I shouldn't have said "good reporting" since it's irrelevant anyways... either way, WSJ/Kindle proves some people are willing to pay for online news content.
Does digital culture somehow imply that distributors (Amazon) have more rights to information than producers (WSJ)? When we have this same discussion about Comcast wanting to get a slice of google's business because "they're using our pipes to make money," the consensus is the opposite.
As for backlash against Amazon for letting WSJ know who WSJ subscribers are... I think not. Look at Amazon's main business (mail order), they refer millions of orders to vendors (This Item Ships From XYZ...) who do get your address when you buy through Amazon.
So, it is very hard for me to see this as a matter of principle. It's just a couple businesses battling over control of a revenue stream.
But amazon does know who the WSJ/Kindle subscribers are. The article summary is painting Murdoch as a dinosaur who just doesn't understand how things work these days: "In yet another move to display how antiquated and completely ignorant of digital culture he is, Rupert Murdoch has started demanding that Amazon hand over user info for all Kindle users"
In fact, by any reasonable measure, "digital culture" has vastly increased publishers' awareness of who their customers are and what, precisely, they are reading and ignoring. So the premise of the summary's bias is blatantly false. Right or wrong, Murdoch's demand is perfectly in keeping with the times. And it is not at all a foregone conclusion that Murdoch's business instincts are wrong; he believes good reporting is worth paying for, and Kindle WSJ subscribers are examples of precisely that.
The best thing to do is re-secure the wireless router, and the all-too-often-recommended reformat and re-install of Windows. I wouldn't even try to salvage the current installs at this point.
I agree about re-installing, but securing the wireless router doesn't really matter. It's possible this vulnerability allowed somebody in the neighborhood to compromise a vulnerable service on his system, but I think it's more likely people installing downloaded trojan horse software from the internet, or exploiting a browser bug. After all, botnets are all about mass infections, not onesies-twosies infections of computers in the immediate vicinity. The main purpose of securing your wireless router is just to keep others from leaching your bandwidth.
Sounds kind of like global warming, where the people screaming most loudly about scientific consensus are also the ones that stand to benefit the most greatly financially... It all screams conflict of interest.
So long as they are open in how they go about it, you could also call it putting your money where your mouth is. If the global warming models were to stop proving true, public consensus for CO2 restriction would be short-lived.
And in the case of global warming, don't forget the heavyweight opposition is even more financially motivated and entrenched.
I agree the motives are not all pure. But Wyeth's intentional deception in this case is what makes it really bad.
Actually, lawyers are the ones who brought the truth to light in the first place:
The documents on ghostwriting were uncovered by lawyers suing Wyeth and were made public after a request in court from PLoS Medicine, a medical journal from the Public Library of Science, and The New York Times.
I do hope they win money from Wyeth. Heck, I don't even mind Wyeth pushing their agenda in the literature, if the science is good it should stand on its own. But being evasive and publishing with a hidden financial agenda is not cool, especially when lives are at stake.
..what are the advantages of doing this in HTML? If HTML 5 can obviate a bunch of complex, unrelated web technologies that make programming for the Web today such a mess, then great... but if it just adds to the pile, and doesn't build on expertise in "classical" HTML, then it's just adding to the problem.
The fact is that the ribbon IS a much better interface than menus, and exposes options and settings that are easy to reach and understand.
No, the ribbon is horrible. Instead of getting a simple, consistent presentation of options, you have a top level of menus, and underneath that a jumble of graphics, text, and various widgets, with no obvious reading order. That is my big complaint about MS software in general - instead of having any simple unifying principles, they instead special-case everything to whatever seems "intuitive" (to somebody or other) in that particular context. The result is you can kinda sorta get by without knowing what you are doing, but there's never an "aha" moment after which you can do everything.
If they're not predestined to violate the law, then the condition those people have should not be a get out of jail free card for committing a crime and my proposition holds, wouldn't you agree?
One additional observation - any test for "crazy" that's solid enough to preclude punishment for a crime is also solid enough to imprison those who fail the test even if they have not yet comitted any crime.
The philosophical questions surrounding free will are older than dirt. From a utilitarian perspective, perhaps it doesn't much matter; what does matter is determining when the carrot and stick may have some effect, and when they won't. Paying people increases the chance of them "choosing" to work, so we do it. Punishing 6 month olds for pooping their diapers doesn't deter them (they don't have the mental or physical capacity for potty training) so we don't do that. A belief in determinism doesn't change the situation.
If you look at some of the samples that DPReview has with recent Canon DSLRs with cranked up sensitivity, it's surprisingly good.
I said "The image quality from compacts above ISO 400 is useless anyways."
But, the reason why you're suggestion doesn't really work is that the information has to be recorded in the first place and if you're trying to boost gamma in post production rather than boosting sensitivity during production, there's just not going to be enough information to work with the camera just won't have the dynamic range to handle it.
That's right, it doesn't really work... for exactly the same reason ISO 6400 in a compact doesn't really work.
Heh, watch the video, stabilization definitely doesn't work that well.
Speaking of bidirectionality, it's a shame they couldn't get the projector to throw through the camera lens, so you could adjust throw length (zoom) and focus. That would have made a much stronger argument for integrating the camera and projector IMHO; surely the optical elements and zoom mechanism are the most expensive thing in a camera.
The image quality from compacts above ISO 400 is useless anyways, so the maximum is rather arbitrary. You could probably simulate a high ISO by grossly underexposing and then boosting the gamma in postprocessing.
I see nothing wrong with what AP did here. This is like complaining that Comcast will let you pay your cable bill even if you don't watch any TV. Yeah, they will. So?
A completely generic comment that has nothing to do with the posted story. Read it. This is a scientific advance. Nowhere does it contain any green energy hype of the sort you are debunking.
Electric motors have another neat trick - converting forward motion into stored energy (regenerative braking). Internal combustion engines are useless for this. In city driving, that's huge.
Electric ovens and dryers already have 220V hookups. They're completely normal. What is your point about the Federal Government making this impossible?
This is why the govt. pays a fixed rate of compensation for personal miles driven - after all, the service to you, the employer, is the same. And the incentives are good, since the guy with the Volkswagen pockets some cash and the guy who just has to drive his F450 pays for the privilege... have you considered reimbursing a fixed rate per mile?
Slashdot Mirror
I shouldn't have said "good reporting" since it's irrelevant anyways... either way, WSJ/Kindle proves some people are willing to pay for online news content.
Anybody remember how awesome and important VRML was supposed to be? They just forgot to convince users.
As for backlash against Amazon for letting WSJ know who WSJ subscribers are... I think not. Look at Amazon's main business (mail order), they refer millions of orders to vendors (This Item Ships From XYZ...) who do get your address when you buy through Amazon.
So, it is very hard for me to see this as a matter of principle. It's just a couple businesses battling over control of a revenue stream.
In fact, by any reasonable measure, "digital culture" has vastly increased publishers' awareness of who their customers are and what, precisely, they are reading and ignoring. So the premise of the summary's bias is blatantly false. Right or wrong, Murdoch's demand is perfectly in keeping with the times. And it is not at all a foregone conclusion that Murdoch's business instincts are wrong; he believes good reporting is worth paying for, and Kindle WSJ subscribers are examples of precisely that.
I agree about re-installing, but securing the wireless router doesn't really matter. It's possible this vulnerability allowed somebody in the neighborhood to compromise a vulnerable service on his system, but I think it's more likely people installing downloaded trojan horse software from the internet, or exploiting a browser bug. After all, botnets are all about mass infections, not onesies-twosies infections of computers in the immediate vicinity. The main purpose of securing your wireless router is just to keep others from leaching your bandwidth.
So long as they are open in how they go about it, you could also call it putting your money where your mouth is. If the global warming models were to stop proving true, public consensus for CO2 restriction would be short-lived.
And in the case of global warming, don't forget the heavyweight opposition is even more financially motivated and entrenched.
I agree the motives are not all pure. But Wyeth's intentional deception in this case is what makes it really bad.
I do hope they win money from Wyeth. Heck, I don't even mind Wyeth pushing their agenda in the literature, if the science is good it should stand on its own. But being evasive and publishing with a hidden financial agenda is not cool, especially when lives are at stake.
..what are the advantages of doing this in HTML? If HTML 5 can obviate a bunch of complex, unrelated web technologies that make programming for the Web today such a mess, then great... but if it just adds to the pile, and doesn't build on expertise in "classical" HTML, then it's just adding to the problem.
I think you are referring to the toolbar rather than the menus.
No, the ribbon is horrible. Instead of getting a simple, consistent presentation of options, you have a top level of menus, and underneath that a jumble of graphics, text, and various widgets, with no obvious reading order. That is my big complaint about MS software in general - instead of having any simple unifying principles, they instead special-case everything to whatever seems "intuitive" (to somebody or other) in that particular context. The result is you can kinda sorta get by without knowing what you are doing, but there's never an "aha" moment after which you can do everything.
If they're not predestined to violate the law, then the condition those people have should not be a get out of jail free card for committing a crime and my proposition holds, wouldn't you agree?
One additional observation - any test for "crazy" that's solid enough to preclude punishment for a crime is also solid enough to imprison those who fail the test even if they have not yet comitted any crime.
The philosophical questions surrounding free will are older than dirt. From a utilitarian perspective, perhaps it doesn't much matter; what does matter is determining when the carrot and stick may have some effect, and when they won't. Paying people increases the chance of them "choosing" to work, so we do it. Punishing 6 month olds for pooping their diapers doesn't deter them (they don't have the mental or physical capacity for potty training) so we don't do that. A belief in determinism doesn't change the situation.
I said "The image quality from compacts above ISO 400 is useless anyways."
That's right, it doesn't really work... for exactly the same reason ISO 6400 in a compact doesn't really work.
Speaking of bidirectionality, it's a shame they couldn't get the projector to throw through the camera lens, so you could adjust throw length (zoom) and focus. That would have made a much stronger argument for integrating the camera and projector IMHO; surely the optical elements and zoom mechanism are the most expensive thing in a camera.
Are you kidding, a 10 minute limit on home picture shows is a godsend and should be mandated by law.
I'm glad people complain publicly so I can make informed buying decisions. This would be impossible if everybody just bent over as you advocate.
The image quality from compacts above ISO 400 is useless anyways, so the maximum is rather arbitrary. You could probably simulate a high ISO by grossly underexposing and then boosting the gamma in postprocessing.
I see nothing wrong with what AP did here. This is like complaining that Comcast will let you pay your cable bill even if you don't watch any TV. Yeah, they will. So?
And business dealings, taxation, and the stock market are all even more full of cheating, so they'll never catch on.
A completely generic comment that has nothing to do with the posted story. Read it. This is a scientific advance. Nowhere does it contain any green energy hype of the sort you are debunking.
Electric motors have another neat trick - converting forward motion into stored energy (regenerative braking). Internal combustion engines are useless for this. In city driving, that's huge.
Electric ovens and dryers already have 220V hookups. They're completely normal. What is your point about the Federal Government making this impossible?
This is why the govt. pays a fixed rate of compensation for personal miles driven - after all, the service to you, the employer, is the same. And the incentives are good, since the guy with the Volkswagen pockets some cash and the guy who just has to drive his F450 pays for the privilege... have you considered reimbursing a fixed rate per mile?
Off-the-cuff anecdotes aren't worth squat. The average commute in America is 16 miles each way. 100 miles is ample for most people most days. Would it be anybody's only vehicle? Probably not.