Allowing advertisers to pay based on the individual story, rather than the reputation of the newsroom, exacerbates this trend.
Actually, that's not an exacerbation, it's the real problem. Paying for ads per story read, not per newspaper sold.
It means filler doesn't make any economic sense in the online model. In the print model filler acts as a cost reducer while adding heft and therefore a perception of value. Likewise for long-form stories, and stories with intelligence but no sensationalism. The issue gets sold based on the one story that's above the fold, and the rest of the paper pads it out and builds the rep of the publisher. And provides space in which to insert ads.
But online, all of that stuff is not worth anything to an advertiser. He wants the clicks, and the clicks go to the big headlines.
Online, most of the information that journalists are expected to provide is uneconomical. Especially if the journalist doesn't have anything marketable to say.
What this means is, it's a mistake to think that working for a big publisher online is a good idea. Unless you are a headline machine, you won't be successful. The cultural image of the print model newsroom with large numbers of people putting together content is not valid any more. A publisher needs a few people who can produce attractive pieces, and none of the filler or beat reporting.
So maybe instead of working for a publisher young reporters should put together their own websites, do their own journalism, build a rep, and then people will click their stories because it's them who's writing them.
Today I've had to reread sentences 4 or 5 times to figure them out, and all but one has turned out to say what it means, albeit in a roundabout way. The rest were missing words, used the wrong word in the wrong place, or denotated the opposite of the author's connotation.
This is in maybe 8 or 10 different articles from different authors.
Editors are nonexistent, and authors have become incredibly sloppy and indifferent.
The headline has become the content, and the reward for clicking on it is a reduction in your knowledge of the subject...
And if anyone thinks google's decisions should be part of their compensation, they should know that google decided to return this as the first image when i searched for Radley Balko:
If your only standard for "change we can believe in" is your own random defintion of which of "my civil liberties" you don't "have back", then you're not arguing from a democratic perspective, you're just denigrating what has been accomplished because you don't want anyone to believe anything has been accomplished.
I mean, a subtle change in wording of a question that means, "Do you like facebook?" and all you're finding out is that a lot of people don't like their friends or their own lives.
If they're not highly-trained enough to know to lock up a password, then they have no business being in charge of information that needs a password to access, and all of the worry about how they store their password is moot.
Anything that makes a user write down a password has weakened the security essentially to a failure mode.
That isn't true.
It's standard practice in secure facilities to write passwords/combinations/etc. down, to provide redundancy of access and allow multiplexing of storage (nobody expects a file clerk to actually remember the combinations to dozens of safes for decades).
But the rule is to secure the password list at the same level of security as the items the password accesses.
You don't write your password on a post-it and leave it on your desk. You put it in your desk and lock it, or save it on another computer with a password you won't forget.
Putting it in an encrypted file used to be the norm./etc/password used to be world-readable plaintext with an encrypted password field, but it turned out that the encryption wasn't strong enough, so hiding the database and obfuscating its entire contents became the new norm. But any encryption that is tougher in practice than password-guessing is sufficient to satisfy the rule, since it sets the invader back to password-guessing.
Of course, if someone gets the password file, they're going to be fascinated by your bizarre username, and a ten-second dictionary attack is going to out your password.
So the number of iterations the crack program has to try goes up from (dictionary size) to (number of punctuation marks on a standard keyboard)*(dictionary size)^2.
But that's still a lot smaller than (sum( over random lengths, (number of symbols on a standard keyboard)^(random length) ))
Last 4 digits of your credit card? If the system allows you to retry infinitely, it's a matter of try and error. 10000 attempts, tops. Trivial to do for an automated system.
I don't know of an automated system that allows 1000 automated login attempts without informing someone or locking out further attempts.
Even keyboard-entry login systems stopped doing that a few decades ago.
Last name of your teacher/Mother's maiden name? Trivial for anyone who knows you, and if you don't care for the account you want, send the most common names against as many accounts as you can get your hands on.
Has always been a stupid idea, but is reasonably secure, and has the effect of allowing the person asking the question to gauge the requestor's attitude towards being asked. Any automated system that uses relational last names as security info is asking for trouble.
Place of birth? Elementary school? Pet's name? Check the person' Facebook account.
Good luck. None of those things has ever been mentioned in mine, much less put into my profile.
The lie that this administration is not different from the previous one, or that it has not brought about significant change, is the result of persistent propaganda, or maybe flat-out ignorance.
Here. Inform yourself instead of merely entertaining yourself between the Goldline commercials:
They built the dangerous device and placed the men in its way.
If the device didn't explode the company would make a lot of money.
If the device did explode the company would make somewhat less money.
The fact that certain portions of the probability distribution for the results of BP's actions do not include dead people does not mean they are not culpable for murdering those men in the other portions of the probability distribution.
If you don't know what the part number means, don't buy the part.
Intel has products that cover the whole range of core counts, core speeds, core types, cache sizes, power/temperature ratings, and mechanical form factors.
They do care what you buy, or they'd offer you far less to choose from.
Figure out what you want to do. Then ask them. They'll find you the chip you need, and then you'll wander off to buy something less capable for less money from the other guys.
t's how little the people in power have taken advantage of it.
Wow. You missed the entire Bush administration. The USA Patriot Act. Pallets of cash shipped directly from the Mint to Iraq without any oversight. Coordinated domestic wiretapping. The Unitary President. Hundreds if not thousands of "signing statements." Etc., etc.
Shut your/. window and go dig through the archives of the major newspapers.
America got raped over the past 10 years because of 9/11.
Slashdot Mirror
Allowing advertisers to pay based on the individual story, rather than the reputation of the newsroom, exacerbates this trend.
Actually, that's not an exacerbation, it's the real problem. Paying for ads per story read, not per newspaper sold.
It means filler doesn't make any economic sense in the online model. In the print model filler acts as a cost reducer while adding heft and therefore a perception of value. Likewise for long-form stories, and stories with intelligence but no sensationalism. The issue gets sold based on the one story that's above the fold, and the rest of the paper pads it out and builds the rep of the publisher. And provides space in which to insert ads.
But online, all of that stuff is not worth anything to an advertiser. He wants the clicks, and the clicks go to the big headlines.
Online, most of the information that journalists are expected to provide is uneconomical. Especially if the journalist doesn't have anything marketable to say.
What this means is, it's a mistake to think that working for a big publisher online is a good idea. Unless you are a headline machine, you won't be successful. The cultural image of the print model newsroom with large numbers of people putting together content is not valid any more. A publisher needs a few people who can produce attractive pieces, and none of the filler or beat reporting.
So maybe instead of working for a publisher young reporters should put together their own websites, do their own journalism, build a rep, and then people will click their stories because it's them who's writing them.
Yes they are.
Someone's missing the point.
Charge more for the ads that go in the popular articles. Charge less for the ads in the unpopular articles.
The advertiser will pay for what he can afford.
As for the fact that ad revenues skew content to grab eyeballs, well, that's the bargain the journalist makes when agreeing to take advertisements.
Today I've had to reread sentences 4 or 5 times to figure them out, and all but one has turned out to say what it means, albeit in a roundabout way. The rest were missing words, used the wrong word in the wrong place, or denotated the opposite of the author's connotation.
This is in maybe 8 or 10 different articles from different authors.
Editors are nonexistent, and authors have become incredibly sloppy and indifferent.
The headline has become the content, and the reward for clicking on it is a reduction in your knowledge of the subject...
And if anyone thinks google's decisions should be part of their compensation, they should know that google decided to return this as the first image when i searched for Radley Balko:
http://www.pescare.com/siluro/images3/micione1.JPG
The second was no more pertinent, but a whole lot less rude about it:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/94/249737018_3f387acbc5_o.jpg
I'm not at all surprised you ignored the link I gave you. It even comes with a search box for buzzwords:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/wiretapping
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/guantanamo
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/usa%20patriot
If your only standard for "change we can believe in" is your own random defintion of which of "my civil liberties" you don't "have back", then you're not arguing from a democratic perspective, you're just denigrating what has been accomplished because you don't want anyone to believe anything has been accomplished.
I mean, a subtle change in wording of a question that means, "Do you like facebook?" and all you're finding out is that a lot of people don't like their friends or their own lives.
If they're not highly-trained enough to know to lock up a password, then they have no business being in charge of information that needs a password to access, and all of the worry about how they store their password is moot.
I won't repeat myself on this:
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=14443498
I'll just point out that the sensationalist version of this got posted to /.
And that if you think you can do a better job than they can, here's your chance.
Anything that makes a user write down a password has weakened the security essentially to a failure mode.
That isn't true.
It's standard practice in secure facilities to write passwords/combinations/etc. down, to provide redundancy of access and allow multiplexing of storage (nobody expects a file clerk to actually remember the combinations to dozens of safes for decades).
But the rule is to secure the password list at the same level of security as the items the password accesses.
You don't write your password on a post-it and leave it on your desk. You put it in your desk and lock it, or save it on another computer with a password you won't forget.
Putting it in an encrypted file used to be the norm. /etc/password used to be world-readable plaintext with an encrypted password field, but it turned out that the encryption wasn't strong enough, so hiding the database and obfuscating its entire contents became the new norm. But any encryption that is tougher in practice than password-guessing is sufficient to satisfy the rule, since it sets the invader back to password-guessing.
Of course, if someone gets the password file, they're going to be fascinated by your bizarre username, and a ten-second dictionary attack is going to out your password.
so does Chris the CEO, because he doesn't do anything anyway, he tells someone else to do everything.
#failklaxon
It's not about what the CEO does. It's about what he (and his computer) knows.
Something trivial and tedious to a CEO is solid gold to a hedge-fund fixer.
Just a glance at his email would tell you whether hock your house to buy options in his company (puts or calls) or move on to the next target.
Pizza Hut is run by less criminal-minded people.
forums, i agree
shopping carts, however, can retain credit-card info. what you see as a frivolous 4.95 order of caffeinated bacon is a $3500 gold-mine to a cracker.
So the number of iterations the crack program has to try goes up from (dictionary size) to (number of punctuation marks on a standard keyboard)*(dictionary size)^2.
But that's still a lot smaller than (sum( over random lengths, (number of symbols on a standard keyboard)^(random length) ))
Probably several orders of magnitude smaller.
Last 4 digits of your credit card? If the system allows you to retry infinitely, it's a matter of try and error. 10000 attempts, tops. Trivial to do for an automated system.
I don't know of an automated system that allows 1000 automated login attempts without informing someone or locking out further attempts.
Even keyboard-entry login systems stopped doing that a few decades ago.
Last name of your teacher/Mother's maiden name? Trivial for anyone who knows you, and if you don't care for the account you want, send the most common names against as many accounts as you can get your hands on.
Has always been a stupid idea, but is reasonably secure, and has the effect of allowing the person asking the question to gauge the requestor's attitude towards being asked. Any automated system that uses relational last names as security info is asking for trouble.
Place of birth? Elementary school? Pet's name? Check the person' Facebook account.
Good luck. None of those things has ever been mentioned in mine, much less put into my profile.
right before frobnicate ...
I actually misspoke there.
I meant to say "coordinated illegal wiretapping."
I'm totally for the FISA court, and justifiable collection of evidence.
I'm totally against what the Bush administration did just because it had our money and the Great Seal under its control.
all i heard was
blah blah blah blah cluepon blah blah blah blah
The lie that this administration is not different from the previous one, or that it has not brought about significant change, is the result of persistent propaganda, or maybe flat-out ignorance.
Here. Inform yourself instead of merely entertaining yourself between the Goldline commercials:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room
They built the dangerous device and placed the men in its way.
If the device didn't explode the company would make a lot of money.
If the device did explode the company would make somewhat less money.
The fact that certain portions of the probability distribution for the results of BP's actions do not include dead people does not mean they are not culpable for murdering those men in the other portions of the probability distribution.
I was once booted from a #Unix IRC channel for being too smart.
True story.
If you don't know what the part number means, don't buy the part.
Intel has products that cover the whole range of core counts, core speeds, core types, cache sizes, power/temperature ratings, and mechanical form factors.
They do care what you buy, or they'd offer you far less to choose from.
Figure out what you want to do. Then ask them. They'll find you the chip you need, and then you'll wander off to buy something less capable for less money from the other guys.
Apparently, the corporations have found a way to accrue mod points.
End fascism now.
t's how little the people in power have taken advantage of it.
Wow. You missed the entire Bush administration. The USA Patriot Act. Pallets of cash shipped directly from the Mint to Iraq without any oversight. Coordinated domestic wiretapping. The Unitary President. Hundreds if not thousands of "signing statements." Etc., etc.
Shut your /. window and go dig through the archives of the major newspapers.
America got raped over the past 10 years because of 9/11.