I disagree. If I want a "good plot," I'll read a book. Part of the reason why Grand Theft Auto 3 was successful was the fact that its plot was incidental -- most players ignored it, and just drove around exploring and killing and blowing stuff up. It was amazing because it was a fully developed world where you could do (almost) anything.
I love playing the Ace Combat flighter-combat games for PS2. They all have plots, but I couldn't tell you what those plots are because I click through the exposition. I don't care about the stupid story; I want to fly a plane and blow shit up. The programmers spend a lot of time creating cinematic storyboards, when frankly, I'd rather they added a dozen more missions. I quit playing RPGs altogether because, while the original Final Fantasy was fun, its PlayStation sequels choked on storylines. I swear, during one I spent 10 minutes watching a bunch of CGI characters jumping off a train and breaking into a building and riding through a window on a motorcycle -- and meanwhile, I'm watching. Enough already, with the alien and the spaceship and my character's background...I just want to fight some dragons.
Go back to the paradigms, either Donkey Kong or Super Mario Bros: "The story is, there's a princess you need to rescue. GO!!!" Nobody played the game because they honestly gave a damn about rescuing the princess; they played it because it was fun. Imagine if some programmer applied the GTA3 dynamic to, say, TIE Fighter, and you could just randomly fly through space and attack squadrons, convoys, planets, whatever. Ditto here: How cool would it be if, instead of gluing your gameplay to a predetermined plot (probably culled from some rejected script), you could explore space with your starship and find new planets, encounter new species, decide to "tease" the Romulans around the Neutral Zone or decide to warp over to Delta Quadrant and start busting on the Borg?
I'd buy that game. Definitely knock off the A-list voice actors, and stop nailing everything that happens to some linear plotline. Fire all those people, and instead spend the money on innovating the gameplay.
One of the major problems with Amazon is that there is little to no incentive for me to rate a product or provide any feedback, unless I want to itch my altruistic 'benefit the shopping masses' bug...
It is partly altruism, but it's mostly pride. Amazon provides a voting system where customers can mark whether a specific review was helpful; and as a reviewer, you can watch your tally rise if people find your reviews useful. If you take it really seriously, you can make it into the Top 1,000 reviewers where you get a special "badge"; and in the Top 100, well, those folks are hardcore.
But to answer your (implicit) question: The incentive is pride. Good, old-fashioned, seven-sins pride.
Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia. It's a community. Don't confuse the two.
Your contributions were probably questioned for two reasons. First, because Wikipedia is governed by a policy called NPOV, or Neutral Point Of View, which is interpreted to mean that an encyclopedia must reflect all perspectives on any subject. There can be no "absolute right" or "absolute wrong." According to NPOV, your opinion just that. Expertise does not exist. All sides must be represented, no matter how loony.
Second, you probably weren't taken seriously because you didn't contribute hundreds of edits over the course of a week. Wikipedia is dominated, literally, by those users who spend the most time editing. This, ultimately, is Wikipedia's greatest flaw: Its users are more interested in participating in a community than in building an encyclopedia. They call themselves "Wikipedians," and they stage meet-ups. Their reasons for participating are primarily social.
The result is a project governed by losers. Sorry, but it's the truth: The people with the most free time to dedicate to an online encyclopedia will always be the people least-qualified to contribute, because those who are qualified spend their time earning and practicing those qualifications in the real world. If the project were coordinated somehow, maybe shared between several universities with each department contributing according to its own specialization...maybe it could work. But Wikipedia is doomed to mediocrity, simply because it's populated by nutjobs with no social skills who drive away qualified contributors who threaten their pretend authority.
Knowledge is not democratic -- and expertise necessarily erodes equality. You cannot build a worthwhile encyclopedia based on the premise that everyone's contributions will be valuable.
When I was in kindergarten, I watched the Adam West series on television every day. I wrote a letter to our local television station, with my parents' help, asking where I could buy a Batman utility belt. Someone at the station must have thought it was cute, because they replied with a polite note saying, We're sorry, but we don't know where you can purchase a Batman utility belt.
I always thought that was a stupid, missed opportunity for merchandising Batman. It wouldn't have been expensive to manufacture a plastic yellow belt with pockets like Adam West wore, and kids like myself would have rushed to buy them. They could have filled the pockets with a few cheap toys -- plastic Batcuffs, a Bat communicator, etc. -- or sold them separately. It would have been great.
I use the briefcase/laptop bag, but they offer several backpack models that would do the trick. Filson was founded during the Gold Rush. Their bags aren't stylish, but they're old-fashioned and tough. You want durable? Filson's duffle bag will carry a 1968 1500 c.c. Single Port Volkswagen engine. You'll pay for lasting quality.
Order a catalog. It's the ultimate guys' company, and the catalog is filled with stories like, "Your pants protected my leg from a chainsaw," and, "Your coat saved me from a bear attack." Truly chest-puffing masculinity. It's not a catalog your wife will be interested in stealing.
Seriously, Filson's among my favorite companies. The craftsmanship is unmatched. You won't worry about anything being stolen from your secure bag -- and you won't ever, ever worry about it ripping or tearing. Most of Filson's luggage carries the disclaimer, "Clean by wiping or brushing only. Gains character with use." This stuff is made to last.
Last Christmas, I bought a Filson blanket. $200 is damn expensive for a wool blanket, but (a) it's the warmest blanket I've ever owned, and (b) I have every expectation that I'll be able to hand it down to my grandchildren. Filson is never cheap, but it's always money well spent.
"People find computers more intimate and private than letters and they feel freer to say things this way," said Iriarte, a Pamplona-born computer engineer.
More intimate and private. [rolls eyes]
Jesus. These people deserve to get bilked out of their money.
I don't remember when, where, who or how, but I once received a piece of advice I've never forgotten, which seemed wise at the time, and which I've since found invaluable.
"Every once in awhile, walk into a bookstore and buy a magazine devoted to a subject you know nothing about. Read it."
There are magazines devoted to everything -- sports cars, handguns, knitting, ferrets, Italian cooking, Civil War reenactments, log cabins, etc. Magazines are a terrific (and cheap) way to expand your horizons.
Let me begin with a disclaimer: I used to work as a jazz journalist. I've written more than a few album reviews and artist interviews, and I've had personal experience with the politics of music criticism. If you want to write off my thoughts as the ravings of a jaded ex-critic, feel free.
Music critics suck. The problem is epitomized by the title, "music critic." I never referred to myself as a critic -- always a "jazz journalist." The difference? Information, as opposed to entertainment.
Music critics labor under the ignorant misperception that their job is to entertain. They confuse themselves with musicians -- often because they are in fact failed musicians. Their job isn't to entertain you. Their job is (or should be) to provide information about entertainment. When you finish reading an album review, you shouldn't say, "Wow, what a great read." You should say, "I learned something, and feel better informed to decide whether I might like this CD."
The following is a recent restaurant review from a Nashua, New Hampshire newspaper. I emailed it to a few friends last week, because it's a perfect example of something I've long bitched about:
Michael Timothy's, 212 Main St., Nashua; 595-9334. This is it, the Nashua restaurant where more people have eaten the best meal of their lives than any other. Chef/owners Michael and Sarah Buckley continue to pack them in for some of the finest food and service anywhere in southern New Hampshire. If you can't find a parking space on Main Street, this is the main reason why.
Please list the pertinent facts you've learned from this article, which will inform your decision whether to eat at Michael Timothy's. What kind of food do they serve? Is it expensive? Are dungarees appropriate, or should I wear a tie?
Aside from (1) bad writing, and (2) "critics" who simply ignore the tenets of journalism, the third problem with music criticism is editorial pressure. (The pressure begins with record labels and publicists, of course -- but the writers usually feel this indirectly, via their editors.)
I won't bore you with details, but I've got a million versions of the same story: Instead of writing about a new album that was terrific, featuring a new musician most readers didn't know, I was ordered to write about something my editor assigned -- which was inevitably a major-label release by an artists our readers already knew. "The other magazine will surely review this major-label release," I was told, "so we have to write about it, too!!" We never had room to educate our readers, but we always had ample space to compete with other publications and to fulfill publicists' requests.
Music criticism isn't treated like journalism. It's treated as publicity by editors, and as entertainment by writers. It's sad, shameful, and ultimately worthless. It's not a far throw from Hollywood journalism, where nary a story is printed without being cleared by numerous agents. On the rare occasions a bad review is printed, it's by design: An editor wants something witty, and he wants something controversial. If he thinks he can avoid pissing off a label, he knows nothing sells magazines like readers buzzing, "Hey, did you read the scathing review in the new issue?!?"
Frankly the most valuable music reviews you'll find nowadays are the customer reviews on Amazon. And that's saying something.
According to the CNN article, the meteorite could be worth more than 10,000 NZD -- or 6,290 USD.
This figure is attributed to "experts," and CNN seems to be quoting a figure taken from the Sunday Star-Times newspaper. I'm not sure how credible that figure is, but it's one answer.
I think it's a sad and telling statement about our society that every poster in this thread who criticized this decision also felt compelled to include a disclaimer, "I do not support child pornography."
That fact is what makes actions like this insidious. You begin by pushing an issue that is so black-&-white, it's nearly indefensible. You begin by condemning something that absolutely no one wants to support. And you gain momentum.
You often exceed the posted limit by a few miles per hour. You occasionally go through a stop sign or make a right turn on red without coming to a full and complete stop. Every now and then, you change lanes or make turns without signalling...
I don't have any objection to these boxes. I'm a bit of a privacy nut, but I'm also a law-abiding citizen. If we're talking about legislation that begins issuing citations to speeders every time their black box is scanned during an oil change, then I'll certainly join the naysayers. But if it's being used exactly like fingerprints and DNA, to secure convictions for violent criminals, then I'll applaud the technological development. (Yes, I think vehicular manslaughter resulting from driving double the posted speed limit in a metropolitan area constitutes a violent offense.)
Having said that: I don't know what they told you in Philosophy 101, but "slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy in a courtroom. It's a valid argument, and oftentimes a compelling one.
Every time a NYTimes story is posted to Slashdot, it's accompanied by a slew of quips and complaints about registration. In the comments below, myriad people have griped about registration for the LATimes, the Washington Post, and other news sites.
Can someone offer a reasonable explanation why these registrations are so bad? They're not particularly invasive. They're free. They allow random, blatantly false information to be given. So what's the problem?
I think it's amazing that I can read the NYTimes every day, free. Same goes for those other newspapers and websites. If the Wall Street Journal was free, I'd be happy to fork over my name and address to read it online. I don't understand the general objection: You can spend a dollar daily and read it on paper, or you can give your name -- or ANY name -- and read it online free, for years.
Im already paying to get online, why should i have to pay for content as well?
I'm sure you're trolling, but since it's often asked: Because you're paying two people (or companies) for two entirely different services.
When you pay your ISP $9.95 per month, you buy a connection to the internet. Your ISP makes no guarantee about what you'll find on the internet. They provide connections, not content. If you're a dedicated Slashdot reader who doesn't visit any other websites, and Slashdot closes down, do you expect your ISP to refund your subscription? Of course not. They didn't promise that Slashdot would be online. They only promised that you would be.
For that matter, why not carry your question in the other direction? Your ISP connects your computer to someone else's content. If you think your ISP fee should entitle you to free content, then shouldn't it also entitle you to a free computer? You might as well say, "I'm already paying to get online. Why should I have to pay Apple for this new PowerBook, too?"
I just wanted to mention that I am a business owner, too. Even if you're a one man shop, only having a cell phone makes little business sense. If you move your house to a new city, do you expect to keep your number there? What if you move your office?
You and I are probably in very different businesses, and we certainly have different perspectives. I won't ever move my business. I named my first business "Boston Journalism." I'm a Bostonian, born and bred. I'd sooner make a buck doing something else (and I have) than move to another city.
Certainly, no one expects business contacts to last forever. But I wonder: What kind of business do you run, where you expect to change cities every few years? Whatever it is, I daresay you're in the minority. Most business owners like to stake their ground and build a reputation, along with their customer base. In my experience, the best shops and services are those that have been around for 20+ years. That's certainly my aspiration for my own business.
Again, I think you're just a bit narrow-minded, and missing the point. No one said anything about having "only a cell phone" (local codes often require that a business maintain a landline), but I can think of a great many instances -- myself and my colleagues included -- where using a cell phone as your primary contact makes perfect business sense. Likewise, for many of us, hiring an answering service would be a foolish business decision. You obviously can't see that, which doesn't mean you're a bad person. It just illustrates the point that these decisions (number portability) are well left to those better-educated to make them.
I'd rather not pay for this feature so others can "protect their private property."
I'm tempted to agree, when it comes to paying for other people's privileges.
However, you clearly don't understand the primary motivation for number portability. People don't want number portability so they can hang onto cool numbers. They want it so they can keep their numbers.
Many professionals, myself included, use their cell phones for business purposes. My cell is the number printed on my business cards. Those cards may linger in a client's Rolodex for months, or even years, before he needs my services. When he pulls it out, I'd like the information to remain current.
Business cards aren't much help if they don't have some permanence. I rarely expect a call or email within 24 hours of handing someone my card, but I often get a response within a few weeks. If I can't rely on my phone number or email address to remain constant, those cards (a vital tool) become less useful.
My number isn't cool, and it isn't memorable. But it's mine. And with this new law, I can dump AT&T's deteriorating service for Verizon without rendering hundreds of business cards obsolete (to say nothing of the thousand remaining cards on my shelf). In two years, if Verizon has become disappointing and AT&T is back on track, I can switch back. And I can do all this without bothering my clients with inane emails. ("Here's my new number. Please update.")
I've rented about a dozen DVDs in the past year. In more than half those cases, I've gotten halfway through the movie only to find the DVD was scratched -- either I can't watch a given chapter of the film, or I can't finish watching the movie altogether. In one case, I exchanged the defective copy for a replacement, only to find the replacement was scratched, as well.
VHS cassettes had one big advantage over DVDs: protective casings. Sure, people dropped and mishandled VHS tapes, but you could still watch them afterward. DVDs are more easily damaged, which makes rentals a far less reliable market.
Consequently, I've given up renting movies. Between Amazon and Newbury Comics (a retail chain here in Boston), I rarely pay more than $15 for a DVD. That's about ten bucks more than I'd pay to rent. For my extra money, I get: (1) to own the DVD; (2) to watch the DVD as many times as I like; (3) no worry about deadlines and late fees; and (4) a guarantee that no backwoods, toothless hick family spilled macaroni and cheese on the DVD the night before.
And for those movies I'm curious about but hesitant to buy, I've got Comcast digital cable with On-Demand service. Sure, new releases don't show up until a few weeks after they're available on DVD; but I control the start time, pause and rewind -- and again, no late fees or defect concerns. As an added bonus, On-Demand costs a dollar or two less than Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. In other words, it rocks.
Any number of movies eligible for Oscar nominations can be found on Internet downloading sites. But the academy said "Something's Gotta Give" marked the first time a so-called screener sent to an Oscar voter had been made available for illegal copying.
Check out the ultimate guys' company: C.C. Filson. They've began making outdoor gear during the Gold Rush in 1897, and have continued to produce according to their slogan, "Might as well have the best." Their stuff ain't cheap, and it ain't stylish...but it's tough and it's warm. You can't beat Filson quality.
I own the Outfitter coat, with a moleskin liner. My friends have a lot of fun with the fact that I look like a logger, but damned if it isn't the warmest coat I've ever owned. In a year or two, I'll buy the Double Mackinaw Cruiser for a bit of variety. I also own a pair of Filson gloves, and a hat (which gets me more grief than the jacket).
They also sell a terrific laptop bag. Paired with a sleevecase from Waterfield Designs, Filson's bag is the perfect transport and protection for my 12" PowerBook. It's a beautiful thing.
My Christmas list this year includes a Filson blanket. Again, the price is high, but it's matched by the quality and the craftsmanship. This is a winter blanket that can be handed down from one generation to the next -- and in my family's case, it will.
I love Filson, so this is a great opportunity for a plug. Buy their stuff. And order their free catalog. It's the most masculine mail-order catalog you'll find. It's filled with stories like, "Your coat protected me from a bear attack," and, "I was wearing your pants when I fell through the ice, fishing in Alaska, otherwise I'd be dead." Great stuff.
US researchers estimate that every year 800MB of information is produced for every person on the planet.
The vast majority of the global population neither owns computers nor uses the internet. (Check statistics.) So what, exactly, is the relevance of this estimate?
Ya know, I just thought of something. These legal maneuverings by SCO are just SO absurd that the lawyers involved HAVE to know that. So I'm wondering - is SCO just being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers, wanting to bilk stupid-ass SCO execs into thinking they can win anything?
The "unscrupulous" issues here relate to the tech, not the law. Most lawyers know little or nothing about computers, much less anything about Open Source. It's much more plausible to think that, if anyone was being duped, SCO had offered misleading information to its lawyers when asked for technical explanations.
Even if what you're suggesting were the case, initially: So what? SCO is run by executives (read: adults). They can read, and they can make value judgments. This saga has been reported in nearly every tech forum that exists, with almost unanimous agreement that SCO's position is groundless, doomed, and dishonest. For SCO executives to claim they were misled by lawyers, at this point, is like someone who began smoking in 1998 claiming he was unaware of the health risks.
Would it not be legally binding if you didn't write a document that only a lawyer could understand or something?
Of course it would. In fact, there's been a sizable movement in recent years, to clean up and sharpen legal writing. Communicating using simpler terms would help reduce misunderstandings and misinterpretations, which occur with alarming frequency in the US legal system. It would also speed up the process and efficiency in our courts, which would be a serious benefit for a legal system which is (pardon the pun) criminally overcrowded. And imagine a society where the average citizen could [gasp] read and understand the criminal laws!!
So what's the down side? Why is it even a question?
Money. Simply put, lawyers can command gargantuan fees from their clients because, when a client reads a motion or a brief prepared for his case, he is confounded by a wall of arcane jargon, and immediately thinks, "I'm getting my money's worth, because I could never have prepared this document." Contrast that with a client who reads a few documents written in plain English, who thinks, "Well, hell...I could have written this myself!!"
Of course, it's not that simple. Just because a layperson can read a plain-language legal document doesn't mean that he could have prepared it. He may not know what facts to include, what facts to avoid, etc. It's the old joke about the carpenter charging ten cents for hitting the nail, and fifteen dollars for knowing where to hit. But appearance and perception are what matter most, in our society. And if a lawyer's documents are shrouded in mysterious language, then his large fees seem justified, more so than if he's simply churning out documents everyone can comprehend on first reading.
(Furthermore, it's cyclical. The plaintiff hires an expensive attorney to write a confusing document...and the defendant is promptly forced to hire his own expensive attorney, to interpret the document! 'Round and 'round they go...)
I've been with AT&T Wireless for two years. My contract is up at the end of this month, and I'm planning to switch to Verizon. I live southwest of Boston; and although my coverage is fine in the city, my coverage is bad/non-existent within about a four-mile radius of my house. It's really quite frustrating, not to be able to place calls while I'm running local errands.
My mother, on the other hand, has been using Verizon for the same period of time, and has no problems with her reception. It's too bad, because I really like my little Nokia phone. I don't want a gadget, with a billion games; I just want the ability to place calls and to send text messages. (Is that blasphemy, on Slashdot?)
I considered getting a phone compatible with Verizon's walkie-talkie service, but decided against it. It's actually pretty stupid, when you think about it. Only one person can talk at a time, and you can't shut off those stupid beeps. Its only advantage is how it bills airtime -- which makes it very logical for businesses, but stupid for normal folks.
I was disappointed to read the recent poll, when Bluetooth came in last on a list of desired cellphone features. I've got a PowerBook G4 with Bluetooth, and it would be nice to be able to sync my address book and calendar. Right now, about the only phone I can get with Bluetooth is Nokia's new camera-phone, with the ridiculous circular keypad. I hope Nokia or Motorola will make a few more practical phones, equipped with Bluetooth...but it doesn't seem likely.
I'm a Mac user, planning to upgrade to Panther upon its release. I use Safari, exclusively. I don't know anything about Opera, really. Can you tell me why it would be worth $39 to me?
Slashdot Mirror
It has to have a good plot...
I disagree. If I want a "good plot," I'll read a book. Part of the reason why Grand Theft Auto 3 was successful was the fact that its plot was incidental -- most players ignored it, and just drove around exploring and killing and blowing stuff up. It was amazing because it was a fully developed world where you could do (almost) anything.
I love playing the Ace Combat flighter-combat games for PS2. They all have plots, but I couldn't tell you what those plots are because I click through the exposition. I don't care about the stupid story; I want to fly a plane and blow shit up. The programmers spend a lot of time creating cinematic storyboards, when frankly, I'd rather they added a dozen more missions. I quit playing RPGs altogether because, while the original Final Fantasy was fun, its PlayStation sequels choked on storylines. I swear, during one I spent 10 minutes watching a bunch of CGI characters jumping off a train and breaking into a building and riding through a window on a motorcycle -- and meanwhile, I'm watching. Enough already, with the alien and the spaceship and my character's background...I just want to fight some dragons.
Go back to the paradigms, either Donkey Kong or Super Mario Bros: "The story is, there's a princess you need to rescue. GO!!!" Nobody played the game because they honestly gave a damn about rescuing the princess; they played it because it was fun. Imagine if some programmer applied the GTA3 dynamic to, say, TIE Fighter, and you could just randomly fly through space and attack squadrons, convoys, planets, whatever. Ditto here: How cool would it be if, instead of gluing your gameplay to a predetermined plot (probably culled from some rejected script), you could explore space with your starship and find new planets, encounter new species, decide to "tease" the Romulans around the Neutral Zone or decide to warp over to Delta Quadrant and start busting on the Borg?
I'd buy that game. Definitely knock off the A-list voice actors, and stop nailing everything that happens to some linear plotline. Fire all those people, and instead spend the money on innovating the gameplay.
But to answer your (implicit) question: The incentive is pride. Good, old-fashioned, seven-sins pride.
Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia. It's a community. Don't confuse the two.
Your contributions were probably questioned for two reasons. First, because Wikipedia is governed by a policy called NPOV, or Neutral Point Of View, which is interpreted to mean that an encyclopedia must reflect all perspectives on any subject. There can be no "absolute right" or "absolute wrong." According to NPOV, your opinion just that. Expertise does not exist. All sides must be represented, no matter how loony.
Second, you probably weren't taken seriously because you didn't contribute hundreds of edits over the course of a week. Wikipedia is dominated, literally, by those users who spend the most time editing. This, ultimately, is Wikipedia's greatest flaw: Its users are more interested in participating in a community than in building an encyclopedia. They call themselves "Wikipedians," and they stage meet-ups. Their reasons for participating are primarily social.
The result is a project governed by losers. Sorry, but it's the truth: The people with the most free time to dedicate to an online encyclopedia will always be the people least-qualified to contribute, because those who are qualified spend their time earning and practicing those qualifications in the real world. If the project were coordinated somehow, maybe shared between several universities with each department contributing according to its own specialization...maybe it could work. But Wikipedia is doomed to mediocrity, simply because it's populated by nutjobs with no social skills who drive away qualified contributors who threaten their pretend authority.
Knowledge is not democratic -- and expertise necessarily erodes equality. You cannot build a worthwhile encyclopedia based on the premise that everyone's contributions will be valuable.
When I was in kindergarten, I watched the Adam West series on television every day. I wrote a letter to our local television station, with my parents' help, asking where I could buy a Batman utility belt. Someone at the station must have thought it was cute, because they replied with a polite note saying, We're sorry, but we don't know where you can purchase a Batman utility belt.
I always thought that was a stupid, missed opportunity for merchandising Batman. It wouldn't have been expensive to manufacture a plastic yellow belt with pockets like Adam West wore, and kids like myself would have rushed to buy them. They could have filled the pockets with a few cheap toys -- plastic Batcuffs, a Bat communicator, etc. -- or sold them separately. It would have been great.
I always recommend Filson.
I use the briefcase/laptop bag, but they offer several backpack models that would do the trick. Filson was founded during the Gold Rush. Their bags aren't stylish, but they're old-fashioned and tough. You want durable? Filson's duffle bag will carry a 1968 1500 c.c. Single Port Volkswagen engine. You'll pay for lasting quality.
Order a catalog. It's the ultimate guys' company, and the catalog is filled with stories like, "Your pants protected my leg from a chainsaw," and, "Your coat saved me from a bear attack." Truly chest-puffing masculinity. It's not a catalog your wife will be interested in stealing.
Seriously, Filson's among my favorite companies. The craftsmanship is unmatched. You won't worry about anything being stolen from your secure bag -- and you won't ever, ever worry about it ripping or tearing. Most of Filson's luggage carries the disclaimer, "Clean by wiping or brushing only. Gains character with use." This stuff is made to last.
Last Christmas, I bought a Filson blanket. $200 is damn expensive for a wool blanket, but (a) it's the warmest blanket I've ever owned, and (b) I have every expectation that I'll be able to hand it down to my grandchildren. Filson is never cheap, but it's always money well spent.
crib
Jesus. These people deserve to get bilked out of their money.
crib
I don't remember when, where, who or how, but I once received a piece of advice I've never forgotten, which seemed wise at the time, and which I've since found invaluable.
There are magazines devoted to everything -- sports cars, handguns, knitting, ferrets, Italian cooking, Civil War reenactments, log cabins, etc. Magazines are a terrific (and cheap) way to expand your horizons.
crib
Let me begin with a disclaimer: I used to work as a jazz journalist. I've written more than a few album reviews and artist interviews, and I've had personal experience with the politics of music criticism. If you want to write off my thoughts as the ravings of a jaded ex-critic, feel free.
Music critics suck. The problem is epitomized by the title, "music critic." I never referred to myself as a critic -- always a "jazz journalist." The difference? Information, as opposed to entertainment.
Music critics labor under the ignorant misperception that their job is to entertain. They confuse themselves with musicians -- often because they are in fact failed musicians. Their job isn't to entertain you. Their job is (or should be) to provide information about entertainment. When you finish reading an album review, you shouldn't say, "Wow, what a great read." You should say, "I learned something, and feel better informed to decide whether I might like this CD."
The following is a recent restaurant review from a Nashua, New Hampshire newspaper. I emailed it to a few friends last week, because it's a perfect example of something I've long bitched about:
Please list the pertinent facts you've learned from this article, which will inform your decision whether to eat at Michael Timothy's. What kind of food do they serve? Is it expensive? Are dungarees appropriate, or should I wear a tie?Aside from (1) bad writing, and (2) "critics" who simply ignore the tenets of journalism, the third problem with music criticism is editorial pressure. (The pressure begins with record labels and publicists, of course -- but the writers usually feel this indirectly, via their editors.)
I won't bore you with details, but I've got a million versions of the same story: Instead of writing about a new album that was terrific, featuring a new musician most readers didn't know, I was ordered to write about something my editor assigned -- which was inevitably a major-label release by an artists our readers already knew. "The other magazine will surely review this major-label release," I was told, "so we have to write about it, too!!" We never had room to educate our readers, but we always had ample space to compete with other publications and to fulfill publicists' requests.
Music criticism isn't treated like journalism. It's treated as publicity by editors, and as entertainment by writers. It's sad, shameful, and ultimately worthless. It's not a far throw from Hollywood journalism, where nary a story is printed without being cleared by numerous agents. On the rare occasions a bad review is printed, it's by design: An editor wants something witty, and he wants something controversial. If he thinks he can avoid pissing off a label, he knows nothing sells magazines like readers buzzing, "Hey, did you read the scathing review in the new issue?!?"
Frankly the most valuable music reviews you'll find nowadays are the customer reviews on Amazon. And that's saying something.
crib
According to the CNN article, the meteorite could be worth more than 10,000 NZD -- or 6,290 USD.
This figure is attributed to "experts," and CNN seems to be quoting a figure taken from the Sunday Star-Times newspaper. I'm not sure how credible that figure is, but it's one answer.
crib
I think it's a sad and telling statement about our society that every poster in this thread who criticized this decision also felt compelled to include a disclaimer, "I do not support child pornography."
That fact is what makes actions like this insidious. You begin by pushing an issue that is so black-&-white, it's nearly indefensible. You begin by condemning something that absolutely no one wants to support. And you gain momentum.
crib
crib
I don't have any objection to these boxes. I'm a bit of a privacy nut, but I'm also a law-abiding citizen. If we're talking about legislation that begins issuing citations to speeders every time their black box is scanned during an oil change, then I'll certainly join the naysayers. But if it's being used exactly like fingerprints and DNA, to secure convictions for violent criminals, then I'll applaud the technological development. (Yes, I think vehicular manslaughter resulting from driving double the posted speed limit in a metropolitan area constitutes a violent offense.)
Having said that: I don't know what they told you in Philosophy 101, but "slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy in a courtroom. It's a valid argument, and oftentimes a compelling one.
crib
I swear, I'm not trolling. Seriously.
Every time a NYTimes story is posted to Slashdot, it's accompanied by a slew of quips and complaints about registration. In the comments below, myriad people have griped about registration for the LATimes, the Washington Post, and other news sites.
Can someone offer a reasonable explanation why these registrations are so bad? They're not particularly invasive. They're free. They allow random, blatantly false information to be given. So what's the problem?
I think it's amazing that I can read the NYTimes every day, free. Same goes for those other newspapers and websites. If the Wall Street Journal was free, I'd be happy to fork over my name and address to read it online. I don't understand the general objection: You can spend a dollar daily and read it on paper, or you can give your name -- or ANY name -- and read it online free, for years.
How is that a rip-off?
crib
When you pay your ISP $9.95 per month, you buy a connection to the internet. Your ISP makes no guarantee about what you'll find on the internet. They provide connections, not content. If you're a dedicated Slashdot reader who doesn't visit any other websites, and Slashdot closes down, do you expect your ISP to refund your subscription? Of course not. They didn't promise that Slashdot would be online. They only promised that you would be.
For that matter, why not carry your question in the other direction? Your ISP connects your computer to someone else's content. If you think your ISP fee should entitle you to free content, then shouldn't it also entitle you to a free computer? You might as well say, "I'm already paying to get online. Why should I have to pay Apple for this new PowerBook, too?"
crib
Certainly, no one expects business contacts to last forever. But I wonder: What kind of business do you run, where you expect to change cities every few years? Whatever it is, I daresay you're in the minority. Most business owners like to stake their ground and build a reputation, along with their customer base. In my experience, the best shops and services are those that have been around for 20+ years. That's certainly my aspiration for my own business.
Again, I think you're just a bit narrow-minded, and missing the point. No one said anything about having "only a cell phone" (local codes often require that a business maintain a landline), but I can think of a great many instances -- myself and my colleagues included -- where using a cell phone as your primary contact makes perfect business sense. Likewise, for many of us, hiring an answering service would be a foolish business decision. You obviously can't see that, which doesn't mean you're a bad person. It just illustrates the point that these decisions (number portability) are well left to those better-educated to make them.
crib
However, you clearly don't understand the primary motivation for number portability. People don't want number portability so they can hang onto cool numbers. They want it so they can keep their numbers.
Many professionals, myself included, use their cell phones for business purposes. My cell is the number printed on my business cards. Those cards may linger in a client's Rolodex for months, or even years, before he needs my services. When he pulls it out, I'd like the information to remain current.
Business cards aren't much help if they don't have some permanence. I rarely expect a call or email within 24 hours of handing someone my card, but I often get a response within a few weeks. If I can't rely on my phone number or email address to remain constant, those cards (a vital tool) become less useful.
My number isn't cool, and it isn't memorable. But it's mine. And with this new law, I can dump AT&T's deteriorating service for Verizon without rendering hundreds of business cards obsolete (to say nothing of the thousand remaining cards on my shelf). In two years, if Verizon has become disappointing and AT&T is back on track, I can switch back. And I can do all this without bothering my clients with inane emails. ("Here's my new number. Please update.")
crib
Personally, I'm done renting DVDs.
I've rented about a dozen DVDs in the past year. In more than half those cases, I've gotten halfway through the movie only to find the DVD was scratched -- either I can't watch a given chapter of the film, or I can't finish watching the movie altogether. In one case, I exchanged the defective copy for a replacement, only to find the replacement was scratched, as well.
VHS cassettes had one big advantage over DVDs: protective casings. Sure, people dropped and mishandled VHS tapes, but you could still watch them afterward. DVDs are more easily damaged, which makes rentals a far less reliable market.
Consequently, I've given up renting movies. Between Amazon and Newbury Comics (a retail chain here in Boston), I rarely pay more than $15 for a DVD. That's about ten bucks more than I'd pay to rent. For my extra money, I get: (1) to own the DVD; (2) to watch the DVD as many times as I like; (3) no worry about deadlines and late fees; and (4) a guarantee that no backwoods, toothless hick family spilled macaroni and cheese on the DVD the night before.
And for those movies I'm curious about but hesitant to buy, I've got Comcast digital cable with On-Demand service. Sure, new releases don't show up until a few weeks after they're available on DVD; but I control the start time, pause and rewind -- and again, no late fees or defect concerns. As an added bonus, On-Demand costs a dollar or two less than Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. In other words, it rocks.
My two cents.
crib
Check out the ultimate guys' company: C.C. Filson. They've began making outdoor gear during the Gold Rush in 1897, and have continued to produce according to their slogan, "Might as well have the best." Their stuff ain't cheap, and it ain't stylish...but it's tough and it's warm. You can't beat Filson quality.
I own the Outfitter coat, with a moleskin liner. My friends have a lot of fun with the fact that I look like a logger, but damned if it isn't the warmest coat I've ever owned. In a year or two, I'll buy the Double Mackinaw Cruiser for a bit of variety. I also own a pair of Filson gloves, and a hat (which gets me more grief than the jacket).
They also sell a terrific laptop bag. Paired with a sleevecase from Waterfield Designs, Filson's bag is the perfect transport and protection for my 12" PowerBook. It's a beautiful thing.
My Christmas list this year includes a Filson blanket. Again, the price is high, but it's matched by the quality and the craftsmanship. This is a winter blanket that can be handed down from one generation to the next -- and in my family's case, it will.
I love Filson, so this is a great opportunity for a plug. Buy their stuff. And order their free catalog. It's the most masculine mail-order catalog you'll find. It's filled with stories like, "Your coat protected me from a bear attack," and, "I was wearing your pants when I fell through the ice, fishing in Alaska, otherwise I'd be dead." Great stuff.
crib
For those who are curious, here's the reference.
So what's the down side? Why is it even a question?
Money. Simply put, lawyers can command gargantuan fees from their clients because, when a client reads a motion or a brief prepared for his case, he is confounded by a wall of arcane jargon, and immediately thinks, "I'm getting my money's worth, because I could never have prepared this document." Contrast that with a client who reads a few documents written in plain English, who thinks, "Well, hell...I could have written this myself!!"
Of course, it's not that simple. Just because a layperson can read a plain-language legal document doesn't mean that he could have prepared it. He may not know what facts to include, what facts to avoid, etc. It's the old joke about the carpenter charging ten cents for hitting the nail, and fifteen dollars for knowing where to hit. But appearance and perception are what matter most, in our society. And if a lawyer's documents are shrouded in mysterious language, then his large fees seem justified, more so than if he's simply churning out documents everyone can comprehend on first reading.
(Furthermore, it's cyclical. The plaintiff hires an expensive attorney to write a confusing document...and the defendant is promptly forced to hire his own expensive attorney, to interpret the document! 'Round and 'round they go...)
cribI've been with AT&T Wireless for two years. My contract is up at the end of this month, and I'm planning to switch to Verizon. I live southwest of Boston; and although my coverage is fine in the city, my coverage is bad/non-existent within about a four-mile radius of my house. It's really quite frustrating, not to be able to place calls while I'm running local errands.
My mother, on the other hand, has been using Verizon for the same period of time, and has no problems with her reception. It's too bad, because I really like my little Nokia phone. I don't want a gadget, with a billion games; I just want the ability to place calls and to send text messages. (Is that blasphemy, on Slashdot?)
I considered getting a phone compatible with Verizon's walkie-talkie service, but decided against it. It's actually pretty stupid, when you think about it. Only one person can talk at a time, and you can't shut off those stupid beeps. Its only advantage is how it bills airtime -- which makes it very logical for businesses, but stupid for normal folks.
I was disappointed to read the recent poll, when Bluetooth came in last on a list of desired cellphone features. I've got a PowerBook G4 with Bluetooth, and it would be nice to be able to sync my address book and calendar. Right now, about the only phone I can get with Bluetooth is Nokia's new camera-phone, with the ridiculous circular keypad. I hope Nokia or Motorola will make a few more practical phones, equipped with Bluetooth...but it doesn't seem likely.
cribI'm a Mac user, planning to upgrade to Panther upon its release. I use Safari, exclusively. I don't know anything about Opera, really. Can you tell me why it would be worth $39 to me?
crib