Newspaper advertising traditionally gained its value from the newspaper's demographic. You know the readership, so you know who you're advertising to. Certain newspapers will carry adverts for cheap lager, others expensive champagne. But this notion of a "readership" has been destroyed by Google News -- people now don't chose "their" newspaper, and the advertising becomes untargeted. Newspaper websites are now looking at the same sort of advertising revenues as people's personal blogs. Everything is outsourced to the Google algorithm, and the newspaper itself adds no value to the advertiser.
It is possible that ending the Google News aggregation will mean that sites regain a "readership" and therefore can return to negotiating their own advertising, and that this will result in them returning to profit.
No they're not. Why did News International raise a paywall on their sites? Because site advertising wasn't covering their running costs. The newspapers need a business model that delivers profits. It may be that the Spanish press feel that without Google News it will be easier to have paid subscriptions. It may be that they believe that without Google News, their site "stickiness" will increase, and the value of advertising will increase. Either way, continuing to operate at a loss is no long-term solution.
Free advertising for a loss making product isn't particularly valuable. Advertising revenues have plunged for news sites because they aren't "sticky" enough.
There's a potential difference. The problem is that Google News has become a one-stop-shop for many people (myself included). This means that we don't stay on the newspaper site, going back to Google News to look for the next interesting story. This means that advertising revenues on the content sites are minimal, and pretty much every news site on the entire internet is a loss-making enterprise. This is unsustainable.
Google's solution to claims of profiting off others' work was to run Google News without any advertising content, but that doesn't deal with the fact that Google News is a contributory factor to the financial woes of the content providers it relies on. If Google wants Google News to survive, it must exist in a viable ecosystem, and right now it doesn't. Even if you don't think this is Google's fault, the problem still exists and must be dealt with.
A) What useful, practical, mass-market purpose is there for light-field photography?
B) Have you seen a light-field camera with any sort of decent resolution?
This format will, unfortunately, probably get little traction for one reason. JPG is here and it's "good enough".
Nope -- that's not the reason. The reason is "JPEG is here and everyone archives their photos as JPEG, with no uncompressed original, particularly given that most consumer digital cameras use JPEG as their native format."
The problem for the near future is that untold petabytes of data out there exist that cannot benefit from this new format.
It's still a 5V, 2A device though, isn't it? An old USB cable with one end cut off and a jack soldered on will still mean you can power it from a hub. That said, using USB as your power source can start all sorts of fun. Maybe you try to plug it into a device that only supplies 1A, or maybe it's one of those "smart" devices that doesn't power up until it detects a device, but that means your board doesn't get powered, which means that the hub doesn't power up, so the board never powers up...
My problem with Scratch is that it starts with non-intuitive coding paradigms then tries to simplify them just by virtue of "graphical". We as coders have become fixated on our existing paradigms and find it difficult to see that there are other, more appropriate styles for beginners. Even those that do often take the easy way out and declare that thee's no point using a more accessible paradigm as this is the kind of programming that is the end-goal of computer education anyway.
I have met a great many people in an office environment who waste time on basic repetitive tasks because they don't know the basics of scripting... and I worked in an IT company! We're currently in a chicken-and-egg trap - software is dumbing down to the GUI so that dumbed-down users can operate it, and it's making it harder for power users as the software isn't designed for us any more. If our schools can turn the next generation into a code-savvy userbase, software can be designed for automation once again. (And after all, the future of computing is the command line, but in spoken form.)
Not like constant contact, but lots of clubs make themselves known to local ATC so they can be informed of any changes to regs, and so that ATC knows when and where they typically fly.
First up, not all planes are turbine engines. Secondly ignition in a turbine engine occurs at a very specific part of the engine, which is not the surface of the blades. A Li-ion battery might well explode on impact.
That's completely beside the point. I'm not saying the risk didn't exist, or commenting on whether or not it was mitigated. I'm arguing against gweihir's logic, which is utterly ridiculous, hence the reductio ad absurdum.
Ah, so the risk of flying model aircraft into aircraft is zero because although it is possible, it has never happened; but the risk of people flying planes into buildings wasn't zero before 9/11 wasn't zero because although it hadn't happened, it was possible. Well, I can't argue with that logic....
In the UK, model aircraft flying is already heavily (but reasonably) regulated. The laws are being revised to make access to the skies easier. The problem isn't the laws, it is that people are ignoring the laws. What would be wrong with having licensing, with mandatory testing? Restricting the sale of functional model aircraft to people with a valid photocard would not affect serious hobbyists, but it would reduce the number of idiots with DJI Phantoms from the nearest branch of Gadget Shop.
There's also he issue of the mounted camera. A lot of people flying in the $300+ range use bridge cameras with metal bodies. Now we're talking about throwing a brick into a jet engine. Along with TWO nice little blocks of flammable Li-ion....
Yes, but e biggest danger isn't the drone body (carbon fibre composite etc) but the Li-ion battery and quite possibly a fairly chunky metal bodied bridge camera (Sony NX-3 & 5 being popular models).
And mostly piloted by experienced people, dedicated to their hobby, that typically keep in regular contact with air traffic control to make sure they're not causing a problem. Typically, hobbyists were self-regulating, as they understood it was in their interests to make sure they weren't regulated out of existence. But most quadcopter owners aren't part of any "scene" and have no long-term investment in making sure that regulation is kept light. This means that heavier regulation is now required.
Extending that logic ad absurdum, prior to the ninth of September 2001 there was zero risk of terrorists flying planes into the twin towers, but now there is a very high risk, even though the twin towers no longer exist.
Slashdot Mirror
A) It's not that obvious. Care to explain how that would work? A2) That's not interesting to the end-user.
Newspaper advertising traditionally gained its value from the newspaper's demographic. You know the readership, so you know who you're advertising to. Certain newspapers will carry adverts for cheap lager, others expensive champagne. But this notion of a "readership" has been destroyed by Google News -- people now don't chose "their" newspaper, and the advertising becomes untargeted. Newspaper websites are now looking at the same sort of advertising revenues as people's personal blogs. Everything is outsourced to the Google algorithm, and the newspaper itself adds no value to the advertiser.
It is possible that ending the Google News aggregation will mean that sites regain a "readership" and therefore can return to negotiating their own advertising, and that this will result in them returning to profit.
No they're not. Why did News International raise a paywall on their sites? Because site advertising wasn't covering their running costs. The newspapers need a business model that delivers profits. It may be that the Spanish press feel that without Google News it will be easier to have paid subscriptions. It may be that they believe that without Google News, their site "stickiness" will increase, and the value of advertising will increase. Either way, continuing to operate at a loss is no long-term solution.
Free advertising for a loss making product isn't particularly valuable. Advertising revenues have plunged for news sites because they aren't "sticky" enough.
There's a potential difference. The problem is that Google News has become a one-stop-shop for many people (myself included). This means that we don't stay on the newspaper site, going back to Google News to look for the next interesting story. This means that advertising revenues on the content sites are minimal, and pretty much every news site on the entire internet is a loss-making enterprise. This is unsustainable.
Google's solution to claims of profiting off others' work was to run Google News without any advertising content, but that doesn't deal with the fact that Google News is a contributory factor to the financial woes of the content providers it relies on. If Google wants Google News to survive, it must exist in a viable ecosystem, and right now it doesn't. Even if you don't think this is Google's fault, the problem still exists and must be dealt with.
The JS decoder isn't the intended end-product. If browsers adopt the format natively, problem solved.
A) What useful, practical, mass-market purpose is there for light-field photography?
B) Have you seen a light-field camera with any sort of decent resolution?
This format will, unfortunately, probably get little traction for one reason. JPG is here and it's "good enough".
Nope -- that's not the reason. The reason is "JPEG is here and everyone archives their photos as JPEG, with no uncompressed original, particularly given that most consumer digital cameras use JPEG as their native format."
The problem for the near future is that untold petabytes of data out there exist that cannot benefit from this new format.
It's still a 5V, 2A device though, isn't it? An old USB cable with one end cut off and a jack soldered on will still mean you can power it from a hub. That said, using USB as your power source can start all sorts of fun. Maybe you try to plug it into a device that only supplies 1A, or maybe it's one of those "smart" devices that doesn't power up until it detects a device, but that means your board doesn't get powered, which means that the hub doesn't power up, so the board never powers up...
My problem with Scratch is that it starts with non-intuitive coding paradigms then tries to simplify them just by virtue of "graphical". We as coders have become fixated on our existing paradigms and find it difficult to see that there are other, more appropriate styles for beginners. Even those that do often take the easy way out and declare that thee's no point using a more accessible paradigm as this is the kind of programming that is the end-goal of computer education anyway.
...you do know what ".org" means, right?
Nothing legally enforceable.
On average our IQ is 4-14 points lower today than it was 60 years ago.
Isn't the IQ scale norm-referenced within study groups? The average IQ in any demographic group is 100.
I have met a great many people in an office environment who waste time on basic repetitive tasks because they don't know the basics of scripting... and I worked in an IT company! We're currently in a chicken-and-egg trap - software is dumbing down to the GUI so that dumbed-down users can operate it, and it's making it harder for power users as the software isn't designed for us any more. If our schools can turn the next generation into a code-savvy userbase, software can be designed for automation once again. (And after all, the future of computing is the command line, but in spoken form.)
I bring up chickens. You can't bring up bricks.
Not like constant contact, but lots of clubs make themselves known to local ATC so they can be informed of any changes to regs, and so that ATC knows when and where they typically fly.
First up, not all planes are turbine engines. Secondly ignition in a turbine engine occurs at a very specific part of the engine, which is not the surface of the blades. A Li-ion battery might well explode on impact.
That's completely beside the point. I'm not saying the risk didn't exist, or commenting on whether or not it was mitigated. I'm arguing against gweihir's logic, which is utterly ridiculous, hence the reductio ad absurdum.
Ah, so the risk of flying model aircraft into aircraft is zero because although it is possible, it has never happened; but the risk of people flying planes into buildings wasn't zero before 9/11 wasn't zero because although it hadn't happened, it was possible. Well, I can't argue with that logic....
In the UK, model aircraft flying is already heavily (but reasonably) regulated. The laws are being revised to make access to the skies easier. The problem isn't the laws, it is that people are ignoring the laws. What would be wrong with having licensing, with mandatory testing? Restricting the sale of functional model aircraft to people with a valid photocard would not affect serious hobbyists, but it would reduce the number of idiots with DJI Phantoms from the nearest branch of Gadget Shop.
There's also he issue of the mounted camera. A lot of people flying in the $300+ range use bridge cameras with metal bodies. Now we're talking about throwing a brick into a jet engine. Along with TWO nice little blocks of flammable Li-ion....
Yes, but e biggest danger isn't the drone body (carbon fibre composite etc) but the Li-ion battery and quite possibly a fairly chunky metal bodied bridge camera (Sony NX-3 & 5 being popular models).
UFO is established aviation terminology. The popular interpretation is not the only one.
In Soviet Russia, 1 point 21 jiggawatts delivers YOU! (Or should that be "in 1959s capitalist America"...?)
And mostly piloted by experienced people, dedicated to their hobby, that typically keep in regular contact with air traffic control to make sure they're not causing a problem. Typically, hobbyists were self-regulating, as they understood it was in their interests to make sure they weren't regulated out of existence. But most quadcopter owners aren't part of any "scene" and have no long-term investment in making sure that regulation is kept light. This means that heavier regulation is now required.
Extending that logic ad absurdum, prior to the ninth of September 2001 there was zero risk of terrorists flying planes into the twin towers, but now there is a very high risk, even though the twin towers no longer exist.