Ya, but are we required to satisfy those who leap in logic or just the rational? I just went to the New York Times main page, clicked on "Contact Us". Customer Service is the first group (http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/contact/directory.html#cs):
**** Need to contact someone about our Web site? Make sure you've read our help and FAQs.
For general help questions, please use our help form. For questions about digital subscriptions, crosswords or other paid products, please see the Help With Online Paid Products page. For a possible correction, or to reach the Web site's editorial staff, you can send an e-mail. To reach Martin Nisenholtz, the Sr. V.P. of Digital Operations, you can send an e-mail.
Delivery or Print Subscription Issues
Place orders, temporarily stop service or inquire about billing or service by calling 1â'800â'NYTIMES (1â'800â'698â'4637), by sending an e-mail or by visiting homedelivery.nytimes.com. Send an e-mail to the Sr. V.P. of Circulation. ****
And there's this from their iPad FAQ: **** 28. What if I have feedback or questions about the NYTimes iPad application? We are very interested in hearing from our readers. Please submit feedback and/or questions to ipad@nytimes.com. ****
The only reference to Twitter is specifically regarding sharing articles through Twitter.
Their digital app likely doesn't affect many people by comparison to their print or web versions. Wiki says their website has 30 million unique users per month. How many subscribe to the app? How many use the app daily?
Moreover, did the app subscribers have access to the web version? If so, how much damage was actually done?
They're charging $20 a month, yes, but they were locked out for 3 days, so throwing around that monthly figure is misleading. It's not like people aren't getting their "$20's worth". They've just lost $1.94 of service. Overpriced, but not that big of a deal.
"Worse, the Times didn't bother to... reply to users who complained on Twitter. "
Oh lawdy lawd and heavens to Betsy! They didn't respond to Twitter complaints. How cruel this world!
Does it really matter if they didn't respond to Twitter complaints? It's not as though Twitter is an official communication channel. Did user email into customer service get bounced? Was customer service phone lines answered and promptly hung up?
If not, suck it up. It was a three-day weekend based on a national holiday. You should EXPECT services to be unavailable.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure most organizations that even bother with Twitter see its users as a bunch of functional fools facing their own individual corners and yelling into a broken microphones, anyway... just like the rest of us.
You could also enter "Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory" for a similar effect. Of course neither your nor my efforts convey validity.
An editorial at Forbes calls for the dismantling of the Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory, pointing to recent headlines as the latest examples of 'security theater' at its worst. From the article: 'The problem isn't that the Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory is harassing the wrong people. The problem is that the Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory is harassing anyone. The Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory is encroaching on fundamental liberties and providing no discernable benefit.... Naturally, the Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory responds to incidents like these by saying that the agents are highly trained and that they have followed proper procedure. This indicates a signal failing for the agency: if "doing it by the book" involves touching people in ways that would be considered sexual assault in virtually any other context or telling a 90-year old breast cancer survivor to remove her bra lest it contain explosives (as happened to a friend's grandmother), then the book needs to be shredded and rewritten. Better yet, it needs to be replaced with a competitive market for air travel in which the airports, the airways, and the airliners are in private hands. Some might object that private firms will have incentives to cut corners on safety. It is a legitimate concern, but competitive mechanisms tend to weed this out.
Re:Google was great because of the lack of Google+
on
Google's New Design
·
· Score: 1
Instant search and site previews over when hovering over links are more examples of the "wrong direction" I and others talk about.
Google was great because of the lack of Google+
on
Google's New Design
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't like the direction. People flocked to Google because it was minimalist and worked. They expanded their market, but kept their face mostly the same-- minimalist. Now they're going Google+ and open the way for someone to be "Just like Google was before they bloated their landing page".
Offer something besides numbers in the code. Look, it's an option of 4 characters from a 10-character set. If you want people to be more secure in their own daily uses, allow them to use a larger character set. Give the option to use letters (26 characters) and even symbols. It won't fix the problem, but it will decrease its prevalence.
And as such, there's a moderately decent chance that an innocent person will be found innocent. But it still costs a hell of a lot to be innocent in a court of law.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but PBS is funded by donations and public funding. That's fixed income regardless of content and thus ratings cannot be financially influential. Like all their other reports, their shows are based on current global, national, and regional concerns, and not influenced, like other networks, by advertisers.
As someone who has watched almost every single online-viewable Frontline report (including The Suicide Tourist), I was surprised to see you note that some people argue that this is a snuff film. The fact of the matter is that the report shows all aspects of living with a debilitating condition, being near death, leaving behind a family, seeking respite, and then, finally, choosing to travel to Switzerland for an assisted suicide.
Yes, you see the man die. Yes, it is a very, very weird feeling watching as someone transitions from alive to dead. But it's definitely no snuff film. There's no financial exploitation of the subject nor is there any amount of entertainment value -- the entire report leading up to the event makes sure of that. It's education, pure and simple.
LOL -- Limited bandwidth. All they would have to do is save the emails to SOME sort of digital format and send it, one time, to another non-Juneau server and let distribution be done from there.
Or, if that's entirely too complicated, put the files on some thumb drives and overnight the big news agencies and ask THEM to host it.
Of many other reasons, maybe because the PC user has an iPhone. Or an iPod. Oh, and Mac + PC combination split between home and work. Or Mac/PC combo home computers with laptops.
You are very right in what you say, but you don't address what most "... but XP will not be supported..." articles take issue with: that the computer companies are still being run like they're part of a high-turn-over consumption-based industry.
The annoyance with not supporting XP is that systems that were shipped with XP towards the end of its support cycle are still "good enough". A then-modern 2009 computer with 3GB of RAM, 500GB of HDD space, and just about any $40 PCI-e video card is enough for a family computer. Grannies, dads, and the like don't really need, nor want to invest in, a modern Windows 7 system (which, lets be honest, is still a RAM hog). And they're not going to buy Windows 7 and to go through the upgrade process.
In the minds of MANY computer users, XP and the accompanying machines are good enough for them and they don't want to spend any more money than is genuinely necessary. Access to any one program just isn't enough to convince them to pay $600 for a full system upgrade. It's all just too much for the lay user.
Why in the world is the observation of supernova the secondary topic in this article? How is the use of Twitter for simple communication more important to the explosion of a star 8 times the mass of our sun?
This is very far from a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. People often throw out that accusation when they have no experience in a given topic.
"That's not a classic muscle car unless it has 4 wheels." "OMG! No True Scotsman!"
The fact is that people who have bad experiences are very likely to suggest that school is overrated or, worse, suggest that it is detrimental to the growth of intellect. They base their opinion of a system on their one experience and generalize it completely.
I think my opinion has significantly more weight behind it because I've not only gone through school, but public schools and public university... and then worked in public school. And am now working at a public university. And interact with students daily (undergrad and grad). And faculty. And administration.
Which is why I make sure to qualify my statement with "(Note: "School" is the institution and educators, not the kids.)" because kids are assholes to other kids.
Yes, modern society generally equates the two... in public. If you find any parent talking to his/her child about life goals, that parent, in the most genuine honesty, will say, "Be happy."
It seems to me that "college is a waste of time" is a tunnel-visioning economic statement... not good life advice. For those who don't give a damn about learning and improving themselves, resisting the imposition at every turn, college can indeed be a waste of time.
I don't know about you guys, but my college education was largely an exercise in question and assertion. I would be asked a question and, based on my learnings thus far, would make an assertion. The quality of logic and ability to recall material would be graded. I disagreed with my lecturers/professors on multiple occasions, but I only spoke up when I was 100% sure about something so I was correct in the matter. In two cases, the person in the front of the classroom disagreed, but wanted me to speak nonetheless. That led to discussion. Everyone who participates enjoys and learns from discussion.
I met some people in school who had obvious grade inflation and went to college increase their earning potential. The certificate of completion they received at the end will help them get interviews (only more so than those without such certificates), but that's about it. If they wasted their time in school, it will show.
Economically speaking, it may be better for some to skip college and go into trades-training. But I would always suggest those who have curiosity (or are willing to have it) to seek professional higher education. There is so much you can learn in a class room setting that cannot be duplicated by books or wikipedia.
But then I'm a fan of a better future... not just a better bottom line.
"Lower and middle-class people don't have the luxury of going to college for the pleasure of learning."
Who said anything about "luxury"? You're the one that brought in the comparison to the luxury item. Education isn't about anything but better understanding the world around you (through the lens of one of many specializations in higher education).
If you can't see the value of understanding, then you shouldn't be talking about education.
Nothing? I remember not being intellectually non-curious. Then I met some really great teachers.
As someone who has and is still working at a public university, I'll directly contradict your suggestion and am frankly appalled that you say that we should encourage people not to go to college. Anyone who would suggest limiting another's education is intellectually stunted him/herself. Sure, you can't polish a turd, but with appropriate education, everyone can better themselves, their understanding of the world around them, and then the lives of those over which they have influence.
If you want a better world than you know, you have to start and finish with education. People need to know logic (and fallacies), history, law, and philosophy (and know them well) if we're going to expect a more civil future.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, but are we required to satisfy those who leap in logic or just the rational? I just went to the New York Times main page, clicked on "Contact Us". Customer Service is the first group (http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/contact/directory.html#cs):
****
Need to contact someone about our Web site? Make sure you've read our help and FAQs.
For general help questions, please use our help form.
For questions about digital subscriptions, crosswords or other paid products, please see the Help With Online Paid Products page.
For a possible correction, or to reach the Web site's editorial staff, you can send an e-mail.
To reach Martin Nisenholtz, the Sr. V.P. of Digital Operations, you can send an e-mail.
Delivery or Print Subscription Issues
Place orders, temporarily stop service or inquire about billing or service by calling 1â'800â'NYTIMES (1â'800â'698â'4637), by sending an e-mail or by visiting homedelivery.nytimes.com.
Send an e-mail to the Sr. V.P. of Circulation.
****
And there's this from their iPad FAQ:
****
28. What if I have feedback or questions about the NYTimes iPad application?
We are very interested in hearing from our readers. Please submit feedback and/or questions to ipad@nytimes.com.
****
The only reference to Twitter is specifically regarding sharing articles through Twitter.
Their digital app likely doesn't affect many people by comparison to their print or web versions. Wiki says their website has 30 million unique users per month. How many subscribe to the app? How many use the app daily?
Moreover, did the app subscribers have access to the web version? If so, how much damage was actually done?
They're charging $20 a month, yes, but they were locked out for 3 days, so throwing around that monthly figure is misleading. It's not like people aren't getting their "$20's worth". They've just lost $1.94 of service. Overpriced, but not that big of a deal.
In other news, Twitter-users and subscribers to the New York Times iPad app have mod points.
"Worse, the Times didn't bother to... reply to users who complained on Twitter. "
Oh lawdy lawd and heavens to Betsy! They didn't respond to Twitter complaints. How cruel this world!
Does it really matter if they didn't respond to Twitter complaints? It's not as though Twitter is an official communication channel. Did user email into customer service get bounced? Was customer service phone lines answered and promptly hung up?
If not, suck it up. It was a three-day weekend based on a national holiday. You should EXPECT services to be unavailable.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure most organizations that even bother with Twitter see its users as a bunch of functional fools facing their own individual corners and yelling into a broken microphones, anyway... just like the rest of us.
You could also enter "Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory" for a similar effect. Of course neither your nor my efforts convey validity.
... Naturally, the Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory responds to incidents like these by saying that the agents are highly trained and that they have followed proper procedure. This indicates a signal failing for the agency: if "doing it by the book" involves touching people in ways that would be considered sexual assault in virtually any other context or telling a 90-year old breast cancer survivor to remove her bra lest it contain explosives (as happened to a friend's grandmother), then the book needs to be shredded and rewritten. Better yet, it needs to be replaced with a competitive market for air travel in which the airports, the airways, and the airliners are in private hands. Some might object that private firms will have incentives to cut corners on safety. It is a legitimate concern, but competitive mechanisms tend to weed this out.
An editorial at Forbes calls for the dismantling of the Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory, pointing to recent headlines as the latest examples of 'security theater' at its worst. From the article: 'The problem isn't that the Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory is harassing the wrong people. The problem is that the Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory is harassing anyone. The Oscar Mayer Smoked Sausage Factory is encroaching on fundamental liberties and providing no discernable benefit.
Instant search and site previews over when hovering over links are more examples of the "wrong direction" I and others talk about.
I don't like the direction. People flocked to Google because it was minimalist and worked. They expanded their market, but kept their face mostly the same-- minimalist. Now they're going Google+ and open the way for someone to be "Just like Google was before they bloated their landing page".
Offer something besides numbers in the code. Look, it's an option of 4 characters from a 10-character set. If you want people to be more secure in their own daily uses, allow them to use a larger character set. Give the option to use letters (26 characters) and even symbols. It won't fix the problem, but it will decrease its prevalence.
And as such, there's a moderately decent chance that an innocent person will be found innocent. But it still costs a hell of a lot to be innocent in a court of law.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but PBS is funded by donations and public funding. That's fixed income regardless of content and thus ratings cannot be financially influential. Like all their other reports, their shows are based on current global, national, and regional concerns, and not influenced, like other networks, by advertisers.
As someone who has watched almost every single online-viewable Frontline report (including The Suicide Tourist), I was surprised to see you note that some people argue that this is a snuff film. The fact of the matter is that the report shows all aspects of living with a debilitating condition, being near death, leaving behind a family, seeking respite, and then, finally, choosing to travel to Switzerland for an assisted suicide.
Yes, you see the man die. Yes, it is a very, very weird feeling watching as someone transitions from alive to dead. But it's definitely no snuff film. There's no financial exploitation of the subject nor is there any amount of entertainment value -- the entire report leading up to the event makes sure of that. It's education, pure and simple.
LOL -- Limited bandwidth. All they would have to do is save the emails to SOME sort of digital format and send it, one time, to another non-Juneau server and let distribution be done from there.
Or, if that's entirely too complicated, put the files on some thumb drives and overnight the big news agencies and ask THEM to host it.
Limited bandwidth...
Why should we be concerned only with security/privacy of data OR the actual location of the storage? Can't we care about both?
Of many other reasons, maybe because the PC user has an iPhone. Or an iPod. Oh, and Mac + PC combination split between home and work. Or Mac/PC combo home computers with laptops.
You somehow missed what I said about not buying more gear. How is buying an iPad going to help someone NOT spend money?
You are very right in what you say, but you don't address what most "... but XP will not be supported..." articles take issue with: that the computer companies are still being run like they're part of a high-turn-over consumption-based industry.
The annoyance with not supporting XP is that systems that were shipped with XP towards the end of its support cycle are still "good enough". A then-modern 2009 computer with 3GB of RAM, 500GB of HDD space, and just about any $40 PCI-e video card is enough for a family computer. Grannies, dads, and the like don't really need, nor want to invest in, a modern Windows 7 system (which, lets be honest, is still a RAM hog). And they're not going to buy Windows 7 and to go through the upgrade process.
In the minds of MANY computer users, XP and the accompanying machines are good enough for them and they don't want to spend any more money than is genuinely necessary. Access to any one program just isn't enough to convince them to pay $600 for a full system upgrade. It's all just too much for the lay user.
Why in the world is the observation of supernova the secondary topic in this article? How is the use of Twitter for simple communication more important to the explosion of a star 8 times the mass of our sun?
This is very far from a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. People often throw out that accusation when they have no experience in a given topic.
"That's not a classic muscle car unless it has 4 wheels."
"OMG! No True Scotsman!"
The fact is that people who have bad experiences are very likely to suggest that school is overrated or, worse, suggest that it is detrimental to the growth of intellect. They base their opinion of a system on their one experience and generalize it completely.
I think my opinion has significantly more weight behind it because I've not only gone through school, but public schools and public university... and then worked in public school. And am now working at a public university. And interact with students daily (undergrad and grad). And faculty. And administration.
Which is why I make sure to qualify my statement with "(Note: "School" is the institution and educators, not the kids.)" because kids are assholes to other kids.
Yes, modern society generally equates the two... in public. If you find any parent talking to his/her child about life goals, that parent, in the most genuine honesty, will say, "Be happy."
Well said. I'd +1 ya if I didn't already comment in this thread.
An intellectual is someone who constantly seeks knowledge and then analyzing the results of the search for whatever reason.
It seems to me that "college is a waste of time" is a tunnel-visioning economic statement... not good life advice. For those who don't give a damn about learning and improving themselves, resisting the imposition at every turn, college can indeed be a waste of time.
I don't know about you guys, but my college education was largely an exercise in question and assertion. I would be asked a question and, based on my learnings thus far, would make an assertion. The quality of logic and ability to recall material would be graded. I disagreed with my lecturers/professors on multiple occasions, but I only spoke up when I was 100% sure about something so I was correct in the matter. In two cases, the person in the front of the classroom disagreed, but wanted me to speak nonetheless. That led to discussion. Everyone who participates enjoys and learns from discussion.
I met some people in school who had obvious grade inflation and went to college increase their earning potential. The certificate of completion they received at the end will help them get interviews (only more so than those without such certificates), but that's about it. If they wasted their time in school, it will show.
Economically speaking, it may be better for some to skip college and go into trades-training. But I would always suggest those who have curiosity (or are willing to have it) to seek professional higher education. There is so much you can learn in a class room setting that cannot be duplicated by books or wikipedia.
But then I'm a fan of a better future... not just a better bottom line.
"Lower and middle-class people don't have the luxury of going to college for the pleasure of learning."
Who said anything about "luxury"? You're the one that brought in the comparison to the luxury item. Education isn't about anything but better understanding the world around you (through the lens of one of many specializations in higher education).
If you can't see the value of understanding, then you shouldn't be talking about education.
Nothing? I remember not being intellectually non-curious. Then I met some really great teachers.
As someone who has and is still working at a public university, I'll directly contradict your suggestion and am frankly appalled that you say that we should encourage people not to go to college. Anyone who would suggest limiting another's education is intellectually stunted him/herself. Sure, you can't polish a turd, but with appropriate education, everyone can better themselves, their understanding of the world around them, and then the lives of those over which they have influence.
If you want a better world than you know, you have to start and finish with education. People need to know logic (and fallacies), history, law, and philosophy (and know them well) if we're going to expect a more civil future.
Seriously... wtf?