No no, c'mon, don't be rude, he meant Kelvins, the rather underused temperature scale of lower Kyrgyzstan, first coined in 1552 by scientist and British transpat Sir Howie Rudestash Kelvins. 0 degrees Kelvins is defined as the freezing point of that congestion you get from too many fish and chips cooked in tallow, and 100 degrees is defined as the point where spotted dick catches fire.
Really, this should be well known. Personally, I blame public schools.
I want to side with Apple on this, the patents themselves seem ridiculous. But Apple has misbehaved in exactly the same manner, for the same absurdly ridiculous details. It's apparent that it's not about the individual patents, it's a full-on mud wrestle.
My current monitor goes to 1920X1200. (16:10). I had a hard time finding it because the great majority of modern monitors are 16:9. (1920X1080). This one is an older NEC that's color accurate. I think I will use it until it can't be repaired anymore.
Fortunately, the PC consumer market is gradually being replaced by the tablet consumer market. Eventually, the only people using desktop PCs will be professionals and enthusiasts, who typically won't even consider using the 1080p crap.
That would be fine. And as soon as Adobe releases real versions of photoshop and lightroom for tablets, (instead of the toy apps they have now) I'll dump the PC and never look back. But until then, I'm locked in.
Trying to find a monitor these days that's 1280 tall or greater can be challenging.
Actually, 27" monitors at WQHD (2560x1440) seem to be catching on in South Korea, so you can find them easily on eBay for less than $400. Very tempting. But it's still as I said, you have to buy a huge monitor to get some vertical space.
I wouldn't be opposed to that, if they were color-accurate enough for serious Photoshop work. I'm certainly not against more resolution per se, but merely adding more horizontal doesn't buy much.
Agreed. Trying to find a monitor these days that's 1280 tall or greater can be challenging. (Without turning the monitor sideways, but then it's too skinny.) It seems like everyone thinks you only use your PC to watch movies.
I don't think I've ever watched a movie on my PC. A trailer, maybe.
Welp, it doesn't really matter to me, as I haven't bought any of their brands in a long time. A couple things occur to me; that the potential audience for their products reduced by 20 percent is something that happens in business, and sometimes it's not anyone's fault -- it's a social change unrelated to the product. As a result, the company has to try to figure out how to survive while doing significantly less business. Often this requires that the employees accept lower wages and/or benefits, or that there are fewer employees. (Often both.) If employees can not accept that a smaller audience means less money to run the business, then there is always the option to strike and watch the company go out of business.
The way I see it, this was a win-win for everyone. The employees got to stand by their principles, and the owners got the funds from selling off the company's assets. And for those of us who don't eat Ding Dongs (with or without taco sauce) nothing of value was lost.
And all of this is absolutely besides the point, which is this: There are raw paper and ink deliverers, printing press personnel, deliverers of finished papers, and probably a surprising number of jobs in between, necessary to produce a physical newspaper. Most of those jobs are union.
How many of those jobs will continue to exist when the paper goes web-only?
How is the transition supposed to happen? Buffett calls everyone in a room, thanks them for their service, and tells them their services are not needed anymore? What about the contracts that are not yet up for renewal? How do you do an orderly shutdown of the print business whilst continuing to deliver to a declining number of print customers?
The only maneuver I can see that doesn't cause riots is to go bankrupt, sell your IP to a holding company (which can also be owned by Buffett) and then reopen as a new company. I strongly suspect that this is what's going to happen.
Well, a couple things. First, what we call newspapers, except for whatever local stories they decide to cover, are just news aggregators, and have been for some time.
Second, I think we haven't seen the last of this story. When newspapers stop printing and delivering physical newspapers, most if not all union workers will be out of work. I don't think the unions will allow that, preferring (as with Hostess) that the company go out of business rather than switch to a model that excludes them.
Personally, I don't value online newspapers for the same reason I stopped buying physical papers. I don't see the point in paying someone else to filter the news of the world through a particular agenda. I would rather have access to the raw feed (if available) and make my own decisions about what's important to me.
One would think that an online only newspaper could still survive on local advertising. Lots of websites survive exclusively on advertising, and to make it local merely requires targeted ads based on location -- which is clearly a known science.
Um, but if the number of paying subscribers is tiny, is it really news? Or is it a... I dunno... fanzine? Moreover, how does one pay reporters with the proceeds from a tiny number of paying subscribers? If the answer is they'll "get news from the wire services, why couldn't we also go there directly and not pay the newspaper?
I appreciate that newspapers are trying to find a business model that makes sense, but I can't see this model working.
Parenthetically, what's really going to be interesting is to see what happens to all the infrastructure required for the physical edition, and how Buffet gets out of the appropriate union contracts. The only way I can see it is to go out of business and come back as a much smaller, web-only, company.
> Approximately half of all the generating capacity last year was from renewable energy sources. [kcet.org]
Misquote. From the article you linked to,
According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), renewable energy projects -- including solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and biomass -- made up almost half of all new power generation installations in the U.S. in the first 10 months of 2012. (Emphasis mine.)
That's WAY different from "approximately half of all generating capacity" which would be an orders of magnitude larger number.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on what you're used to.
We've been meaning to talk to you about that.
You missed the word "hydrocarbons" in the summary?
No no, c'mon, don't be rude, he meant Kelvins, the rather underused temperature scale of lower Kyrgyzstan, first coined in 1552 by scientist and British transpat Sir Howie Rudestash Kelvins. 0 degrees Kelvins is defined as the freezing point of that congestion you get from too many fish and chips cooked in tallow, and 100 degrees is defined as the point where spotted dick catches fire.
Really, this should be well known. Personally, I blame public schools.
I want to side with Apple on this, the patents themselves seem ridiculous. But Apple has misbehaved in exactly the same manner, for the same absurdly ridiculous details. It's apparent that it's not about the individual patents, it's a full-on mud wrestle.
My current monitor goes to 1920X1200. (16:10). I had a hard time finding it because the great majority of modern monitors are 16:9. (1920X1080). This one is an older NEC that's color accurate. I think I will use it until it can't be repaired anymore.
Won't be long before laptops look like ironing boards.
Hmm. If we make them buoyant and waterproof they can double as a surfboard. Too bad Apple owns rounded corners. ;-)
Yeah, that's the thing I hate about modern handheld appliances. Anything not made by Apple has those sharp corners.
Fortunately, the PC consumer market is gradually being replaced by the tablet consumer market. Eventually, the only people using desktop PCs will be professionals and enthusiasts, who typically won't even consider using the 1080p crap.
That would be fine. And as soon as Adobe releases real versions of photoshop and lightroom for tablets, (instead of the toy apps they have now) I'll dump the PC and never look back. But until then, I'm locked in.
Trying to find a monitor these days that's 1280 tall or greater can be challenging.
Actually, 27" monitors at WQHD (2560x1440) seem to be catching on in South Korea, so you can find them easily on eBay for less than $400. Very tempting. But it's still as I said, you have to buy a huge monitor to get some vertical space.
I wouldn't be opposed to that, if they were color-accurate enough for serious Photoshop work. I'm certainly not against more resolution per se, but merely adding more horizontal doesn't buy much.
Mod up...
Agreed. Trying to find a monitor these days that's 1280 tall or greater can be challenging. (Without turning the monitor sideways, but then it's too skinny.) It seems like everyone thinks you only use your PC to watch movies.
I don't think I've ever watched a movie on my PC. A trailer, maybe.
Won't be long before laptops look like ironing boards.
> It want's cloud storage included too.
Of course it does. Who wouldn't want free money?
Welp, it doesn't really matter to me, as I haven't bought any of their brands in a long time. A couple things occur to me; that the potential audience for their products reduced by 20 percent is something that happens in business, and sometimes it's not anyone's fault -- it's a social change unrelated to the product. As a result, the company has to try to figure out how to survive while doing significantly less business. Often this requires that the employees accept lower wages and/or benefits, or that there are fewer employees. (Often both.) If employees can not accept that a smaller audience means less money to run the business, then there is always the option to strike and watch the company go out of business.
The way I see it, this was a win-win for everyone. The employees got to stand by their principles, and the owners got the funds from selling off the company's assets. And for those of us who don't eat Ding Dongs (with or without taco sauce) nothing of value was lost.
And all of this is absolutely besides the point, which is this: There are raw paper and ink deliverers, printing press personnel, deliverers of finished papers, and probably a surprising number of jobs in between, necessary to produce a physical newspaper. Most of those jobs are union.
How many of those jobs will continue to exist when the paper goes web-only?
How is the transition supposed to happen? Buffett calls everyone in a room, thanks them for their service, and tells them their services are not needed anymore? What about the contracts that are not yet up for renewal? How do you do an orderly shutdown of the print business whilst continuing to deliver to a declining number of print customers?
The only maneuver I can see that doesn't cause riots is to go bankrupt, sell your IP to a holding company (which can also be owned by Buffett) and then reopen as a new company. I strongly suspect that this is what's going to happen.
He was gonzo insane
Yes, you already said he was a cockatoo.
Ah, I see you know Cockatoos.
Well, a couple things. First, what we call newspapers, except for whatever local stories they decide to cover, are just news aggregators, and have been for some time.
Second, I think we haven't seen the last of this story. When newspapers stop printing and delivering physical newspapers, most if not all union workers will be out of work. I don't think the unions will allow that, preferring (as with Hostess) that the company go out of business rather than switch to a model that excludes them.
Personally, I don't value online newspapers for the same reason I stopped buying physical papers. I don't see the point in paying someone else to filter the news of the world through a particular agenda. I would rather have access to the raw feed (if available) and make my own decisions about what's important to me.
One would think that an online only newspaper could still survive on local advertising. Lots of websites survive exclusively on advertising, and to make it local merely requires targeted ads based on location -- which is clearly a known science.
(slaps forehead) I KNEW I shouldn't have armed the quadricopter.
Mod this guy up!!
Um, but if the number of paying subscribers is tiny, is it really news? Or is it a... I dunno... fanzine? Moreover, how does one pay reporters with the proceeds from a tiny number of paying subscribers? If the answer is they'll "get news from the wire services, why couldn't we also go there directly and not pay the newspaper?
I appreciate that newspapers are trying to find a business model that makes sense, but I can't see this model working.
Parenthetically, what's really going to be interesting is to see what happens to all the infrastructure required for the physical edition, and how Buffet gets out of the appropriate union contracts. The only way I can see it is to go out of business and come back as a much smaller, web-only, company.
> Approximately half of all the generating capacity last year was from renewable energy sources. [kcet.org]
Misquote. From the article you linked to,
According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), renewable energy projects -- including solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and biomass -- made up almost half of all new power generation installations in the U.S. in the first 10 months of 2012. (Emphasis mine.)
That's WAY different from "approximately half of all generating capacity" which would be an orders of magnitude larger number.
I've read that the 105 2.5 was an exceptional lens. But don't settle for less, get an FX camera. Come to the dark side. We have cookies!