Yes, the UI is superior to all the competitors. Hack the box to get TivoWebPlus and JavaHMO on it and you're cooking.
TivoWebPlus is Not There Yet. They are working hard, but it really doesn't add much to the user experience. The delay in loading is extremely long, on a par with resorting the season passes, and there are important features missing, such as the ability to manually record by time and channel. The only win is that it is nice to use a keyboard instead of the remote control for the features it does support.
What would be even nicer is if bit torrent did not require centralized servers to find its software. I occasionally would like to broadcast the availability of my copy of a download as a torrent to relieve the burden on a server, but how is this done with a torrent?
For that matter, so are most of the Linux "liberals" referred to above. In fact, most people are not really strongly attached to any mindframe. They simply strongly HATE one of the others. That's been my experience. People who call themselves "liberal" often have many conservative viewpoints, but really hate some things they think "those damned conservatives" believe. And vice versa, and the same goes for libertarians, greens, etc. Politics is often about hating, which is why demagoguery such as the parent post and others in this thread works so well.
Somehow I think bearing the Son of Man in your womb is a little different than coveting your neighbor.
Well, maybe not really.:-) In both cases, the woman is following a primal need to reproduce and found a mate based on ability to provide and stability. It's actuallyl a story right out of a Harlequin romance, if you ask me.
Becoming a Christian doesn't make one sinless - but hopefully makes them sin less.
Aha, finally a Christian comes up with a testable theory! Let's see. Theory: Christians do less crime than others. Let's consult the stats. Any takers?:-)
If true, then this one fact would justify the religion in my view. If not, well, just another crazy fad.
Oops, sorry, I see that's for OS X Server only. Dang.:-)
I'll have to go download it and install it myself, and last time I tried that, I couldn't get the damn thing to work.:-)
I wanted to hear this interview, and was unable to connect to the links posted from the original story. Anybody have a working link to a torrent stream of the Stewart interview on Xfire? thanks.
As usual, no context for the numbers
on
Amazon Sales Record
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
SOUNDS like a lot of business, but how much is a lot nowadays? I'd like to know if they are doing twice as much as their nearest competitors, or how many sales per second Home Depot does, etc. Instead we report a large number and stand back to wait for the ignorant people like me to go "wow." This looks like another case of lazy reporters basically forwarding press releases by position advocates and calling that a news article. No wonder blogs are taking over the world!
Re:Google WILL take over the world within 10 years
on
The Media in 2014
·
· Score: 1
The main concern of the piece seems to be that blogging will replace all centralized news sources. The statement is made that this causes all news to become trivial, sensationalist, narrow, and thoughtless. I have heard this theory in various forms regarding "free media" outlets before. I find it fascinating that this particular criticism comes most often from the Left, the people who claim to wish to empower the little guy, but every time something comes along that actually puts real power in the hands of individuals, they fight it, claiming it to be unsafe or bad for Society. As usual, those on the Right seem to welcome it as a free market innovation without giving much serious thought to the downsides. (Some might be tempted to comment that serious thought doesn't come too often from the right. I might agree with this. Where is the NPR of the right? I suppose the word "National" makes that an oxymoron. Anyhow...)
News pundits have used this argument against Rush Limbaugh during the rise of talk radio, and in the present against all of talk radio. I think this is because talk radio is dominated by the right. This in turn is because left-wing talk radio absolutely sucks. I have tried to listen to Al Franken's efforts on AM 960 around here, and it is pure shit. So AM talk radio is decidedly tilted toward the right, with a strong libertarian strain. So it suddenly became evil to those on the Left. As far as I can tell, this was purely since they disagreed with its content.
They have used this argument against Matt Drudge's website. Drudge has nearly single-handedly transformed news. This piece you are passing along is fundamentally a reaction against the blog-news movement spawned or at least most powerfully moved forward by Matt Drudge. Now there are outlets coming from left, right, libertarian, green, all over the spectrum on the web. The Internet is much more varied than talk radio. So you hear people on both the Left and Right worrying about it. It's too wild! Too dangerous! Children will see women's breasts! Terrorists will use it to communicate with each other! People are buying medicine online! H1-B visas are crushing Silicon Valley! The world is ending!
And now, the complaint seems to be that the information is not being filtered enough. Hilarious!
But the idea that this will crush centralized news is absolutely false. Because, as the piece noted, this would leave us with shallow, narrow, worthless news. There is a market for "news filters," that is, experts such as Tom Brokaw who can choose for us what the important stories are and what they mean to us. To the extent that they do a good job, they will earn mindshare.
I might be wrong, but AFAIK, the original free press as known by our founding Fathers were basically a bunch of small newsletters by today's standards, tailored to narrow interests. I'm not worried at all by the increase in individual power that the Internet offers. I'm only waiting for some Congressman to declare it dangerous and try to shut it down, in the name of Safety and for the good of Society.
I am very suspicious of this story, although I'm inclined to qualitatively believe it and I certainly think MS makes crappy software.
But, what constitutes a bug, and how were they able to find them? How do they know they didn't miss any? And if they don't know that, then how do they know their numbers are accurate? Sounds like a case of the facts flowing from a theory to me.
I am ambivalent about this. Will the books be stored as text to enable searching? If so, given that part of a book's character is its font and typesetting, will ALL the flavor of these books really be captured, in the same way that it would be to read them? Something seems likely to be "lost in translation" here.
As an Apple user, I always thought it odd how we Apple fanatics got excited enough about advertisements to discuss them in public forums. Are there forums where people get all hot and heavy over Microsoft advertising?:-)
Just because something is used in a safe product doesn't mean that, used alone, it will be safe. For example, salt is composed of two chemicals, chlorine and sodium. Chlorine is deadly to humans. Salt is not.
Then the requirements cannot be met. It is seemingly impossible to assure anonymity, make it impossible for an individual to verify his vote, and still assure accurate and fair elections.
Hmm. Maybe some crypto-genius can come up with a way to verify something without knowing its contents? Some sort of checksumming that is independently verifyable?
I have to wonder, because the article didn't state. Did they ask how many iPod owners switched from Mac to PC during the same time frame?:-)
BTW, I am a Mac lover, but I just hate biased reporting.
Other information I require: How big a difference does this make? If 6% of iPod owners change to Mac, how big a difference does this amount to in market share for Apple? File this under "interesting but useless statistics" without more numbers/context.
I think they probably say this because they are often larger than a normal bulb and so they just don't fit. In my experience, you cannot swap out every bulb in your house for the "compact" flourescents, they are not yet "compact" enough.
It sounds to me that maybe companies are not complaining about a lack of available labor, they are complaining about the lack of CHEAP labor to compete with low wages overseas. Thus the desire for the "imports" and the difficulty of highly experienced native techies in finding work.
You're nuts. Paper and pencil are NOT more reliable than computers. Haven't you ever heard the term "ballot stuffing?" Physical media such as paper are also fraught with security concerns. They boil down to the same thing as computers: do you trust the election officials running them? Who has physical access to the vote once it has been cast? Etc. I'm not saying they are the same, but c'mon, all of a sudden the old paper method is the gold standard? No way.
The trouble with voting security is that it requires authentication, anonymity and ability to verify later. The verification necessarily must be done by the voter himself, or else somebody else will know how you voted.
Here's my idea: after you vote, you get a random ID and password associated with your vote. Later, you can log onto a website and verify that your vote is as you cast it, without divulging your identity. Make the process for getting votes from the machine to the central data repository open-sourced, open, open open, totally so that we know exactly what is happening.
Hey, it's a start. But I'm in favor of these voting machines. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the UI is superior to all the competitors. Hack the box to get TivoWebPlus and JavaHMO on it and you're cooking.
TivoWebPlus is Not There Yet. They are working hard, but it really doesn't add much to the user experience. The delay in loading is extremely long, on a par with resorting the season passes, and there are important features missing, such as the ability to manually record by time and channel. The only win is that it is nice to use a keyboard instead of the remote control for the features it does support.
What would be even nicer is if bit torrent did not require centralized servers to find its software. I occasionally would like to broadcast the availability of my copy of a download as a torrent to relieve the burden on a server, but how is this done with a torrent?
For that matter, so are most of the Linux "liberals" referred to above. In fact, most people are not really strongly attached to any mindframe. They simply strongly HATE one of the others. That's been my experience. People who call themselves "liberal" often have many conservative viewpoints, but really hate some things they think "those damned conservatives" believe. And vice versa, and the same goes for libertarians, greens, etc. Politics is often about hating, which is why demagoguery such as the parent post and others in this thread works so well.
Somehow I think bearing the Son of Man in your womb is a little different than coveting your neighbor.
:-) In both cases, the woman is following a primal need to reproduce and found a mate based on ability to provide and stability. It's actuallyl a story right out of a Harlequin romance, if you ask me.
:-)
Well, maybe not really.
Becoming a Christian doesn't make one sinless - but hopefully makes them sin less.
Aha, finally a Christian comes up with a testable theory! Let's see. Theory: Christians do less crime than others. Let's consult the stats. Any takers?
If true, then this one fact would justify the religion in my view. If not, well, just another crazy fad.
I posted above as anonymous coward about this, so I don't mean to be redundant, but this is a great article by a great organization:
http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html
Um, they absolutely ARE trying to prove its authenticity, don't kid yourself.
They have now posted a torrent link (untested) http://mirror.services.wisc.edu/mirrors/temp/1984m acintro.html
Oops, sorry, I see that's for OS X Server only. Dang. :-)
I'll have to go download it and install it myself, and last time I tried that, I couldn't get the damn thing to work. :-)
Does SquirrelMail come with OS X?
How is this different from some of the political coverage of major TV stations? LOL.
Well, I never found that torrent, but here is a transcript that actually exists! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf. 01.html
I wanted to hear this interview, and was unable to connect to the links posted from the original story. Anybody have a working link to a torrent stream of the Stewart interview on Xfire? thanks.
SOUNDS like a lot of business, but how much is a lot nowadays? I'd like to know if they are doing twice as much as their nearest competitors, or how many sales per second Home Depot does, etc. Instead we report a large number and stand back to wait for the ignorant people like me to go "wow." This looks like another case of lazy reporters basically forwarding press releases by position advocates and calling that a news article. No wonder blogs are taking over the world!
The main concern of the piece seems to be that blogging will replace all centralized news sources. The statement is made that this causes all news to become trivial, sensationalist, narrow, and thoughtless. I have heard this theory in various forms regarding "free media" outlets before. I find it fascinating that this particular criticism comes most often from the Left, the people who claim to wish to empower the little guy, but every time something comes along that actually puts real power in the hands of individuals, they fight it, claiming it to be unsafe or bad for Society. As usual, those on the Right seem to welcome it as a free market innovation without giving much serious thought to the downsides. (Some might be tempted to comment that serious thought doesn't come too often from the right. I might agree with this. Where is the NPR of the right? I suppose the word "National" makes that an oxymoron. Anyhow...)
News pundits have used this argument against Rush Limbaugh during the rise of talk radio, and in the present against all of talk radio. I think this is because talk radio is dominated by the right. This in turn is because left-wing talk radio absolutely sucks. I have tried to listen to Al Franken's efforts on AM 960 around here, and it is pure shit. So AM talk radio is decidedly tilted toward the right, with a strong libertarian strain. So it suddenly became evil to those on the Left. As far as I can tell, this was purely since they disagreed with its content.
They have used this argument against Matt Drudge's website. Drudge has nearly single-handedly transformed news. This piece you are passing along is fundamentally a reaction against the blog-news movement spawned or at least most powerfully moved forward by Matt Drudge. Now there are outlets coming from left, right, libertarian, green, all over the spectrum on the web. The Internet is much more varied than talk radio. So you hear people on both the Left and Right worrying about it. It's too wild! Too dangerous! Children will see women's breasts! Terrorists will use it to communicate with each other! People are buying medicine online! H1-B visas are crushing Silicon Valley! The world is ending!
And now, the complaint seems to be that the information is not being filtered enough. Hilarious!
But the idea that this will crush centralized news is absolutely false. Because, as the piece noted, this would leave us with shallow, narrow, worthless news. There is a market for "news filters," that is, experts such as Tom Brokaw who can choose for us what the important stories are and what they mean to us. To the extent that they do a good job, they will earn mindshare.
I might be wrong, but AFAIK, the original free press as known by our founding Fathers were basically a bunch of small newsletters by today's standards, tailored to narrow interests. I'm not worried at all by the increase in individual power that the Internet offers. I'm only waiting for some Congressman to declare it dangerous and try to shut it down, in the name of Safety and for the good of Society.
I am very suspicious of this story, although I'm inclined to qualitatively believe it and I certainly think MS makes crappy software. But, what constitutes a bug, and how were they able to find them? How do they know they didn't miss any? And if they don't know that, then how do they know their numbers are accurate? Sounds like a case of the facts flowing from a theory to me.
I am ambivalent about this. Will the books be stored as text to enable searching? If so, given that part of a book's character is its font and typesetting, will ALL the flavor of these books really be captured, in the same way that it would be to read them? Something seems likely to be "lost in translation" here.
As an Apple user, I always thought it odd how we Apple fanatics got excited enough about advertisements to discuss them in public forums. Are there forums where people get all hot and heavy over Microsoft advertising? :-)
Just because something is used in a safe product doesn't mean that, used alone, it will be safe. For example, salt is composed of two chemicals, chlorine and sodium. Chlorine is deadly to humans. Salt is not.
Then the requirements cannot be met. It is seemingly impossible to assure anonymity, make it impossible for an individual to verify his vote, and still assure accurate and fair elections. Hmm. Maybe some crypto-genius can come up with a way to verify something without knowing its contents? Some sort of checksumming that is independently verifyable?
I have to wonder, because the article didn't state. Did they ask how many iPod owners switched from Mac to PC during the same time frame? :-)
BTW, I am a Mac lover, but I just hate biased reporting.
Other information I require: How big a difference does this make? If 6% of iPod owners change to Mac, how big a difference does this amount to in market share for Apple? File this under "interesting but useless statistics" without more numbers/context.
I think they probably say this because they are often larger than a normal bulb and so they just don't fit. In my experience, you cannot swap out every bulb in your house for the "compact" flourescents, they are not yet "compact" enough.
It sounds to me that maybe companies are not complaining about a lack of available labor, they are complaining about the lack of CHEAP labor to compete with low wages overseas. Thus the desire for the "imports" and the difficulty of highly experienced native techies in finding work.
You're nuts. Paper and pencil are NOT more reliable than computers. Haven't you ever heard the term "ballot stuffing?" Physical media such as paper are also fraught with security concerns. They boil down to the same thing as computers: do you trust the election officials running them? Who has physical access to the vote once it has been cast? Etc. I'm not saying they are the same, but c'mon, all of a sudden the old paper method is the gold standard? No way.
The trouble with voting security is that it requires authentication, anonymity and ability to verify later. The verification necessarily must be done by the voter himself, or else somebody else will know how you voted.
Here's my idea: after you vote, you get a random ID and password associated with your vote. Later, you can log onto a website and verify that your vote is as you cast it, without divulging your identity. Make the process for getting votes from the machine to the central data repository open-sourced, open, open open, totally so that we know exactly what is happening.
Hey, it's a start. But I'm in favor of these voting machines. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I forgot the link! Sorry:
Believe it or not!
Believe it or not!