Is it better to have more voices in the mix, or for the expert voices not to be drowned out?... When you get untrained amateurs trying to compete with professionals, you end up with Ain't It Cool News.
I attended a lecture by R. W. Lucky last week, and one of the points he made was that the only thing left to charge for, after bandwidth and processing become practically free, is content. For example, apropos to this topic, well-edited high-quality reporting. Sure, you can have webcams showing every square inch of the planet, but it takes a NYT or CNN to filter that down to something that the average human can digest, given that we all live in real time.
The New York Times survives because of their extremely high journalistic standards (editorial blind spots notwithstanding). CNN has a massive news ingest operation (trust me:) focused on winnowing it down to Good Reporting and Captivating Video. People will pay for this filtered content, even in a world where the raw data is free and easily available. Or so we hope, otherwise we can all look forward to more adolescent shite like Fox News and Drudge...
I work for CNN and as the article says, "Fox and CNN flat out refuse to discuss the technology they have in place", so I can't say much. But I will say that we have been gearing up for this for almost as long as Bush has been rattling his oily sabres. Those HumVee's look pretty amazing (I'd love to post pictures, but can't -- maybe someone else will). There damn well better be a war, we need to pull in some serious ad revenue to pay for it all...
One hour on a two-cycle engine snowmobile emits more air pollution than you would driving a car for an entire year. One personal watercraft like the Jet Ski can dump up to six gallons of raw fuel into the water in two hours. A two-cycle engine lawnmower pollutes as much in one hour as 40 new cars.
Those little weedeaters you hear screaming all the time? Some of the worst contributors to the pollution problem. At least with electric drive there's a possibility that the power is coming from a clean source.
TaxAct is accurate and full of features. I've been using it for years (the paid version, which is still cheap). The UI is super slick and anybody's grandma could figure it out. Vote against DRM bullsiht like this with your wallet.
As far as I go, nobody who sends me a personal message ever uses HTML.
So I just code all incoming files with embedded HTML as spam.
It was reported just a few days ago that MSN emails now have ONLY an HTML mime part -- no more plaintext. Just like spam. Sure, it's fun to say things like "well, I don't, and wouldn't, have any friends on MSN", but that's just being juvenile, isn't it?
Science reporter Gina Kolata has been widely accused of poor reporting, bias and using industry shills in her "objective" reports. See more information
here (down at the bottom) and start googling further from there.
Because evidence that appears on its face to be strong yet comes from a completely incredible (i.e., not credible) source can usually dismissed without further examination. It's a time-saver.
Similarly, I've learned to comppletely ignore the "facts" espoused by the usual conservative commentators (Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, the entirety of Faux News). Because every time I've bothered to investigate their charges further, I found them to be completely wrong, and I mean 180 degrees out. So why waste my time even wondering if what they say is true? It never is.
On the other hand, I've learned to generally accept NY Times reporting as accurate (although they have occasional conservative corporate/government blindspots, like their endorsement of the anti-democratic Venezuelan coup a year ago), the Economist isn't afraid to take on some of the sillier positions of the WSJ, and the local news is never ever EVER a good source for anything but the weather. The world in 60 seconds, indeed.
Why I'm wasting my time typing all this, I'm note sure:)
Absolutely the only +5 comments on this thread should be people excoriating CmdrTaco for A) posting before PGP-signed announcement and B) linking directly to the master ftp site instead of the web page listing the mirrors.
I mean, I expect this from one of the junior "editors", but Cmdr Taco? Come on.
Cell phone wavelengths ARE in microwave oven range
on
Reflections
·
· Score: 1
... compare this to radio waves, which are far, FAR to low in energy to accomplish anything of the sort. In fact, radio waves are even to low to excite the vibrational or rotational states of a molecule (which is how a microwave oven works), so there is no risk of "cooking" your brain, either.
Bzzzt. Cellphones typically operate in one of several bands, including 0.8 GHz, 0.9 GHz, 1.8 GHz and 1.9 GHz. The latter two are not "far, far to low" -- microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz. They are well within the same octave (10x or 2x, take your pick:)
Sure, FM radio and TV are well below the microwave range, but we're not all holding VHF transmitters to our heads.
I'm not saying that ionizing radiation or heating radiation is what causes the complaints we've all heard of (headaches, loss of focus, etc.). But the frequencies ARE approaching the range of microwae ovens, and I think we WILL eventually find a provable scientific evidence of harm via cellphone radiation.
... the author claims getting rid of a car will save $16,000/year. $10,000/year for payments and insurance? What kind of car is he driving? I would say $300 or so per month is a typical car payment, and my insurance with collision and tons of liability is $600/year.
He says somewhere that he has a "mid-range BMW" which probably means a $40K-55K 5-series. Calculate the monthly payment on a 4-year loan for *that*, son.
And $600 a year for auto insurance? Riiiiight. You're driving a Tercel in Omaha, I take it.
Yes, I realize I've just been trolled by a 19-year-old.
As you see now from the comments, the headline and blurb are completely wrong. See other posts (many modded up to 5) for corroboration. This is bad info that needs to be corrected. A Slashback is fine, but it should be in the original story too. Please update this! Thanks.
People have been bad drivers since long before cell phones existed. Don't blame the phone for the driver's irresponsibility. People shave, put on lipstick, argue with their children, get drunk, you name it. Cell phones are not the problem.
Actually, they are the problem, according to carefully designed scientific* studies:
I see your point, that rude, stupid people wil continue to do rude, stupid things with or without cell phones, but to say that cell phones are not a problem is simply wrong.
* - Oh, I'm sorry, are you one of those conservatives who circumvents science when it doesn't support your personal opinions and the political process has failed you?
Re:Use transparent hardware that is OS-agnostic
on
IDE RAID Examined
·
· Score: 2
FYI, their RAIDCase is hot swappable, although this is an external solution.
Use transparent hardware that is OS-agnostic
on
IDE RAID Examined
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Every time there's a discussion or article about RAID, especially IDE RAID, I am astounded with all this discussion about drivers, OS support, integration problems, yadda yadda yadda.
Why hasn't
the ArcoIDE solution caught on like wildfire? It provides mirrored disk capability with absolutely no visibility to even the motherboard, much less the OS. I've been running it for years and it's great. Mine is the PCI slot model that simply uses the slot to get power to the card. One IDE cable from the motherboard to the card, two cables to the two hard drives.
And there's all sorts of alarming options -- LED's on the card, LED's on a front panel bezel, audible screech, Form C contacts for you industry types...
I don't get it.
Use the Net Installer for smaller downloads
on
Mozilla 1.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I see your point about just getting a patch, but you should also know that you can just install using the Net Installer, which gives you a 200KB program to select the exact configuration you want to install, and THEN it downlaods and installs.
People like cellphones because they can do other shit while they talk on them - I drive and use my cell all the time because I'm a BUSY fucking person (before I get flamed, I always use my handsfree set so I can devote most of my attention to the road).
Probably nobody else will see this because the parent article is days old by now, and the mod wave has passed by, but maybe you'll come back and see if anyone replied to your comment, and then at least you'll be ONE person who's had their vision adjusted.
When you talk on the phone, your driving skills are compromised; using a hands-free kit doesn't help much. I'm also a busy fucking person, I carry a cell phone, and I don't talk on it while the car is moving (even stop-and-go traffic). You need to stop kidding yourself. Sorry.
Mod parent up, please. I have no mod points today.
The paper wouldn't open for me either. I'm running Acrobat 4.0 on Win95 (hey, it's fast, dude). Someone can probably advise him on saving it in compatible mode or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
I attended a lecture by R. W. Lucky last week, and one of the points he made was that the only thing left to charge for, after bandwidth and processing become practically free, is content. For example, apropos to this topic, well-edited high-quality reporting. Sure, you can have webcams showing every square inch of the planet, but it takes a NYT or CNN to filter that down to something that the average human can digest, given that we all live in real time.
The New York Times survives because of their extremely high journalistic standards (editorial blind spots notwithstanding). CNN has a massive news ingest operation (trust me :) focused on winnowing it down to Good Reporting and Captivating Video. People will pay for this filtered content, even in a world where the raw data is free and easily available. Or so we hope, otherwise we can all look forward to more adolescent shite like Fox News and Drudge ...
Hear hear! What the hell is a well-written comment like this doing in Slashdot? CJR --> Brill --> Slashdot? :)
I work for CNN and as the article says, "Fox and CNN flat out refuse to discuss the technology they have in place", so I can't say much. But I will say that we have been gearing up for this for almost as long as Bush has been rattling his oily sabres. Those HumVee's look pretty amazing (I'd love to post pictures, but can't -- maybe someone else will). There damn well better be a war, we need to pull in some serious ad revenue to pay for it all ...
Or, maybe, minimum efficiency, because multitasking makes you stupid.
TaxAct is accurate and full of features. I've been using it for years (the paid version, which is still cheap). The UI is super slick and anybody's grandma could figure it out. Vote against DRM bullsiht like this with your wallet.
So I just code all incoming files with embedded HTML as spam.
It was reported just a few days ago that MSN emails now have ONLY an HTML mime part -- no more plaintext. Just like spam. Sure, it's fun to say things like "well, I don't, and wouldn't, have any friends on MSN", but that's just being juvenile, isn't it?
Science reporter Gina Kolata has been widely accused of poor reporting, bias and using industry shills in her "objective" reports. See more information here (down at the bottom) and start googling further from there.
And here's an extremely sobering collection of reports on NYT problematic journalism.
Kevin Mitnick was supposed to answer our questions. Did I miss the response, or is he too busy discovering the wonders of por^H^H^H the Internet?
Similarly, I've learned to comppletely ignore the "facts" espoused by the usual conservative commentators (Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, the entirety of Faux News). Because every time I've bothered to investigate their charges further, I found them to be completely wrong, and I mean 180 degrees out. So why waste my time even wondering if what they say is true? It never is.
On the other hand, I've learned to generally accept NY Times reporting as accurate (although they have occasional conservative corporate/government blindspots, like their endorsement of the anti-democratic Venezuelan coup a year ago), the Economist isn't afraid to take on some of the sillier positions of the WSJ, and the local news is never ever EVER a good source for anything but the weather. The world in 60 seconds, indeed.
Why I'm wasting my time typing all this, I'm note sure :)
I mean, I expect this from one of the junior "editors", but Cmdr Taco? Come on.
Bzzzt. Cellphones typically operate in one of several bands, including 0.8 GHz, 0.9 GHz, 1.8 GHz and 1.9 GHz. The latter two are not "far, far to low" -- microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz. They are well within the same octave (10x or 2x, take your pick :)
Sure, FM radio and TV are well below the microwave range, but we're not all holding VHF transmitters to our heads.
I'm not saying that ionizing radiation or heating radiation is what causes the complaints we've all heard of (headaches, loss of focus, etc.). But the frequencies ARE approaching the range of microwae ovens, and I think we WILL eventually find a provable scientific evidence of harm via cellphone radiation.
A couple more things to Google:
Translate it. Is any use of the word "black" now considered racist?
Yeah, I know, I've been trolled ...
He says somewhere that he has a "mid-range BMW" which probably means a $40K-55K 5-series. Calculate the monthly payment on a 4-year loan for *that*, son.
And $600 a year for auto insurance? Riiiiight. You're driving a Tercel in Omaha, I take it.
Yes, I realize I've just been trolled by a 19-year-old.
As you see now from the comments, the headline and blurb are completely wrong. See other posts (many modded up to 5) for corroboration. This is bad info that needs to be corrected. A Slashback is fine, but it should be in the original story too. Please update this! Thanks.
Actually, they are the problem, according to carefully designed scientific* studies:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/16/cell.phone.drivin g/index.html
I see your point, that rude, stupid people wil continue to do rude, stupid things with or without cell phones, but to say that cell phones are not a problem is simply wrong.
* - Oh, I'm sorry, are you one of those conservatives who circumvents science when it doesn't support your personal opinions and the political process has failed you?
To quote Jenny Holzer, "the future is stupid".
FYI, their RAIDCase is hot swappable, although this is an external solution.
Why hasn't the ArcoIDE solution caught on like wildfire? It provides mirrored disk capability with absolutely no visibility to even the motherboard, much less the OS. I've been running it for years and it's great. Mine is the PCI slot model that simply uses the slot to get power to the card. One IDE cable from the motherboard to the card, two cables to the two hard drives.
And there's all sorts of alarming options -- LED's on the card, LED's on a front panel bezel, audible screech, Form C contacts for you industry types ...
I don't get it.
http://www.mozilla.org/releases/
Scroll down looking for "Net Installer" .
BZZZT! Wrong!
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/16/cell.phone.drivin g/index.html
Probably nobody else will see this because the parent article is days old by now, and the mod wave has passed by, but maybe you'll come back and see if anyone replied to your comment, and then at least you'll be ONE person who's had their vision adjusted.
When you talk on the phone, your driving skills are compromised; using a hands-free kit doesn't help much. I'm also a busy fucking person, I carry a cell phone, and I don't talk on it while the car is moving (even stop-and-go traffic). You need to stop kidding yourself. Sorry.
I think all reasonable human beings should be expected to draw the line somewhere. Here's why you shouldn't shop at Walmart, ever:
- They abuse their employees (see also NYT article)
- They destroy the social fabric of neighborhoods
- They engage in capricious censorship (see more here)
- They purchase from overseas suppliers with ZERO regard for the sweatshop conditions under which the materials were manufactured. Even Nike agreed this was reprehensible.
Vote with your wallet. You DO have a choice.101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that IE cannot
The paper wouldn't open for me either. I'm running Acrobat 4.0 on Win95 (hey, it's fast, dude). Someone can probably advise him on saving it in compatible mode or something like that.
OMG, I really need mod points for this one. Is this Slashdot's form of astroturfing?