mod me down as flamebait/troll if you want, but I would like to compare the media's attitude now and during 9/11. When 9/11 happened, western media refrained from showing gory scenes out of respect for the dead. But when it came to this disaster, they had no-holds-barred coverage - showing people's arms and legs and devastation. Is it not double standards? According to an article in Indian Express, a CNN executive Chris Cramer justified by saying that they showed no images of 9/11 because there were no images to show. The bodies had been incinerated. Lame excuse, if there ever was one, don't you think?
PS: I have submitted an article to slashdot on the same, but it was rejected.
This is in reply to all those who got infuriated by the comment that America does not care. And responded that one cannot equate the actions of the government with all the citizens. It is pretty much common that the actions of the government are referred to as the actions of the country. After all it is the "representative" of the country. "America elected George W. Bush as president", "America invaded, err liberated, Iraq", "India conducted nuclear tests"
Isn't an early review a preview? Last I checked it was.
I don't know where you checked. But preview is what the presenter/producer shows as glimpses. It does not have any opinion. Review (whether early or not) is a critique, an evaluation or something.
--- Bad karma for correcting people I always say. Sig: I hope it is not true
If you think from spammer perspective alone, not bouncing messages for a wrong address is a good idea, but is it always oaky. What about the genuine cases. I make a mistake in typing the address and I do not get a bounce, so I will assume that the other person received the mail. I know I'll probably branded unworthy to be a/.'er for typing an address by hand. But is that a trivial problem - not knowing when a message has not been delivered?
I guess that most people who read that newspaper already got firefox, or wont let some ad decide what browser they are using (If they were, we would see MS servers all ofer the place...)
It is not that people will decide based on an ad. It is to create awareness. People at least know the name. It is the same with marketing for any product other than that depend on whimsical buys.
It pisses me off to no end when I see a PDF file without an HTML version alongside it. The last thing I want to do is deal with a whole different environment to view content---whether it's Acrobat or a viewer plug-in makes no difference.
My learning for the day : HTML does not require _any software_ to view!!
Slashdot Mirror
I already meet soo many virtual nurses on yahoo chat ;-)
cutting "socializing"? So what do you call all that time having cyber sex with Pamela Anderson!?!
And this is modded "insightful"!!! Give me a break!
mod me down as flamebait/troll if you want, but I would like to compare the media's attitude now and during 9/11. When 9/11 happened, western media refrained from showing gory scenes out of respect for the dead. But when it came to this disaster, they had no-holds-barred coverage - showing people's arms and legs and devastation. Is it not double standards? According to an article in Indian Express, a CNN executive Chris Cramer justified by saying that they showed no images of 9/11 because there were no images to show. The bodies had been incinerated. Lame excuse, if there ever was one, don't you think? PS: I have submitted an article to slashdot on the same, but it was rejected.
This is in reply to all those who got infuriated by the comment that America does not care. And responded that one cannot equate the actions of the government with all the citizens. It is pretty much common that the actions of the government are referred to as the actions of the country. After all it is the "representative" of the country. "America elected George W. Bush as president", "America invaded, err liberated, Iraq", "India conducted nuclear tests"
the first post without reading the article or read the article and miss being the first post?!
Isn't an early review a preview? Last I checked it was.
I don't know where you checked. But preview is what the presenter/producer shows as glimpses. It does not have any opinion. Review (whether early or not) is a critique, an evaluation or something.
---
Bad karma for correcting people I always say.
Sig: I hope it is not true
If you think from spammer perspective alone, not bouncing messages for a wrong address is a good idea, but is it always oaky. What about the genuine cases. I make a mistake in typing the address and I do not get a bounce, so I will assume that the other person received the mail. I know I'll probably branded unworthy to be a /.'er for typing an address by hand. But is that a trivial problem - not knowing when a message has not been delivered?
If only this story came on the same day as Firefox's NYT ad. The first page of the ad could have been this story!
as long as I am given a couple of copies without charge.
I guess that most people who read that newspaper already got firefox, or wont let some ad decide what browser they are using (If they were, we would see MS servers all ofer the place...)
It is not that people will decide based on an ad. It is to create awareness. People at least know the name. It is the same with marketing for any product other than that depend on whimsical buys.
Donald Rumsfeld joined the EU as the God-in-charge of defence
It pisses me off to no end when I see a PDF file without an HTML version alongside it. The last thing I want to do is deal with a whole different environment to view content---whether it's Acrobat or a viewer plug-in makes no difference.
My learning for the day : HTML does not require _any software_ to view!!
And CIA has enough intelligence(?) to confirm it.