When I read about horrific shit like this it makes me wonder when I see expectant moms and families with babies. What will this kid's life be like? They're all so happy with the baby now, so doting. What was this murdered mother like with her baby 17 years ago? Could they imagine something like this coming in the future? I don't think anyone could. This little person you brought into the world, that you sacrificed for and gave everything to, they're going to repay you by taking your life.
Maybe Cthulhu will quit trashing the lines if we offer to set him up a frame r'lyeh switch back at his pad. You know he's all about pirating the tentacle pr0n.
...John C. Dvorak were no longer paid to write lame articles?
What if Slashdot readers didn't submit them? And what if the editors didn't post them? Then, then I wouldn't be compelled to bitch about them here. I could pretend that meat puppet didn't even exist.
Absolutely - we should stop giving articles like this publicity. ~ This is what's been happening in the UK over the last few months:
1. Some hack writes that company X looks like it might be in trouble
2. All the lenders think company X is now a very bad risk
3. Company X suddenly finds that all their credit has dried up
4. Company X collapses
5. Hack says 'I told you so'
Every cell-phone from entry-level to smart phone has a removable battery, why is there this trend to prevent that? I'm not even talking about the need to swap to keep working on the road, I mean swapping when the damn thing wears out. If the number of rated charge cycles isn't over 800, these things are going to die way too quickly. I'm still a bit miffed that I can't get at the battery for my palm tungsten, it's about half of what it used to be. My new mp3 player has an integrated battery, just one more excuse for getting rid of it in a few more years.:eyeroll:
The thing that really miffs me about tech companies and Apple seems excessively guilty of this: they seem to be following the model of the fashion industry with rolling out new products with incremental changes, feature dribbles that could have all been brought out in one unit, etc. I like to run a longer lifecycle on my hardware. I want my lappy to last for 8 years, not 2. Put all your good ideas in one model, then save them up for another one. It's like they expect us to behave like the fashion-conscious, throwing out the old wardrobe not because it's worn out but because it has become unfashionable. Fuck that shit, if I wanted to be a fashion-conscious slave I'd get an Apple -- I don't want to see the bad ideas adopted in non-Apple products!
Specifically, layoffs are being used as a way of culling the bottom 10 or 20% of performers in order to improve the overall performance of the company.
How did they get hired in the first place? How was their performance not brought up in reviews leading to a firing for cause?
I'm not speaking as an insider here, just an observer from afar. I know no more of Microsoft than what makes it out onto the boards. And what I say here goes for companies with bad management in general, not just Microsoft. It seems that whenever a new boss comes in, the first thing he wants to do is mark his territory and he does it the same way a dog does. It's big, it's dramatic, people are shaken up. Does it do anything positive? Debatable, but with all the sound and fury, he can convince people it signifies something. Likewise, when entrenched management is faced with a problem like a slowing economy and declining profitability, swinging the budget axe seems like something dramatic and appropriate and they feel convinced it covers for them not having any original ideas on what to do.
As I asked before, who are these bottom percentage people? Why were they not fired as a part of the normal performance review process? If I suddenly say I have ten bags of garbage to carry out of my house, why the hell didn't I do that last week? I was obviously drowning in beer bottles and pizza boxes, why is it only an issue now? Oh, company is coming over. This is proof that I'm an awful housekeeper.
The next question, are these cuts in specific areas or across the board? I understand that companies will support unprofitable divisions that support a greater strategy. Microsoft clearly wants to have a seat at the table when it comes to serving up media in the household. Apple has muscled its way into the music arena and iTunes is a force to recon with. Microsoft wants to be the media portal selling you the hardware and subscription services. With this in mind, something like the xbox becomes easy to understand. It is a way of getting the foot in the door, getting shelf-space in America's entertainment centers, of becoming a known and accepted brand. With the kind of money we're talking about here, dumping $10 billion into xbox could prove to be a very canny investment in the long-term. Of course, it could also prove to be one of those well-calculated gambles that nevertheless failed entirely.
Microsoft abandoned its stake in MSNBC. I don't think they have any interest in cable ventures at this point. As mentioned elsewhere, Microsoft's cash cows are Windows and Office. Office's continued success is predicated upon Windows remaining the dominant operating system, a prospect seriously jeopardized by Vista. Does anybody have a revenue breakdown by division? I'd be curious to see how everything else stacks up here. If they lost the Windows/Office monopoly or saw the market share decline by a significant percentage, what would that mean for the rest of the organization?
If Microsoft is cutting unprofitable divisions and leaving the promising ones intact, that could be a semi-intelligent move. What is all the more likely is that there will be across the board cuts in profitable and promising divisions as well. This means that there will be less oversight, less testing, the loss of institutional knowledge, missed deadlines and dropped features. When a company is struggling, it seems perverse to reduce manpower and cut rations but that may well be what happens here.
Scientists were shocked to discovered that when PS3 was released all PS2 consoles around the worlds did not spontaneously explode!
I think the surprise is that penetration of the new consoles into the market is not greater. Since there's surprise, this probably means that the uptake of new systems is moving more slowly than with previous generations. I think this will be shown as a product of extremely expensive consoles, a dysfunctional economy with increased job insecurity, and the sheer penetration of the PS2, the best-selling console ever. Lots of people are able to justify putting off the upgrades because it's "good enough" and there's still a large library of games out there they likely have not played.
This is similar to Microsoft's position where Vista simply doesn't offer a compelling reason for people to upgrade -- in the case of the current-gen consoles, they are demonstrably better than the previous generation but not enough so to convince people to get up off their wallets.
For multiplayer games (play from home at least), I'd have to say the Xbox 360 is king by a healthy margin. It's sort of the place to be to hang out and game with your friends and co-workers when not at the office. Left4Dead and Gears of War 2 seem to be the current multiplayer favorites. A few of us also enjoy N+ co-op every once in a while. But we've played lots of slower online board and card games as well. In addition to video games, a small group of folks gets together after work weekly for board gaming as well.
Oh, this takes me back. I was 12, my dad was going on about how I needed to learn golf because it's the game men of business and substance played and discussed Important Things over.
"No, dad. That's the way people in your generation did it. People in my generation may have to suck up to bosses with golf but by the time we've become men of business and substance, it'll be video games. Instead of trading golf tips it'll be about playing whatever version of Mario they're up to in 30 years."
HA! I'm going to call him up this evening and gloat.
>It was later learned that >Ohio Secretary of State >Kenneth Blackwell's office >had routed Internet traffic >from county election offices >through out-of-state servers >based at SMARTech in >Chattanooga, Tenn. >SMARTech hosts dozens of GOP Web domains.
I can't see any positive way to spin this.
How about this?
>It was later learned that >Ohio Secretary of State >Kenneth Blackwell's office >had routed Internet traffic >from county election offices >through out-of-state servers >based at SMARTech in >Chattanooga, Tenn. >SMARTech hosts dozens of GOP Web domains. > Burma Shave
I know of at least 3 bankers who have committed suicide recently, mostly from those banks whose funds have tanked. It's almost like the twenties.
Why hasn't the media picked up on those names? I would imagine this to be exactly the kind of sensationalist angle they'd look for to hype the story. They could get the widow on with Matt Laurer and he could look all sympathetic while asking theatrically merciless questions. "When you found his still-warm body lying in that pool of blood, what did you think?" "How are you going to go on after all this?" "If your heart could cry, what would it sound like? Let me hold the microphone close while you let it all out."
The vampires in American media are emotional pornographers. If there's a dead banker, I'd imagine they'd be on 'em like flies on shit.
PC gaming ain't dead but it's certainly different from the way it was a decade ago.
I remember when EB Games used to be Electronics Boutique. It was wall-to-wall PC games. Hell, a decade before that it was even better. Shake those boxes, you can hear the floppies jostling around in there. Yeah, that was good gaming! The consoles were shoved in the back corner as if to say "Yeah, we have to compete with Toys-R-Us. You'll see it in the corner along with the macs. Now look at the PC's!"
Today the PC games are shoved off in the corner the way the last beta rentals were in video stores in the 80's. Yes, you can buy a PC game at EB but it's mostly consoles. But you know what? It doesn't matter anymore. Online distribution is taking off by leaps and bounds. You've got stuff like Steam, you've got various other electronic distribution options.
Let's also not forget that PC gaming means different things to different people. Remember when all of us traditional gamers couldn't understand why people were so into Myst? Non-gamers went nuts for it. And don't forget that no matter how well the latest quake or splatterfest is selling, Barbie and Monopoly games on the computer do better. And remember how Sims tromped all over everyone?
Back further in the past, there used to be a huge difference between PC and console gaming. Console graphics really sucked in the NES and SNES era. But they did push for a more arcade-like play method. PC games tended to be slower and more deliberate. You had simulators, war games, the PC monitor had twice the resolution of a TV. You had adventure games, puzzlers, the works. Those were the kinds of games you sat down at the desk to play, they were brain candy.
By the PSX era, consoles could put forward some incredible graphics and people started debating the merits of paying as much for a graphics card as they could for a console. Even as the gamer market expanded to include kids and adults who grew up playing games and still played games, people were prioritizing their purchases. Some gamers wanted to be on the bleeding edge and play new games now, others decided to hold off for a few years and play those former bleeding edge games on newly-purchased modest rigs that could handle them easily.
And throughout all of these changes, both computers and consoles have increased their penetration into American homes. Back when I started playing around with computers, it was unheard of for girls to mess with this nerdy geek stuff. By the late 90's, non-geeks of both genders were on computers. Their parents bought the computers for school work and the internet the kids used them for that and socializing.
Two developments I find very fascinating in different ways are Steam and the virtual consoles on the current-gen consoles. Many people still don't pirate because it's too much effort. Steam makes it possible to play games you might not be able to find in the bargain bin at EB and older games can be resurrected to get a second chance at finding a market. On the consoles, games for the last-gen systems were essentially abandon-ware. You weren't going to be able to play an old NES cart unless you found a console at a garage sale or used an emulator to play the ROM. Now the virtual consoles are allowing companies to market their older games and non-geeks who don't have the patience to deal with MAME can play the older classics.
What remains to be seen concerning electronic distribution is how it changes the developer/publisher model. When it comes to retailing physical products, the 800lb gorilla always wins. You have to deal with him to get shelf space, he always gets the biggest piece of the pie, and the competition is merciless. With electronic distribution there's no supply chain overhead, just the cost of developing the game and either paying a cut to Steam or setting up your own distro servers. You don't have to press disks, put together boxes, ship them to stores, eat the cost on units that don't sell, etc. Marketing is still important but word of mouth becomes
I sense a future cartoon. Guy brings home a pretty young thing wearing a W7 shirt. He sits down, gets cozy with her, but then what's this? Her face is starting to peel in the corner. She reaches up, grabs the flap of skin and pulls it away to reveal the snarling lizard face of Ann Coulter below it! "HISSSS!" she says. "Not Coulter! Vista!" Aiyeee!
If Microsoft can't get ahead of the "lipstick on a pig" bad press, W7 will go the way of Vista. And I don't think anybody's really being fooled at this point.
"eating your own dog food" is an old tech industry expression, it means the company uses their own products internally, as a testbed and to build up expertise.
Oh. I thought they were getting into the genetically engineered designer pet market. Why are my misunderstandings always more interesting than the truth?
Only on Slashdot could someone argue with a straight face that the mainstream media isn't Left enough...
And only an anonymous coward would defend the MSM without having the balls to put his name to the claim.
Mainstream reporting is biased, full of crap
on
Are Newspapers Doomed?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't think we need to look much further than the most recent Iraq war to see how dangerous the current system is. All of our major media outlets are owned by very large corporations, many with defense interests. The press has always curried the favor of the deep pocket interests of the day. It's very instructive to look back at old press clippings on topics where we today know what the facts were ("Was the war a bad idea?" "Was this person corrupt?" "Will this harmless additive kill us?") and see how calm, certain, and forthright the pressmen were in their defense of the special interest. They have the air of the level-headed man of reason, putting our concerns to rest. Of course, they were dead fucking wrong but hey, we're all human, right?
It's true that the current blog model uses press articles and news reports as talking points to begin their own articles, those articles foster discussion threads, etc. If those dry up, more original reporting will need to be done.
But you know what? We've already reached that point with the mainstream media. Investigative journalism is expensive, nobody wants to pay for it. Most news articles these days are just repackaged press releases. Nobody wants to rock the boat and lose their jobs. If Bush says that Iraq has WMD's, if your editor tells you the organization is backing the administration's line because it's good for business, then you're writing about the WMD's. If you won't, there's a thousand other cub reporters just dying to get their shot at the big leagues.
I predict what we'll eventually see is all news sourcing going directly online. There's a lot of capital tied up in a traditional media operation be it the printing presses, distribution chain, and the useless overhead of the parent corporation that demands the news outlet be a profit center. Crossing my fingers, I hope we see a shakeout where traditional media outlets cannot compete with the price model of the net, they fall apart, and what replaces the AP feed is a loose federation of small-time private journalists who have small enough operations they can make their money off of the banner ads. They would peer with other sources to create their own wire feed and we see a more economic business model.
Slashdot Mirror
When I read about horrific shit like this it makes me wonder when I see expectant moms and families with babies. What will this kid's life be like? They're all so happy with the baby now, so doting. What was this murdered mother like with her baby 17 years ago? Could they imagine something like this coming in the future? I don't think anyone could. This little person you brought into the world, that you sacrificed for and gave everything to, they're going to repay you by taking your life.
Maybe Cthulhu will quit trashing the lines if we offer to set him up a frame r'lyeh switch back at his pad. You know he's all about pirating the tentacle pr0n.
...John C. Dvorak were no longer paid to write lame articles?
What if Slashdot readers didn't submit them? And what if the editors didn't post them? Then, then I wouldn't be compelled to bitch about them here. I could pretend that meat puppet didn't even exist.
Fred Brooks's 'The Mythical Man-Month',
I read that as "the Mythical Man-Moth." I bet that would be a great book.
Absolutely - we should stop giving articles like this publicity. ~ This is what's been happening in the UK over the last few months:
1. Some hack writes that company X looks like it might be in trouble
2. All the lenders think company X is now a very bad risk
3. Company X suddenly finds that all their credit has dried up
4. Company X collapses
5. Hack says 'I told you so'
STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! you're killing perfectly viable companies!
You're looking at this wrong.
6. Convince viable companies to pay you not to write about them in step 1.
7. Profit.
Just got a mini this weekend, first mac ever. Everything I touch always seems to die so I predict they'll be gone before we pop the corks on '10.
I've tried using this power for good by giving Bush a hug but the Secret Service wouldn't let me through the rope line.
Yet again, Nvidia showed ATI that it, indeed, has the biggest penis.
Yeah, but it's mega-floppy at that.
Large, and with a long, thin snout, the Hispaniolan solenodon resembles an overgrown shrew.
Hey, do we really need to resort to these petty ad hominem attacks when referring to Ann Coulter?
Not in the least. She may be venomous but she's not a mammal.
So that must have been what the Who was doing to prevent others from copying their act.
Every cell-phone from entry-level to smart phone has a removable battery, why is there this trend to prevent that? I'm not even talking about the need to swap to keep working on the road, I mean swapping when the damn thing wears out. If the number of rated charge cycles isn't over 800, these things are going to die way too quickly. I'm still a bit miffed that I can't get at the battery for my palm tungsten, it's about half of what it used to be. My new mp3 player has an integrated battery, just one more excuse for getting rid of it in a few more years. :eyeroll:
The thing that really miffs me about tech companies and Apple seems excessively guilty of this: they seem to be following the model of the fashion industry with rolling out new products with incremental changes, feature dribbles that could have all been brought out in one unit, etc. I like to run a longer lifecycle on my hardware. I want my lappy to last for 8 years, not 2. Put all your good ideas in one model, then save them up for another one. It's like they expect us to behave like the fashion-conscious, throwing out the old wardrobe not because it's worn out but because it has become unfashionable. Fuck that shit, if I wanted to be a fashion-conscious slave I'd get an Apple -- I don't want to see the bad ideas adopted in non-Apple products!
Don't forget "green hat." Those are hackers who shut down computers across the globe in order to reduce the world's carbon footprint.
And red hat hackers are also old ladies who like to set up elaborate luncheons.
Specifically, layoffs are being used as a way of culling the bottom 10 or 20% of performers in order to improve the overall performance of the company.
How did they get hired in the first place? How was their performance not brought up in reviews leading to a firing for cause?
I'm not speaking as an insider here, just an observer from afar. I know no more of Microsoft than what makes it out onto the boards. And what I say here goes for companies with bad management in general, not just Microsoft. It seems that whenever a new boss comes in, the first thing he wants to do is mark his territory and he does it the same way a dog does. It's big, it's dramatic, people are shaken up. Does it do anything positive? Debatable, but with all the sound and fury, he can convince people it signifies something. Likewise, when entrenched management is faced with a problem like a slowing economy and declining profitability, swinging the budget axe seems like something dramatic and appropriate and they feel convinced it covers for them not having any original ideas on what to do.
As I asked before, who are these bottom percentage people? Why were they not fired as a part of the normal performance review process? If I suddenly say I have ten bags of garbage to carry out of my house, why the hell didn't I do that last week? I was obviously drowning in beer bottles and pizza boxes, why is it only an issue now? Oh, company is coming over. This is proof that I'm an awful housekeeper.
The next question, are these cuts in specific areas or across the board? I understand that companies will support unprofitable divisions that support a greater strategy. Microsoft clearly wants to have a seat at the table when it comes to serving up media in the household. Apple has muscled its way into the music arena and iTunes is a force to recon with. Microsoft wants to be the media portal selling you the hardware and subscription services. With this in mind, something like the xbox becomes easy to understand. It is a way of getting the foot in the door, getting shelf-space in America's entertainment centers, of becoming a known and accepted brand. With the kind of money we're talking about here, dumping $10 billion into xbox could prove to be a very canny investment in the long-term. Of course, it could also prove to be one of those well-calculated gambles that nevertheless failed entirely.
Microsoft abandoned its stake in MSNBC. I don't think they have any interest in cable ventures at this point. As mentioned elsewhere, Microsoft's cash cows are Windows and Office. Office's continued success is predicated upon Windows remaining the dominant operating system, a prospect seriously jeopardized by Vista. Does anybody have a revenue breakdown by division? I'd be curious to see how everything else stacks up here. If they lost the Windows/Office monopoly or saw the market share decline by a significant percentage, what would that mean for the rest of the organization?
If Microsoft is cutting unprofitable divisions and leaving the promising ones intact, that could be a semi-intelligent move. What is all the more likely is that there will be across the board cuts in profitable and promising divisions as well. This means that there will be less oversight, less testing, the loss of institutional knowledge, missed deadlines and dropped features. When a company is struggling, it seems perverse to reduce manpower and cut rations but that may well be what happens here.
It'll be interesting to see how it goes.
Scientists were shocked to discovered that when PS3 was released all PS2 consoles around the worlds did not spontaneously explode!
I think the surprise is that penetration of the new consoles into the market is not greater. Since there's surprise, this probably means that the uptake of new systems is moving more slowly than with previous generations. I think this will be shown as a product of extremely expensive consoles, a dysfunctional economy with increased job insecurity, and the sheer penetration of the PS2, the best-selling console ever. Lots of people are able to justify putting off the upgrades because it's "good enough" and there's still a large library of games out there they likely have not played.
This is similar to Microsoft's position where Vista simply doesn't offer a compelling reason for people to upgrade -- in the case of the current-gen consoles, they are demonstrably better than the previous generation but not enough so to convince people to get up off their wallets.
He says he's not dead yet.
Don't worry, he'll be stone dead in a minute.
I'm feeling better. I feel happy!!!
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45343000/jpg/_45343466_newdocotr226.jpg
I fear greatly for the future of the show. Please get that man a haircut.
For multiplayer games (play from home at least), I'd have to say the Xbox 360 is king by a healthy margin. It's sort of the place to be to hang out and game with your friends and co-workers when not at the office. Left4Dead and Gears of War 2 seem to be the current multiplayer favorites. A few of us also enjoy N+ co-op every once in a while. But we've played lots of slower online board and card games as well. In addition to video games, a small group of folks gets together after work weekly for board gaming as well.
Oh, this takes me back. I was 12, my dad was going on about how I needed to learn golf because it's the game men of business and substance played and discussed Important Things over.
"No, dad. That's the way people in your generation did it. People in my generation may have to suck up to bosses with golf but by the time we've become men of business and substance, it'll be video games. Instead of trading golf tips it'll be about playing whatever version of Mario they're up to in 30 years."
HA! I'm going to call him up this evening and gloat.
>It was later learned that
>Ohio Secretary of State
>Kenneth Blackwell's office
>had routed Internet traffic
>from county election offices
>through out-of-state servers
>based at SMARTech in
>Chattanooga, Tenn.
>SMARTech hosts dozens of GOP Web domains.
I can't see any positive way to spin this.
How about this?
>It was later learned that
>Ohio Secretary of State
>Kenneth Blackwell's office
>had routed Internet traffic
>from county election offices
>through out-of-state servers
>based at SMARTech in
>Chattanooga, Tenn.
>SMARTech hosts dozens of GOP Web domains.
> Burma Shave
I know of at least 3 bankers who have committed suicide recently, mostly from those banks whose funds have tanked. It's almost like the twenties.
Why hasn't the media picked up on those names? I would imagine this to be exactly the kind of sensationalist angle they'd look for to hype the story. They could get the widow on with Matt Laurer and he could look all sympathetic while asking theatrically merciless questions. "When you found his still-warm body lying in that pool of blood, what did you think?" "How are you going to go on after all this?" "If your heart could cry, what would it sound like? Let me hold the microphone close while you let it all out."
The vampires in American media are emotional pornographers. If there's a dead banker, I'd imagine they'd be on 'em like flies on shit.
PC gaming ain't dead but it's certainly different from the way it was a decade ago.
I remember when EB Games used to be Electronics Boutique. It was wall-to-wall PC games. Hell, a decade before that it was even better. Shake those boxes, you can hear the floppies jostling around in there. Yeah, that was good gaming! The consoles were shoved in the back corner as if to say "Yeah, we have to compete with Toys-R-Us. You'll see it in the corner along with the macs. Now look at the PC's!"
Today the PC games are shoved off in the corner the way the last beta rentals were in video stores in the 80's. Yes, you can buy a PC game at EB but it's mostly consoles. But you know what? It doesn't matter anymore. Online distribution is taking off by leaps and bounds. You've got stuff like Steam, you've got various other electronic distribution options.
Let's also not forget that PC gaming means different things to different people. Remember when all of us traditional gamers couldn't understand why people were so into Myst? Non-gamers went nuts for it. And don't forget that no matter how well the latest quake or splatterfest is selling, Barbie and Monopoly games on the computer do better. And remember how Sims tromped all over everyone?
Back further in the past, there used to be a huge difference between PC and console gaming. Console graphics really sucked in the NES and SNES era. But they did push for a more arcade-like play method. PC games tended to be slower and more deliberate. You had simulators, war games, the PC monitor had twice the resolution of a TV. You had adventure games, puzzlers, the works. Those were the kinds of games you sat down at the desk to play, they were brain candy.
By the PSX era, consoles could put forward some incredible graphics and people started debating the merits of paying as much for a graphics card as they could for a console. Even as the gamer market expanded to include kids and adults who grew up playing games and still played games, people were prioritizing their purchases. Some gamers wanted to be on the bleeding edge and play new games now, others decided to hold off for a few years and play those former bleeding edge games on newly-purchased modest rigs that could handle them easily.
And throughout all of these changes, both computers and consoles have increased their penetration into American homes. Back when I started playing around with computers, it was unheard of for girls to mess with this nerdy geek stuff. By the late 90's, non-geeks of both genders were on computers. Their parents bought the computers for school work and the internet the kids used them for that and socializing.
Two developments I find very fascinating in different ways are Steam and the virtual consoles on the current-gen consoles. Many people still don't pirate because it's too much effort. Steam makes it possible to play games you might not be able to find in the bargain bin at EB and older games can be resurrected to get a second chance at finding a market. On the consoles, games for the last-gen systems were essentially abandon-ware. You weren't going to be able to play an old NES cart unless you found a console at a garage sale or used an emulator to play the ROM. Now the virtual consoles are allowing companies to market their older games and non-geeks who don't have the patience to deal with MAME can play the older classics.
What remains to be seen concerning electronic distribution is how it changes the developer/publisher model. When it comes to retailing physical products, the 800lb gorilla always wins. You have to deal with him to get shelf space, he always gets the biggest piece of the pie, and the competition is merciless. With electronic distribution there's no supply chain overhead, just the cost of developing the game and either paying a cut to Steam or setting up your own distro servers. You don't have to press disks, put together boxes, ship them to stores, eat the cost on units that don't sell, etc. Marketing is still important but word of mouth becomes
I sense a future cartoon. Guy brings home a pretty young thing wearing a W7 shirt. He sits down, gets cozy with her, but then what's this? Her face is starting to peel in the corner. She reaches up, grabs the flap of skin and pulls it away to reveal the snarling lizard face of Ann Coulter below it! "HISSSS!" she says. "Not Coulter! Vista!" Aiyeee!
If Microsoft can't get ahead of the "lipstick on a pig" bad press, W7 will go the way of Vista. And I don't think anybody's really being fooled at this point.
"eating your own dog food" is an old tech industry expression, it means the company uses their own products internally, as a testbed and to build up expertise.
Oh. I thought they were getting into the genetically engineered designer pet market. Why are my misunderstandings always more interesting than the truth?
* I've found this to be an excellent way to use an admin login on a site where I also have regular user credentials.
Well played, sir. Well played.
"Yeah, I'm both a user and administrator on startrekfursuitsex.com but perhaps I've said too much..."
(I don't know if that's a real site but I'd still advise everyone to not try visiting it)
With tentacles like this, who needs personality?
Only on Slashdot could someone argue with a straight face that the mainstream media isn't Left enough...
And only an anonymous coward would defend the MSM without having the balls to put his name to the claim.
I don't think we need to look much further than the most recent Iraq war to see how dangerous the current system is. All of our major media outlets are owned by very large corporations, many with defense interests. The press has always curried the favor of the deep pocket interests of the day. It's very instructive to look back at old press clippings on topics where we today know what the facts were ("Was the war a bad idea?" "Was this person corrupt?" "Will this harmless additive kill us?") and see how calm, certain, and forthright the pressmen were in their defense of the special interest. They have the air of the level-headed man of reason, putting our concerns to rest. Of course, they were dead fucking wrong but hey, we're all human, right?
It's true that the current blog model uses press articles and news reports as talking points to begin their own articles, those articles foster discussion threads, etc. If those dry up, more original reporting will need to be done.
But you know what? We've already reached that point with the mainstream media. Investigative journalism is expensive, nobody wants to pay for it. Most news articles these days are just repackaged press releases. Nobody wants to rock the boat and lose their jobs. If Bush says that Iraq has WMD's, if your editor tells you the organization is backing the administration's line because it's good for business, then you're writing about the WMD's. If you won't, there's a thousand other cub reporters just dying to get their shot at the big leagues.
I predict what we'll eventually see is all news sourcing going directly online. There's a lot of capital tied up in a traditional media operation be it the printing presses, distribution chain, and the useless overhead of the parent corporation that demands the news outlet be a profit center. Crossing my fingers, I hope we see a shakeout where traditional media outlets cannot compete with the price model of the net, they fall apart, and what replaces the AP feed is a loose federation of small-time private journalists who have small enough operations they can make their money off of the banner ads. They would peer with other sources to create their own wire feed and we see a more economic business model.