Fascinating findings. I find that gathering information is a bad habit of mine. My dad once described himself as an encyclopedia of useless information. As they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. He drives a crosscountry rig now (no longer a computer field service technician repairing motherboards as he did in the early 80's and earning far more money) so he's avoided the terrible lure of the internet (except on weekends). I find myself abusing RSS technology to feed this habit of mine. I can't believe how much more info I cram into my brain because of RSS...
Of course, for many these scientific findings produce a "duh" response. Often science is filled with elaborate studies that simply prove what we already commonly believed or "knew". But no harm done. I think it's exciting to understand the process more fully. I wrote a blog about another study that was done on addictive behavior (ADD: Addicted to Information) - specifically drugs - last March. That research worked on showing how this effect of losing willpower to addictive behavior occurs physically/neurologically in the brain. Fascinating stuff. I related it to my addiction for information - an insight of my wife's, btw. I'm not nearly as insightful or clever.
What I'd like to see, however, is more work being done on how to unlearn habits. How to retrain the mind to not need whatever fix ails it. For instance, I'd like to reclaim an hour of my day without feeling compelled to read more and more news as is the problem this week, or watching too much TV as was the problem last month. My ADDled mind shakes off one habit only to pick up another. I try to build barriers, but as an earlier poster pointed out by example of Brian Eno, we simply bypass the artificial detours we construct. It would be better to retrain ourselves and eliminate those neural pathways that fire up upon familiar stimulus.
If you examine the specs, you'll find that this new iPod has voice recording settings for 22.05KHz and 44.1KHz. A lot of podcasters I know are very excited about this.
Orson Scott Card is a great writer, but he's also an insane rightwing religious fanatic.
From the article you quote: The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.
Sounds like you're on your way to proving that statement true. You don't by any chance contribute to MoveOn.org, do you?
Of course, I jest, but your assessment may be a tad extreme. Religious he is, but insane fanatic? The evidence you presented (i.e. his article) seemed reasonably stated, whether you agreed with his position or not. His article is filled with statements that show he is aware that others may not agree with his viewpoint - not the act of an insane person. If the article has any flaw, it is that it too often devolves into overgeneralized statements void of evidence just like the other side of the argument he is complaining of.
Well, my post *was* a joke, but if you want to get ruffled about it, I can pluck your feathers. I'm game. We're going waaaay off topic though.
From your USA Today article: Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved. (Emphasis added)
It seems clear to me that "the rest of the country" should consider progressives "a bit... dim" too. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents believed that it was likely that Saddam was involved. You took that quote and conveniently left your party out.
You then take data from the Harris Poll to fuel the rest of your rant: 47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001
Many people, including John Kerry, believed that Hussein supported the terrorists because he let certain Al Qaeda members stay in Iraq. The question was a bit unfair though. Many believe that Hussein supported the hijackers but not many believe that Hussein planned the attack. A yes or no answer wasn't sufficient, so they could be answering "yes" to the last part. We don't really know, and neither do the pollers you cited. Your little dig that the 47% is most likely conservative is just silly, so I'll focus on the next part of your rant where you claim that "George W. Bush himself promoted the idea that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks." From the article you linked it clearly stated:
More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe the following claims not made by the president and which virtually no experts believe to be true
Claims not made by the President. Whose being dim here? LOL I was just having fun, but there is a serious groupthink among progressives that perpetuates these myths you got so steamed about. I'm sure conservatives have their own. Me, I'm independent, so I watch the circus from a distance with amusement.
do you want to be Pot, or Kettle for Hallowe'en?
I'll dress up as Betty Crocker and serve you some crow instead.
Be careful. You just said something positive about FoxNews. Groupthink around here is that FoxNews is in bed with Satan. Waitaminute, groupthink around here holds religion to be bad, too.
At any rate, to go and point out that FoxNews corrected the actual news article in question and took full responsibility while also posting dissenting views flies in the face of all the posts above yours. Never mess with groupthink, man. Groupthink still holds to the belief that conservatives believe Sadam Hussein bombed the WTC. You go and confront groupthink with actual facts and you'll get it all grumpy and everything...
I just gave them a throwaway email. I own my own domain so I can create and kill emails at whim but you can do the same thing with the copious webmail services out there. I have one address that lives for only a year. Come January 1st if Flock is just a spammer in disguise the issue will be moot.
"Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society,' said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which commissioned the polls."
Won't somebody think of the children? ROFL. Funniest quote I have read in a while. These guys are so funny.
I won't speak for most people, but I use P2P a lot. And I use it to sample music. Now, I have several thousand songs in my collection. I rip the majority from CDs and cassettes. I've recently pulled my LPs out of storage and will begin ripping them to MP3 soon. I spend an awful lot of money on music. I have purchased 427 songs so far from iTMS since it opened. But I still like to sample music.
I am tired of buying albums filled with clunkers. I like buying one song at a time. But I find the 30 second sample on iTMS unsatisfactory. First of all, the 30 seconds clipped usually seem to be made by machine or idiot because they often fail to represent the chorus, or hook of the song. So I sample music off P2P. I DL'd the Taxi Dolls, loved their stuff, and bought their album. I DL'd Autolux, loved their stuff and bought their album. I DL'd something by Shakira the other day, hated it, then deleted the track. P2P for me is interactive Radio.
If the record companies made a P2P service that featured lores, full clips of their music I could sample to my hearts content and buy as an informed consumer. (They should release hires MP3s of their catalogs, and I'd still buy as an informed consumer but they'd never go for that) There are more records I haven't bought because I didn't trust them than ones I did buy. The RIAA would make more money off of me if they embraced P2P instead of being so paranoid and litigious.
But that's just me. YMMV
Mac Guys Not Really Singled Out
on
Palm's Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
"The author claims, among other things, that Palm's stuff never worked well enough with Windows (while the RIM Blackberry did), which ultimately allowed Windows Mobile to eliminate them."
As a mostly Mac guy, I always assumed Palm just had it in for Mac users and that the grass was not only greener on the Windows side of the Palm lawn, but that nubile nymphs served PC users drinks and gave free massages. Whodathunk the ineptitude raged like a weed on both sides of the lawn...
Didn't Google have high profile legal troubles with France? 12 and the famous 3 Perhaps MSFT chose France because it seems the less Google-happy place on earth.
Now see? THAT'S thinking! AOL could turn mindshare around by simply sending out reusable CD-RWs. Instead of chucking their discs into the bin, people would actually be inserting them into computers. Sure, those who know how would have those things wiped faster than you can say "Thanks!", but everybody else would still get the autorun AOL pitches playing on their monitor. But wouldn't that be irritating, you ask? Yes, but people would forget about that because every time a new AOL CD-RW shows up in the mail people would be saying "Cool!". They'd get warm fuzzies instead of shivers of revulsion when they open their mailbox. Free CD-RWs! Weee!
The point is that people are already chucking their daily AOLs CDs. Instead of chucking the CDs, if AOL shipped CD-RWs people would have AOL branded CD-RWs kicking around. Why not think outside the box instead? Yeah, I suppose that's too much to ask of a big corporation.
I'm sorry to take issue with your rant, but your +5 Insightful rating inspired me into action. I think you miss the point here and there.
"In my humble opinion all these other "fancy schmancy" iPod style players (which I am assuming this Dell will emulate) are complete crap. Absolute over engineered bollocks."
You obviously haven't seen the DJ Ditty yet, have you? Nobody is going to call this thing "fancy Schmancy". I promise. Visit http://dellditty.com/ for an eyeful
"Why do you need special drivers to talk to a flash based device ? Why do you need crappy management software to talk to a flash device ?"
I suspect user error is at fault here. It is true that iTunes will manage your collection by default, but it doesn't delete files. It copies by default. Moves them into new directories. I used to sweat over managing my GBs of MP3s the old fashioned way until iTunes came out. Then I kept my old data outside of the iTunes music folder because I didn't trust it and just let iTunes organize the new files I acquired. Over time, I found that iTunes was so great at accessing my files (quick search, smart lists, etc.) I had stopped accessing the files manually. There was no need to. I moved all the old files into the iTunes music folder and never looked back.
Not only that, but transfer is easy and automatic. I can copy MP3 files to my Zire72, but never bother. Too much hassle. It's easier to set things up in iTunes and have the playlists auto update/sync with my iPod.
"So sorry for the rant (which was probably somewhat off topic:) but I despair at the ridiculous overengineering of most MP3 players. It's almost worse than under engineering.
As usual, "Keep It Simple Stupid"...."
Then you should have loved the iPod shuffle.;)
Isn't it nice that you have so many choices available to you? You don't have to buy into all that iPod crap. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. The Dell Ditty is testament to that fact. If Apple controlled the MP3 world, they would have made sure the Dell DJ Ditty never saw the light of day. Not because of greed, btw, but because it is butt ugly.
Look, you've heard the arguments before. There are scores of MP3 devices out there, plus all manner of WMA happy services to buy tracks from. You don't ever have to stain your hands on an Apple product. There's no sense getting upset about it. Maybe you aren't the type of person being targeted by Apple? Some people like a little bit of automation in their lives. That's why they like iTunes. They don't want to drag files around. Some people like their MP3 players to have a touch of style/class/fashion. For everybody else, there's the Dell DJ Ditty.;)
First, I should disclose that my blog, The Splintered Mind, deals with personal issues and is often a form of therapy, though I like to believe that others may find the entries entertaining, useful, and sometimes even funny (even if unintentionally). Certainly the comments I receive from time to time reflect that.
That being said, I don't know how applicable the results of this poll are to blogging in general. I read an awful lot of political and technology blogs and not a single one of them is on AOL. In fact, considering that the poll was conducted for AOL on AOL from AOL users are we surprised that the majority of AOL "bloggers" blog about anything, read other blogs for entertainment, and don't rate politics or technology high in their answers?
I take issue with the poll participants being referred to as "US Bloggers" and not "AOL Bloggers". I don't believe the poll results represent the blogging mainstream at all. In fact, wouldn't the results differ depending on which blogging service was being polled? Wouldn't we see results like
"Subjects that LiveJournal Bloggers write about: Sexual Fantasies 55%, Creative Piercings 31%, Role Playing 15%, etc."
or
"Subjects that Blogger Bloggers write about: Spam 65%, Cats 23%, Auto Insurance 9%, etc."
OK, I'm kidding. But the pollsters are quite arrogant to declare their results speak for all bloggers in the United States of America.
That'll teach me to drive an older car. LOL Thanks for the info. I brought my 1997 Minivan's car keys to Wal*Mart and had copies made without issue, btw.
Newer keys may be more dupe-proof than older keys, but the USB key won't be any less secure than the older keys, though I think it's a daft idea. At any rate, physical access is needed to pull off any dupe job and most people keep their keys quite close to their person.
Definitely a specious article title, but not as bad as some of the hand wringing going on in this forum. C'mon, guys. If somebody has physical access to your USB Key it is no different than having physical access to a plain ole key. If you left your keys on your desk I could take them during lunch break and get a copy made at Wal*Mart and put them back before you noticed, theoretically.:/ But not likely. The trick is getting physical access, people. Sure, now you could save a trip down to Wal*Mart and just copy it at your desk, but you still have to steal the key.
I just wonder what the advantage is of having a USB key as opposed to having a standard metal one. There seems to be no advantage other than for marketing purposes. Copy files to the hard drive? Wouldn't it be better to just read them off the key? Are you really going to fill a GB hard drive via sneaker net? Do you really want to wait for your files to finish syncing before the car will start? (Or worse, stall while copying files? heh). A USB Key as the article describes doesn't seem to offer anything that isn't already available.
I was just talking about this USB Key with a bud earlier today and we decided this opened up new doors for fun, gags, and abuse. Consider getting access to the USB key (assuming this is actually easy as everybody else here seems to worry), making a disk image or zip file of it, posting the file on an anonymous Geocities page for easy download, and letting people know where to find the car. Better than geocaching. Oh, the hilarity ensues!
"My car is where?" "Hidden somewhere in Nebraska. Here are the coordinates for a log in Payson, UT that has further instructions..."
From the article: The mock phishing exercises demonstrate how effective such attacks can be. In June 2004, more than 500 cadets at West Point received an email from Col. Robert Melville notifying them of a problem with their grade report and ordering them to click on a link to verify that the grades were correct. More than 80% of the students dutifully followed the instructions.
But there is no Col. Robert Melville at West Point.
Hello, people. These cadets weren't paying attention to the chain of command. They were just following orders blindly. As shown by Abu Ghraib, this can be just as dangerous as soldiers who question everything before obeying. There needs to be a light on upstairs. I for one am glad that people who are trained to kill are being trained to think as well. Since phishing attacks are getting more complex, this social engineering vector needs to be addressed before more important information is compromised.
Every few weeks, my Mum - who I have dutifully trained - sends me a phishing email that has freaked her out. The email always seems to come from my domain where she has an account with official wording. Even though I have trained her and trained her she still panics. She doesn't click on the links. She doesn't fall for the scams (I'm proud to say that she can spot a stupid bank phishing scam with her eyes closed now). She panics because somebody is posing as me (i.e. an admin from my domain) and trying to trick her. This is scary and invasive for the common computer user. People want to believe everything they read because it is fatiguing to be suspicious of everything all the time. Slashdotters have built up amazing suspicion stamina, but they aren't the norm. My Mum learned her lessons. She's a trooper. But how many people out there can recognize phishing scams? The scammers are getting cleverer. They're using spell checkers now.;)
I believe training government officials to recognize phishing scams in this way is excellent. As the article also says: "Repetition is important. Vigilance is critical," he says. "The bottom line lesson was: Even if the request comes from legitimate individuals, never give out personal information."
The only addition I would recommend would be an official notice announcing this training. Then the few complainers who feel stupid about getting caught wouldn't have anything to complain about. Having employees on guard for phishing attacks would only improve their alertness to the problem, IMO, even if they knew the attack was going to be a training exercize. Of course, this official notice would have to be sent out on a different day than the fake phish scam in order for this program to be effective.;)
Visit PodcastAlley.com and you'll find a lot of disgruntled podcasters. iTunes4.9 created a caste system for those in the iTunes directory and those who were not. Being in iTunes doubled and tripled subscriber bases. Being left out of the directory meant obscurity. There's a lot of resentment out there.
1) People on/. who don't own or like iPods seem resent the label "podcasts" for audio blogs. Get over it. Suggestions that podcasts be called irivercasts and zencasts are laughable. "pod" rhymes with "broad" and hence "podcast" instead of "broadcast" for a downloadable MP3 radio show. I thought that was obvious. In addition, the guys who put all the elements together owned iPods, namely Adam Curry - the guy who wanted to automate the loading of audio blogs into his iPod. He didn't coin the term "podcast" but he gave it notoriety. Why gripe about this?
2) iTunes may be pushing commercial podcasts in a big way, but it's not all bad. While committees voted and bickered over 1-click subscribing over on ipodder-dev Apple went and implemented the pcast:// namespace. (other podcatchers were using feed://) Click on a feed like pcast://feed.feedburner.com/BitzofBrin and instant subscription. Apple also pushed podcasts into the mainstream which benefited all shows. Even shows not included in the iTMS podcast directory saw an increase of subscribers because new ears were using iTunes to tune in. A lot of the complaining has been from M$ zealots, people left out of the iTMS directory, and people who are opposed to all forms of commercialization. Most podcasters are happy about Apple wading into the podcast waters, however, by a large majority.
3) Bugs. iTMS polls feeds too sluggishly. The listings in the iTMS are often behind by a day (though this doesn't affect subscriptions which tend to be very current because they poll the feed directly). Also, there isn't enough feedback for those who submit their podcasts. I know many podcasts in submission limbo. They are told that their podcast has already been submitted, but it's been six weeks that they've waited for inclusion. Meanwhile newer podcasts submit and get listed within one week. Apple gives podcasts in limbo the runaround known as form letter hell. Interface clumsiness abounds in the iTunes podcast implementation as well. Even subscribing requires one to re-enter the podcast directory over and over again for each podcast the user wants to subscribe to.
4) AAC podcasts are so cool with their chapters and chapter art that they very well could replace MP3s as the default podcast format. Many podcasters offer dual MP3/M4A feeds but I know others that have opted for AAC M4As because the chapters appeal to them and the compression vs. quality is better. Interesting developments there.
5) Apple brought bandwidth to the forefront of podcaster's minds overnight with the release of iTunes4.9. Many people simply weren't ready for popularity. Their servers smoked under the strain. This has had the added result of pushing Bit Torrent distribution support from being an interesting geeky add-on to a vital necessity.
6) The commercialization of podcasts is not necessarily a bad thing as long as there are still unique voices. Unlike mainstream radio, there is room for indies to compete with the big boys (read the article). But there needs to be more growth in podcasting as a medium. The podcast I listed earlier is a good example. Bitz of Brin is a podcast by a 13 year old girl. She doesn't talk about sex or tech. She doesn't play electronica or alternative music. She wants to be a singer and features a cover of mainstream pop/country stars each podcast. Her podcast doesn't appeal to geeks interested in tech. Her music doesn't appeal to the thousands of alternative music fans turning to podcasts for their anti-*IA fix. Her main audience, frankly, isn't listening to podcasts. Yet her voice is unique and part of the whole underground podcast movement.
Skepticality is usually bouncing between #2 and #3. They have from 11,000 to 14,000 subscribers (according to what I've read by them on Podcast Alley), so/. hasn't pushed them to that #2 position like you think it has.
I tend to agree with you. I used iTunes as my major jukebox for 3 years before buying an iPod a few months ago. I had been using the iTMS to purchase music from day one with no iPod to listen to them on. My iMac was my music center/world. I believe people overgeneralize when they claim iTunes exists only to sell iPods, not that there isn't a symbiotic relationship there. I use iTunes to stream music throughout my house. I use iTunes to create smartlists based on specific criteria such as genre, plus my own extensive comment markups (Moody, Sad, Upbeat, Downtempo, Angry, etc.) Even though I have an iPod I simply use iTunes more. The iPod is an extension of what I do with iTunes, not the other way around.
As for video, I bought a few videos that iTunes offered when 4.8 was released. I added some music videos to my iTunes db that I had kicking around. Music videos are cool, but I don't see them as a big buy for me. I would rather buy two songs for that $1.99 than one music video I might watch once or twice a year. But with iTunes 4.9 I replaced ANT as my permanent Vlog viewer/aggreggator. Unlike ANT on the Mac, I could watch vlogs fullscreen. This is the big shift for video in my computer use: Subscribable content via iTunes. In my opinion, this is where video in iTunes is leading up to, this is what all the talks are about, this is what the deals are being made for, not just "vPods".
Now, will Apple release a vPod? Of course they will. They have been adding features to iPods continually to keep them current and relevant. Video on an iPod is inevitable. But it will be a marketing gimmick, not a ground breaking feature. Steve Jobs is still right about portable video. How many people do you know bought a 60gb iPod Photo so they could stop jogging every 4 minutes to watch their iPod display the current song's cover art? How many people do you know who stuff their iPod Photo full of pictures. A small percentage I would hazard. Color screens on iPods are simply marketing hype at worse, a nice upgrade at best. A few people take advantage of the new features, but most still just listen to their iPods to play music. When iPods support videos there will be those who get excited about that, but most will still just listen to music on the things.
Personally, I believe Apple is just putting the infrastructure in place to support movie home delivery they way they sell music online. All this hubbub about video on iPods is just the bell and whistle to grab headlines. The real breaking news will be the movie download service. I expect that in October when they typically make big iTunes/iPod announcements.
I just edited the start time and stop time of the MP3s to edit out the chatting. That way it's still there if I choose to listen to the backstory about each piece, but in the meantime iTunes crossfades each performance into another without any commentary interupting my reverie.
This elaborate dance the book publishers go through has arisen because of the internet.
American fans were buying Harry Potter books from England via Amazon.uk.co to get their hands on it earlier than the lazy Scholastic publications date would let them. Scholastic figured they were losing their shirts on sales of the first three books. This simultaneous release date started with Goblet of Fire and ensures mutual profitability for the publishers of the two major Harry Potter markets.
J. K. Rowling likes to keep her plot twists secret because many of her fans like to be surprised. Nothing spoils a surprise better than a fullpage headline on the front page of the Sun screaming "HARRY DIES IN CHAPTER 23!!" In addition, many reviewers were spilling the beans with prerelease date reviews. I still remember being pissed off at the smartalec who told me Darth Vader was Luke's father the day before Empire's opening night. So I'm glad she keeps plot details under tight wraps.
Besides, if you had more money than the Queen of England and could orchestrate the release of your book any way you wanted, wouldn't you?
Perhaps you (and others) misunderstood the tone of my post. By stating that giant catfish in America are cryptozoological I mean that they have not been recognized by science, not that I don't think they are there. The journals of cryptozoology are filled with anecdotal stories such as yours and Mark Twains' that unfortunately do not prove beyond a doubt that these creatures exist.
Until somebody captures one of these giant catfish in America and has their photo plastered all over the paper with the beast, and until local and national ichthyologists have a chance to examine it, the idea of giant catfish in America will be regarded as a fanciful tale from a chapter out of Paul Bunyan's life.
That must be frustrating for somebody like you, however, who has only a memory to prove the experience happened. If giant catfish exist in America - and there's no reason to think that they don't since they exist all over the world - one day somebody will catch one and you're story will be validated.
Lucky you. I don't even have a story to share! My catfish were only a few inches long. LOL
I was researching this just yesterday so I'm not surprised to see it here. That fish is a whole heckuvva lot larger than the catfish I used to catch and eat as a kid.
There are some great photos here at National Geographic's Article on the fish. My favorite photo is the one with an elderly gent cutting a steak larger than his torso. Dang! At that size I wonder if they taste any good?
Of course, Giant Catfish are the stuff of legends, and usually have a kernal of truth. (Links to other whoppers there as well)
Usually tales of the "big one that got away" or, in this case, "Catfish the size of Volkswagon Bugs" are dismissed, but according to Loren Coleman's "Mysterious America" (March 2004 ed./My affiliate link), Chapter 10, even Mark Twain claims to have seen one more than six feet long and weighing 250 pounds in the Mississippi River. (How he managed to weigh it is not recorded ^_-). But cryptozoologists still try to hunt them down, even this summer as reported here. Chester Moore, the organizer of the event, claims that preservation is their goal as well as discovery. This is the biggest North American expedition to research cryptid catfish I've heard of, so it will be interesting to see if they get lucky. They'll need to discover the fish first, though, before talking about preservation.::)
Preservation of giant catfish is part of the WWF's mission, too, in Thailand & Cambodia. Just this month four giant catfish bred in captivity were released into the Mekong. So Giant Catfish are real in the Amazon, Europe, Asia, etc., but cryptozoological here in the States. Would be cool if they weren't, though.
404 Not Found. Way to go! You found one very effective way to take down spam blogs: Slashdot 'em!
Still, I wish I could have studied that page for comparison. I found http://bobthebuilder123.blogspot.com/ one day in my blog referrer logs. I wondered why people interested in Bob the Builder had linked to me. They hadn't. The whole page is nothing but spam - all posted on one sunny day this month. If you can help me see what gonorrhea has to do with Bob the Builder I'd be very much obliged.
At any rate, I'd pointed this site out to blogger.com but would like to know what was different with the page you linked to from "Bob's" page because it's still up. Interesting side note, though. With the changes Google made to their page ranking system recently these stupid blogs may fade away. I can't find http://bobthebuilder123.blogspot.com/ in Google. No page ranking, no purpose for existing.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascinating findings. I find that gathering information is a bad habit of mine. My dad once described himself as an encyclopedia of useless information. As they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. He drives a crosscountry rig now (no longer a computer field service technician repairing motherboards as he did in the early 80's and earning far more money) so he's avoided the terrible lure of the internet (except on weekends). I find myself abusing RSS technology to feed this habit of mine. I can't believe how much more info I cram into my brain because of RSS...
Of course, for many these scientific findings produce a "duh" response. Often science is filled with elaborate studies that simply prove what we already commonly believed or "knew". But no harm done. I think it's exciting to understand the process more fully. I wrote a blog about another study that was done on addictive behavior (ADD: Addicted to Information) - specifically drugs - last March. That research worked on showing how this effect of losing willpower to addictive behavior occurs physically/neurologically in the brain. Fascinating stuff. I related it to my addiction for information - an insight of my wife's, btw. I'm not nearly as insightful or clever.
What I'd like to see, however, is more work being done on how to unlearn habits. How to retrain the mind to not need whatever fix ails it. For instance, I'd like to reclaim an hour of my day without feeling compelled to read more and more news as is the problem this week, or watching too much TV as was the problem last month. My ADDled mind shakes off one habit only to pick up another. I try to build barriers, but as an earlier poster pointed out by example of Brian Eno, we simply bypass the artificial detours we construct. It would be better to retrain ourselves and eliminate those neural pathways that fire up upon familiar stimulus.
Oh brother. I linked the wrong URL. I love it when I live up to my nickname...
You'll find the specs here. The section on Voice Recording is buried at the bottom of the page.
If you examine the specs, you'll find that this new iPod has voice recording settings for 22.05KHz and 44.1KHz. A lot of podcasters I know are very excited about this.
Orson Scott Card is a great writer, but he's also an insane rightwing religious fanatic.
From the article you quote: The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.
Sounds like you're on your way to proving that statement true. You don't by any chance contribute to MoveOn.org, do you?
Of course, I jest, but your assessment may be a tad extreme. Religious he is, but insane fanatic? The evidence you presented (i.e. his article) seemed reasonably stated, whether you agreed with his position or not. His article is filled with statements that show he is aware that others may not agree with his viewpoint - not the act of an insane person. If the article has any flaw, it is that it too often devolves into overgeneralized statements void of evidence just like the other side of the argument he is complaining of.
Well, my post *was* a joke, but if you want to get ruffled about it, I can pluck your feathers. I'm game. We're going waaaay off topic though.
From your USA Today article: Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved. (Emphasis added)
It seems clear to me that "the rest of the country" should consider progressives "a bit... dim" too. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents believed that it was likely that Saddam was involved. You took that quote and conveniently left your party out.
You then take data from the Harris Poll to fuel the rest of your rant:
47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001
Many people, including John Kerry, believed that Hussein supported the terrorists because he let certain Al Qaeda members stay in Iraq. The question was a bit unfair though. Many believe that Hussein supported the hijackers but not many believe that Hussein planned the attack. A yes or no answer wasn't sufficient, so they could be answering "yes" to the last part. We don't really know, and neither do the pollers you cited. Your little dig that the 47% is most likely conservative is just silly, so I'll focus on the next part of your rant where you claim that "George W. Bush himself promoted the idea that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks." From the article you linked it clearly stated:
More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe the following claims not made by the president and which virtually no experts believe to be true
Claims not made by the President. Whose being dim here? LOL I was just having fun, but there is a serious groupthink among progressives that perpetuates these myths you got so steamed about. I'm sure conservatives have their own. Me, I'm independent, so I watch the circus from a distance with amusement.
do you want to be Pot, or Kettle for Hallowe'en?
I'll dress up as Betty Crocker and serve you some crow instead.
Be careful. You just said something positive about FoxNews. Groupthink around here is that FoxNews is in bed with Satan. Waitaminute, groupthink around here holds religion to be bad, too.
At any rate, to go and point out that FoxNews corrected the actual news article in question and took full responsibility while also posting dissenting views flies in the face of all the posts above yours. Never mess with groupthink, man. Groupthink still holds to the belief that conservatives believe Sadam Hussein bombed the WTC. You go and confront groupthink with actual facts and you'll get it all grumpy and everything...
RE: Point 3
I just gave them a throwaway email. I own my own domain so I can create and kill emails at whim but you can do the same thing with the copious webmail services out there. I have one address that lives for only a year. Come January 1st if Flock is just a spammer in disguise the issue will be moot.
"Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society,' said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which commissioned the polls."
Won't somebody think of the children? ROFL. Funniest quote I have read in a while. These guys are so funny.
I won't speak for most people, but I use P2P a lot. And I use it to sample music. Now, I have several thousand songs in my collection. I rip the majority from CDs and cassettes. I've recently pulled my LPs out of storage and will begin ripping them to MP3 soon. I spend an awful lot of money on music. I have purchased 427 songs so far from iTMS since it opened. But I still like to sample music.
I am tired of buying albums filled with clunkers. I like buying one song at a time. But I find the 30 second sample on iTMS unsatisfactory. First of all, the 30 seconds clipped usually seem to be made by machine or idiot because they often fail to represent the chorus, or hook of the song. So I sample music off P2P. I DL'd the Taxi Dolls, loved their stuff, and bought their album. I DL'd Autolux, loved their stuff and bought their album. I DL'd something by Shakira the other day, hated it, then deleted the track. P2P for me is interactive Radio.
If the record companies made a P2P service that featured lores, full clips of their music I could sample to my hearts content and buy as an informed consumer. (They should release hires MP3s of their catalogs, and I'd still buy as an informed consumer but they'd never go for that) There are more records I haven't bought because I didn't trust them than ones I did buy. The RIAA would make more money off of me if they embraced P2P instead of being so paranoid and litigious.
But that's just me. YMMV
"The author claims, among other things, that Palm's stuff never worked well enough with Windows (while the RIM Blackberry did), which ultimately allowed Windows Mobile to eliminate them."
As a mostly Mac guy, I always assumed Palm just had it in for Mac users and that the grass was not only greener on the Windows side of the Palm lawn, but that nubile nymphs served PC users drinks and gave free massages. Whodathunk the ineptitude raged like a weed on both sides of the lawn...
Didn't Google have high profile legal troubles with France? 1 2 and the famous 3 Perhaps MSFT chose France because it seems the less Google-happy place on earth.
Now see? THAT'S thinking! AOL could turn mindshare around by simply sending out reusable CD-RWs. Instead of chucking their discs into the bin, people would actually be inserting them into computers. Sure, those who know how would have those things wiped faster than you can say "Thanks!", but everybody else would still get the autorun AOL pitches playing on their monitor. But wouldn't that be irritating, you ask? Yes, but people would forget about that because every time a new AOL CD-RW shows up in the mail people would be saying "Cool!". They'd get warm fuzzies instead of shivers of revulsion when they open their mailbox. Free CD-RWs! Weee!
The point is that people are already chucking their daily AOLs CDs. Instead of chucking the CDs, if AOL shipped CD-RWs people would have AOL branded CD-RWs kicking around. Why not think outside the box instead? Yeah, I suppose that's too much to ask of a big corporation.
I'm sorry to take issue with your rant, but your +5 Insightful rating inspired me into action. I think you miss the point here and there.
:) but I despair at the ridiculous overengineering of most MP3 players. It's almost worse than under engineering.
;)
;)
"In my humble opinion all these other "fancy schmancy" iPod style players (which I am assuming this Dell will emulate) are complete crap. Absolute over engineered bollocks."
You obviously haven't seen the DJ Ditty yet, have you? Nobody is going to call this thing "fancy Schmancy". I promise. Visit http://dellditty.com/ for an eyeful
"Why do you need special drivers to talk to a flash based device ? Why do you need crappy management software to talk to a flash device ?"
I suspect user error is at fault here. It is true that iTunes will manage your collection by default, but it doesn't delete files. It copies by default. Moves them into new directories. I used to sweat over managing my GBs of MP3s the old fashioned way until iTunes came out. Then I kept my old data outside of the iTunes music folder because I didn't trust it and just let iTunes organize the new files I acquired. Over time, I found that iTunes was so great at accessing my files (quick search, smart lists, etc.) I had stopped accessing the files manually. There was no need to. I moved all the old files into the iTunes music folder and never looked back.
Not only that, but transfer is easy and automatic. I can copy MP3 files to my Zire72, but never bother. Too much hassle. It's easier to set things up in iTunes and have the playlists auto update/sync with my iPod.
"So sorry for the rant (which was probably somewhat off topic
As usual, "Keep It Simple Stupid"...."
Then you should have loved the iPod shuffle.
Isn't it nice that you have so many choices available to you? You don't have to buy into all that iPod crap. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. The Dell Ditty is testament to that fact. If Apple controlled the MP3 world, they would have made sure the Dell DJ Ditty never saw the light of day. Not because of greed, btw, but because it is butt ugly.
Look, you've heard the arguments before. There are scores of MP3 devices out there, plus all manner of WMA happy services to buy tracks from. You don't ever have to stain your hands on an Apple product. There's no sense getting upset about it. Maybe you aren't the type of person being targeted by Apple? Some people like a little bit of automation in their lives. That's why they like iTunes. They don't want to drag files around. Some people like their MP3 players to have a touch of style/class/fashion. For everybody else, there's the Dell DJ Ditty.
First, I should disclose that my blog, The Splintered Mind, deals with personal issues and is often a form of therapy, though I like to believe that others may find the entries entertaining, useful, and sometimes even funny (even if unintentionally). Certainly the comments I receive from time to time reflect that.
That being said, I don't know how applicable the results of this poll are to blogging in general. I read an awful lot of political and technology blogs and not a single one of them is on AOL. In fact, considering that the poll was conducted for AOL on AOL from AOL users are we surprised that the majority of AOL "bloggers" blog about anything, read other blogs for entertainment, and don't rate politics or technology high in their answers?
I take issue with the poll participants being referred to as "US Bloggers" and not "AOL Bloggers". I don't believe the poll results represent the blogging mainstream at all. In fact, wouldn't the results differ depending on which blogging service was being polled? Wouldn't we see results like
"Subjects that LiveJournal Bloggers write about: Sexual Fantasies 55%, Creative Piercings 31%, Role Playing 15%, etc."
or
"Subjects that Blogger Bloggers write about: Spam 65%, Cats 23%, Auto Insurance 9%, etc."
OK, I'm kidding. But the pollsters are quite arrogant to declare their results speak for all bloggers in the United States of America.
That'll teach me to drive an older car. LOL Thanks for the info. I brought my 1997 Minivan's car keys to Wal*Mart and had copies made without issue, btw.
Newer keys may be more dupe-proof than older keys, but the USB key won't be any less secure than the older keys, though I think it's a daft idea. At any rate, physical access is needed to pull off any dupe job and most people keep their keys quite close to their person.
Definitely a specious article title, but not as bad as some of the hand wringing going on in this forum. C'mon, guys. If somebody has physical access to your USB Key it is no different than having physical access to a plain ole key. If you left your keys on your desk I could take them during lunch break and get a copy made at Wal*Mart and put them back before you noticed, theoretically. :/ But not likely. The trick is getting physical access, people. Sure, now you could save a trip down to Wal*Mart and just copy it at your desk, but you still have to steal the key.
I just wonder what the advantage is of having a USB key as opposed to having a standard metal one. There seems to be no advantage other than for marketing purposes. Copy files to the hard drive? Wouldn't it be better to just read them off the key? Are you really going to fill a GB hard drive via sneaker net? Do you really want to wait for your files to finish syncing before the car will start? (Or worse, stall while copying files? heh). A USB Key as the article describes doesn't seem to offer anything that isn't already available.
I was just talking about this USB Key with a bud earlier today and we decided this opened up new doors for fun, gags, and abuse. Consider getting access to the USB key (assuming this is actually easy as everybody else here seems to worry), making a disk image or zip file of it, posting the file on an anonymous Geocities page for easy download, and letting people know where to find the car. Better than geocaching. Oh, the hilarity ensues!
"My car is where?"
"Hidden somewhere in Nebraska. Here are the coordinates for a log in Payson, UT that has further instructions..."
From the article: The mock phishing exercises demonstrate how effective such attacks can be. In June 2004, more than 500 cadets at West Point received an email from Col. Robert Melville notifying them of a problem with their grade report and ordering them to click on a link to verify that the grades were correct. More than 80% of the students dutifully followed the instructions.
;)
;)
But there is no Col. Robert Melville at West Point.
Hello, people. These cadets weren't paying attention to the chain of command. They were just following orders blindly. As shown by Abu Ghraib, this can be just as dangerous as soldiers who question everything before obeying. There needs to be a light on upstairs. I for one am glad that people who are trained to kill are being trained to think as well. Since phishing attacks are getting more complex, this social engineering vector needs to be addressed before more important information is compromised.
Every few weeks, my Mum - who I have dutifully trained - sends me a phishing email that has freaked her out. The email always seems to come from my domain where she has an account with official wording. Even though I have trained her and trained her she still panics. She doesn't click on the links. She doesn't fall for the scams (I'm proud to say that she can spot a stupid bank phishing scam with her eyes closed now). She panics because somebody is posing as me (i.e. an admin from my domain) and trying to trick her. This is scary and invasive for the common computer user. People want to believe everything they read because it is fatiguing to be suspicious of everything all the time. Slashdotters have built up amazing suspicion stamina, but they aren't the norm. My Mum learned her lessons. She's a trooper. But how many people out there can recognize phishing scams? The scammers are getting cleverer. They're using spell checkers now.
I believe training government officials to recognize phishing scams in this way is excellent. As the article also says: "Repetition is important. Vigilance is critical," he says. "The bottom line lesson was: Even if the request comes from legitimate individuals, never give out personal information."
The only addition I would recommend would be an official notice announcing this training. Then the few complainers who feel stupid about getting caught wouldn't have anything to complain about. Having employees on guard for phishing attacks would only improve their alertness to the problem, IMO, even if they knew the attack was going to be a training exercize. Of course, this official notice would have to be sent out on a different day than the fake phish scam in order for this program to be effective.
I made an error in the url. It should be pcast://feeds.feedburner.com/BitzofBrin
a /viewPodcast?id=73331701 | http://wichitarutherford.libsyn.com/rss/a /viewPodcast?id=76244035 | feed://daveslounge.com/rss)a /viewPodcast?id=74265045 | pcast://feeds.feedburner.com/HarryPodder)a /viewPodcast?id=73330734)
a /viewPodcast?id=73329586)
Other niche podcasts of interest are:
5 Minutes with Wichita Rutherford (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/w
Dave's Lounge (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/w
Harry Podder (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/w
Nashville that nobody knows (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/w
And quicktime vlogs work in iTunes4.9 as well. These two are excellent examples of vlogs:
Josh Leo (pcast://feeds.feedburner.com/joshleo)
Rocketboom (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/w
Visit PodcastAlley.com and you'll find a lot of disgruntled podcasters. iTunes4.9 created a caste system for those in the iTunes directory and those who were not. Being in iTunes doubled and tripled subscriber bases. Being left out of the directory meant obscurity. There's a lot of resentment out there.
/. who don't own or like iPods seem resent the label "podcasts" for audio blogs. Get over it. Suggestions that podcasts be called irivercasts and zencasts are laughable. "pod" rhymes with "broad" and hence "podcast" instead of "broadcast" for a downloadable MP3 radio show. I thought that was obvious. In addition, the guys who put all the elements together owned iPods, namely Adam Curry - the guy who wanted to automate the loading of audio blogs into his iPod. He didn't coin the term "podcast" but he gave it notoriety. Why gripe about this?
1) People on
2) iTunes may be pushing commercial podcasts in a big way, but it's not all bad. While committees voted and bickered over 1-click subscribing over on ipodder-dev Apple went and implemented the pcast:// namespace. (other podcatchers were using feed://) Click on a feed like pcast://feed.feedburner.com/BitzofBrin and instant subscription. Apple also pushed podcasts into the mainstream which benefited all shows. Even shows not included in the iTMS podcast directory saw an increase of subscribers because new ears were using iTunes to tune in. A lot of the complaining has been from M$ zealots, people left out of the iTMS directory, and people who are opposed to all forms of commercialization. Most podcasters are happy about Apple wading into the podcast waters, however, by a large majority.
3) Bugs. iTMS polls feeds too sluggishly. The listings in the iTMS are often behind by a day (though this doesn't affect subscriptions which tend to be very current because they poll the feed directly). Also, there isn't enough feedback for those who submit their podcasts. I know many podcasts in submission limbo. They are told that their podcast has already been submitted, but it's been six weeks that they've waited for inclusion. Meanwhile newer podcasts submit and get listed within one week. Apple gives podcasts in limbo the runaround known as form letter hell. Interface clumsiness abounds in the iTunes podcast implementation as well. Even subscribing requires one to re-enter the podcast directory over and over again for each podcast the user wants to subscribe to.
4) AAC podcasts are so cool with their chapters and chapter art that they very well could replace MP3s as the default podcast format. Many podcasters offer dual MP3/M4A feeds but I know others that have opted for AAC M4As because the chapters appeal to them and the compression vs. quality is better. Interesting developments there.
5) Apple brought bandwidth to the forefront of podcaster's minds overnight with the release of iTunes4.9. Many people simply weren't ready for popularity. Their servers smoked under the strain. This has had the added result of pushing Bit Torrent distribution support from being an interesting geeky add-on to a vital necessity.
6) The commercialization of podcasts is not necessarily a bad thing as long as there are still unique voices. Unlike mainstream radio, there is room for indies to compete with the big boys (read the article). But there needs to be more growth in podcasting as a medium. The podcast I listed earlier is a good example. Bitz of Brin is a podcast by a 13 year old girl. She doesn't talk about sex or tech. She doesn't play electronica or alternative music. She wants to be a singer and features a cover of mainstream pop/country stars each podcast. Her podcast doesn't appeal to geeks interested in tech. Her music doesn't appeal to the thousands of alternative music fans turning to podcasts for their anti-*IA fix. Her main audience, frankly, isn't listening to podcasts. Yet her voice is unique and part of the whole underground podcast movement.
Skepticality is usually bouncing between #2 and #3. They have from 11,000 to 14,000 subscribers (according to what I've read by them on Podcast Alley), so /. hasn't pushed them to that #2 position like you think it has.
I tend to agree with you. I used iTunes as my major jukebox for 3 years before buying an iPod a few months ago. I had been using the iTMS to purchase music from day one with no iPod to listen to them on. My iMac was my music center/world. I believe people overgeneralize when they claim iTunes exists only to sell iPods, not that there isn't a symbiotic relationship there. I use iTunes to stream music throughout my house. I use iTunes to create smartlists based on specific criteria such as genre, plus my own extensive comment markups (Moody, Sad, Upbeat, Downtempo, Angry, etc.) Even though I have an iPod I simply use iTunes more. The iPod is an extension of what I do with iTunes, not the other way around.
As for video, I bought a few videos that iTunes offered when 4.8 was released. I added some music videos to my iTunes db that I had kicking around. Music videos are cool, but I don't see them as a big buy for me. I would rather buy two songs for that $1.99 than one music video I might watch once or twice a year. But with iTunes 4.9 I replaced ANT as my permanent Vlog viewer/aggreggator. Unlike ANT on the Mac, I could watch vlogs fullscreen. This is the big shift for video in my computer use: Subscribable content via iTunes. In my opinion, this is where video in iTunes is leading up to, this is what all the talks are about, this is what the deals are being made for, not just "vPods".
Now, will Apple release a vPod? Of course they will. They have been adding features to iPods continually to keep them current and relevant. Video on an iPod is inevitable. But it will be a marketing gimmick, not a ground breaking feature. Steve Jobs is still right about portable video. How many people do you know bought a 60gb iPod Photo so they could stop jogging every 4 minutes to watch their iPod display the current song's cover art? How many people do you know who stuff their iPod Photo full of pictures. A small percentage I would hazard. Color screens on iPods are simply marketing hype at worse, a nice upgrade at best. A few people take advantage of the new features, but most still just listen to their iPods to play music. When iPods support videos there will be those who get excited about that, but most will still just listen to music on the things.
Personally, I believe Apple is just putting the infrastructure in place to support movie home delivery they way they sell music online. All this hubbub about video on iPods is just the bell and whistle to grab headlines. The real breaking news will be the movie download service. I expect that in October when they typically make big iTunes/iPod announcements.
I just edited the start time and stop time of the MP3s to edit out the chatting. That way it's still there if I choose to listen to the backstory about each piece, but in the meantime iTunes crossfades each performance into another without any commentary interupting my reverie.
Besides, if you had more money than the Queen of England and could orchestrate the release of your book any way you wanted, wouldn't you?
Perhaps you (and others) misunderstood the tone of my post. By stating that giant catfish in America are cryptozoological I mean that they have not been recognized by science, not that I don't think they are there. The journals of cryptozoology are filled with anecdotal stories such as yours and Mark Twains' that unfortunately do not prove beyond a doubt that these creatures exist.
Until somebody captures one of these giant catfish in America and has their photo plastered all over the paper with the beast, and until local and national ichthyologists have a chance to examine it, the idea of giant catfish in America will be regarded as a fanciful tale from a chapter out of Paul Bunyan's life.
That must be frustrating for somebody like you, however, who has only a memory to prove the experience happened. If giant catfish exist in America - and there's no reason to think that they don't since they exist all over the world - one day somebody will catch one and you're story will be validated.
Lucky you. I don't even have a story to share! My catfish were only a few inches long. LOL
I was researching this just yesterday so I'm not surprised to see it here. That fish is a whole heckuvva lot larger than the catfish I used to catch and eat as a kid.
/My affiliate link), Chapter 10, even Mark Twain claims to have seen one more than six feet long and weighing 250 pounds in the Mississippi River. (How he managed to weigh it is not recorded ^_-). But cryptozoologists still try to hunt them down, even this summer as reported here. Chester Moore, the organizer of the event, claims that preservation is their goal as well as discovery. This is the biggest North American expedition to research cryptid catfish I've heard of, so it will be interesting to see if they get lucky. They'll need to discover the fish first, though, before talking about preservation. ::)
There are some great photos here at National Geographic's Article on the fish. My favorite photo is the one with an elderly gent cutting a steak larger than his torso. Dang! At that size I wonder if they taste any good?
Of course, Giant Catfish are the stuff of legends, and usually have a kernal of truth. (Links to other whoppers there as well)
Usually tales of the "big one that got away" or, in this case, "Catfish the size of Volkswagon Bugs" are dismissed, but according to Loren Coleman's "Mysterious America" (March 2004 ed.
Preservation of giant catfish is part of the WWF's mission, too, in Thailand & Cambodia. Just this month four giant catfish bred in captivity were released into the Mekong. So Giant Catfish are real in the Amazon, Europe, Asia, etc., but cryptozoological here in the States. Would be cool if they weren't, though.
This psuedoreport brought to you by Insomnia(TM)
404 Not Found. Way to go! You found one very effective way to take down spam blogs: Slashdot 'em!
Still, I wish I could have studied that page for comparison. I found http://bobthebuilder123.blogspot.com/ one day in my blog referrer logs. I wondered why people interested in Bob the Builder had linked to me. They hadn't. The whole page is nothing but spam - all posted on one sunny day this month. If you can help me see what gonorrhea has to do with Bob the Builder I'd be very much obliged.
At any rate, I'd pointed this site out to blogger.com but would like to know what was different with the page you linked to from "Bob's" page because it's still up. Interesting side note, though. With the changes Google made to their page ranking system recently these stupid blogs may fade away. I can't find http://bobthebuilder123.blogspot.com/ in Google. No page ranking, no purpose for existing.