in the near future. Physical media companies are shutting down in droves, and the survivors will be those that can adjust somehow.
I believe part of that adjustment is in the development of an e-commerce infrastructure and the increasing pervasiveness of technology. Once the physical (in the form of permanent VR contact lenses or whatever) and the economic convenience is in place (in the form of automatic micropayments), I don't think folks will give it another thought. It's like the evolution of the phone - from practically free party lines and local calls to the glutted cell phone plans we have today. They are reeling us in by increments.
So I'm expecting the usual reaction from the Slashdot audience cheering the gloriously free nature of information on the net and our ability to stick it to the man. And don't get me wrong, I'm a (free) news junkie myself. But how sustainable is the current paradigm? . I'm asking a sincere question, as the journalists really do have to get paid eventually. Advertisers? Probably not with the click rates the way they are nowadays. I don't see any any alternative to Murdoch's vision - other than some of the micropayment schemes that have been proposed. As the media outlets adjust to the new world and figure out ways to regulate, it's hard to see how this vision is anything but inevitable.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice attempt at levity.
...
Interesting observation. Ironically, the acronym finder includes Relative Importance Measure as one of the uses for the acronym RIM.
I know, I know. It's just a little discouraging when people's top priorities are adjusting the volume on the inane, vacuous blather on TV when there are so many other pressing issues. I wonder how long and how many resources they wasted on this? Was it really taking a break, or did it take away resources from the stuff that actually matters?
Now I can rest easy, knowing that the folks in charge are focusing on the really important matters. It was just last night, I was jolted out of a nap in front of some program on global warming or something by an ad for American Idol...
I was wondering about that too. I don't think they'll eat a frozen mouse dangling on a string. We have a constrictor at home that we feed frozen mice - you have to un-freez them and kinda wiggle them around to get her attention. Since they've gone to all this trouble so far, maybe they can implant a little electric motor in each mouse. Perhaps some usability testing might be in order.
Sorry - that's already been covered
FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".
That is interesting - I wonder if that was the activation of some new technology (Hubble?).
It's also interesting to note the "blind spots" that are created by Mars.
Brilliant! So you're assuming that all the discoveries have been made by people at night using telescopes. Oh, wait...we have these things called satellites around here.
It's interesting how the video highlights the fact that the bulk of the asteroids seem to be discovered in a direction of the earth's orbit opposite the sun. Seems obvious when you think about it, but it really becomes apparent from watching the vid.
To whom is this message directed?
I was going to write a clever response to this article, but I'm having too much trouble finding the Slashdot automatic clever response generator. Can you guys send over someone from tech support to help me?
Thanks for the English lesson, my friend. Unfortunately, you are wrong. The dictionary defines irony as
"incongruity between what is expected to be and what actually is, or a situation or result showing such incongruity ".
If you make the effort, I think you will see how this applies to my post
I'm also curious as to why you assume I'm an American, and the source of your bigotry?
...let's see him try that with Homeworld
It's ironic - they used to make computerized games that would emulate real life. The circle is now complete...
Hey Turtle - I agree that your new paradigm could work to an extent (Open Source News!). However, I don't think everyone know how to report news. There is an art to reporting concisely, editing, and researching. What you propose could end up in some disgusting shallow Facebook like morass. I can see 50 reports along the lines of "Dude, some n00b just got PWNED by a car on frickin 3rd streed. What a tard".
I was also going to say that the common folk would be more inclined to bias their reports, but never mind.
No logic gap, my friend. IMHO, there is a fundamental difference between television and website advertising. I've done a number of eyetracking studies on websites that show how routinely and effectively the users completely tune out web advertising. Since television advertising is presented serially (it's the only thing you *can* look at), the user has no choice but to view it. Unless you have TIVO, in which case you're paying through that service. I do agree that the owners recoup lots with the low overhead of the web content though.
So if the advertisers don't understand the net, what do you propose as an alternative?
Good points! In fact, it was the assumption of the demise of the hard-copy newspaper that triggered the original post. Sorry, pal - I'm reasonable certain that you'll have to change your morning routine in the near future. Physical media companies are shutting down in droves, and the survivors will be those that can adjust somehow.
I believe part of that adjustment is in the development of an e-commerce infrastructure and the increasing pervasiveness of technology. Once the physical (in the form of permanent VR contact lenses or whatever) and the economic convenience is in place (in the form of automatic micropayments), I don't think folks will give it another thought. It's like the evolution of the phone - from practically free party lines and local calls to the glutted cell phone plans we have today. They are reeling us in by increments.
So I'm expecting the usual reaction from the Slashdot audience cheering the gloriously free nature of information on the net and our ability to stick it to the man. And don't get me wrong, I'm a (free) news junkie myself. But how sustainable is the current paradigm? . I'm asking a sincere question, as the journalists really do have to get paid eventually. Advertisers? Probably not with the click rates the way they are nowadays. I don't see any any alternative to Murdoch's vision - other than some of the micropayment schemes that have been proposed. As the media outlets adjust to the new world and figure out ways to regulate, it's hard to see how this vision is anything but inevitable.
...I just can't do it...
..encompassing article from /.
Just wanted to needle the editors a bit.
Simple solution - for all you health nuts that are complaining about obesity...just run on the thing backwards.
There, fixed that for ya.
The results of this seem a little confounded to me. They "paired favored mice with the weaker...". Didn't they just introduce a bias?
I'm struck dumb - I can't match wits with you.