I created and admin a Google group for my son's high school team. We have coaches about 120 parents in the group.
Even though it's a pain in the ass, I chose to moderate messages for new members. Still, spam gets through. As the group's admin, it's embarrassing to see graphic messages and know that all the parent's on my kid's team are seeing it. Also, moderation means that some messages may not get through in a timely manner.
I'm looking to migrate the group to an alternative now.
This really just happened. As I read this thread, I said "Obama won the Noble Peace Prize" and he immediately shot back, "Why? He hasn't stopped the war or anything."
I am not taking about an indoctrinated child poised to defend (or attack) certain ideologies. Hell, I don't even think he knows what the Nobel is...but he sure can figure out that Peace Prize and "ongoing war" should not go together. Pretty perceptive.
I must be missing something. I browsed through the preloaded pages on Google; found a BBC article that looked interesting; clicked, and....then I wait for the original page to load?
So I guess the time saved is in the previewing the pages (headlines)? If that's the goal, then RSS is a much more efficient alternative.
I had the popup (despite FF w/adblock enabled) while reading a story this morning. I never even considered that the Times would be running something like this so I launched into cleansing mode. I wasted an hour hunting for malware or a virus that was not there. Thanks a lot!
However for those who have called on the FTC to help eliminate the other phone scourge - political robocalls - the new rules will not help. Calls from political campaigns are considered protected speech the FTC said.
In the span of one hour, there are more than a dozen solid reasons posted as to why this is not a good idea. Just about all of them obvious. Did Nielsen not consider these? Does he pull these declarations out of his ass without any thought?
In TFA: "Let's clean up the Web's cobwebs and remove stuff that's there only because it's always been there." Agreed. Let's begin with self-appointed usability gurus.
I stopped using Reader long ago - not because of vulnerabilities, but because it was so slow and bloated and it installed stuff I did not want.
I've been using Sumatra for a very long time and it has done well by me (http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/index.html) Download the zip file for a no-install, single-file exe. Minimalistic but more than enough for 90 percent of pdf's I ever need to open (the rest, I open through Google docs.)
Silly me. I thought the First Amendment allowed me to bitch until my heart is content.
I'm tired of hearing that I can't complain if I don't vote. Who made up this mantra? The people who want you to vote for them. And the masses have bought it. They think they really have a say in what happens in government. Ha!
By choosing not to vote I *am* making my statement: I don't like the candidates or the system.
Sorry to nitpick but is anyone else turned-off by the hyperbole in these write-ups?
ARS estimates the browser to be 10 percent faster. I mean, if it was three times faster than my current browser, then I'd say blistering is appropriate. I mean, if you were driving on the freeway at 60 mph and someone passed you doing 66...would you say they were traveling "at breakneck" speed?
I can't believe how many blindly partisan people simply ignore the violation of her privacy.
Would you have the same attitude if you had been the victim? You'd be OK with someone hacking into your email, or perhaps browsing around your home to look for something that *might* indicate that you've done something wrong? Would you say, "I guess I had it coming"?
I think it's sad that this (eternal) election has divided American citizens into Republicans or Democrats and not much else.
Let's say you're a guy with a lawn mowing business and you have your web site (which you crudely built yourself) printed on the side of your truck. Now, someone emails you with their name and address asking for a quote.
Good luck trying to figure out what this law (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-597.html) means!
p.s. seems to me that the lawyer who wrote this article ought to know the difference between "affect" and "effect"... "Think about all the hotels, resorts, golf courses, pawn shops, nightclubs, check cashing, ski lodges and small businesses this is going to effect."
I was deeply involved in sports betting for a while. One of the first things any serious sports bettor learns is that if everyone else likes the same team as you, then start to worry.
There are several websites dedicated to come up with a public consensus on wagers. They were always a must-see for me but only as another piece of information (oddly, it's just as dumb to bet along with the crowd as it is to bet against it.)
Yes, this is gambling, but it's not like betting red or black in roulette. There here has never been so much information available: stats, trends, computers, and tons of message boards to share it all. In the end, very few manage to win that elusive 52.x percent of the time needed to make a profit.
As for me, I did win for a while but proved to be too undisciplined to stick to my own rules:)
You don't know what it's like to grow up in an impoverished country. Hence you don't know what it's like to hurt for your country and to have a sense of duty to make it better.
Also, just because the talent is exported, people can still do great things to enable others to become great. You see this in soccer all the time. African talent is being exported to the top clubs in Europe but many players go back home to establish soccer academies, schools and the like.
First, let me say that I realize there is much media bias.
However, it seems to me that people in the U.S. are increasingly divided. We want our viewpoints affirmed - not challenged. When was the last time you heard someone say or write "That makes sense. Maybe I'm wrong."
When I worked as a reporter, I always judged my job on controversial issues by the number of complaints I got from both sides. If they were nearly evenly divided, I knew I did well. Those I offended used almost exactly the same wording except for changing x for y in their complaints.
Maybe people are giving up newspaper for blogs because they want to hear the digested version of a story. Skip the thinking and just go to the umbrage.
The examples of citizen journalism cited (9/11, a bridge collapse) are about eyewitness accounts. Taking a picture of an event you happen to stumble into is hardly journalism. When it comes to real in-depth news reporting, i-reporting can never, never replace professional news outlets. Solid reporting requires time, know-how, resources and money.
For example, the biggest story of the day is Kosovo declaring independence from Serbia. Tell me how that story can be researched, shot and written and presented by the average person. And for free? Yes, they can get reaction to the story. But putting it in context is entirely different.
There is much bias, sensationalism and broadcast "journalists" who are no more than pretty faces or loudmouth know-it-alls. Still, there are many real reporters out there doing real reporting. We will always need them.
I assume you mean that the *paper* delivery method is dying. As news gathering organizations, "newspapers" will survive (at least those that adapt.)
I canceled my subscription to my local newspaper around 1998, when they began putting their content online. I still use them as a source for news, however.
I'll be the first to say that the present state of the news media is sad. Still, there will always be a place for professional news gathering organizations.
I'm concerned that as more of us turn to the internet for news, the influence of the NYT grows. Not a day goes by in which one or two stories here are about an article published in the Times. Same goes for other sites such as this.
It'd be interesting to see a graph of newspaper sources in stories discussed here. I'd bet the Times would outnumber the LA Times, Detroit News, Miami Herald, Washington Post, Kansas City Star, and dozens more put together.
The effect of the Times is enormous. Not only is it becoming the U.S. national newspaper, but its influence on local news outlets is also growing. What is (often erroneously) reported as a trend in the Times is picked up by local outlets and localized, thereby spreading this misinformation. What might be of interest to liberal-leaning white folks in New York all of a sudden is reported nationwide.
Slashdot Mirror
Today on SlaDo: Comments about the HuffPo report that The Goo giving free WiFi at the 'port.
Pick me!
It is for the same reason this comment will be modded funny even though it's not?
I created and admin a Google group for my son's high school team. We have coaches about 120 parents in the group.
Even though it's a pain in the ass, I chose to moderate messages for new members. Still, spam gets through. As the group's admin, it's embarrassing to see graphic messages and know that all the parent's on my kid's team are seeing it. Also, moderation means that some messages may not get through in a timely manner.
I'm looking to migrate the group to an alternative now.
This really just happened.
As I read this thread, I said "Obama won the Noble Peace Prize" and he immediately shot back, "Why? He hasn't stopped the war or anything."
I am not taking about an indoctrinated child poised to defend (or attack) certain ideologies. Hell, I don't even think he knows what the Nobel is...but he sure can figure out that Peace Prize and "ongoing war" should not go together. Pretty perceptive.
I must be missing something.
I browsed through the preloaded pages on Google; found a BBC article that looked interesting; clicked, and....then I wait for the original page to load?
So I guess the time saved is in the previewing the pages (headlines)? If that's the goal, then RSS is a much more efficient alternative.
I had the popup (despite FF w/adblock enabled) while reading a story this morning.
I never even considered that the Times would be running something like this so I launched into cleansing mode. I wasted an hour hunting for malware or a virus that was not there. Thanks a lot!
it's only that some are more equal than others:
However for those who have called on the FTC to help eliminate the other phone scourge - political robocalls - the new rules will not help. Calls from political campaigns are considered protected speech the FTC said.
In the span of one hour, there are more than a dozen solid reasons posted as to why this is not a good idea. Just about all of them obvious. Did Nielsen not consider these? Does he pull these declarations out of his ass without any thought?
In TFA: "Let's clean up the Web's cobwebs and remove stuff that's there only because it's always been there."
Agreed. Let's begin with self-appointed usability gurus.
Sounds like the intelligence community is not.
I stopped using Reader long ago - not because of vulnerabilities, but because it was so slow and bloated and it installed stuff I did not want.
I've been using Sumatra for a very long time and it has done well by me (http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/index.html)
Download the zip file for a no-install, single-file exe. Minimalistic but more than enough for 90 percent of pdf's I ever need to open (the rest, I open through Google docs.)
Silly me. I thought the First Amendment allowed me to bitch until my heart is content.
I'm tired of hearing that I can't complain if I don't vote. Who made up this mantra? The people who want you to vote for them.
And the masses have bought it. They think they really have a say in what happens in government. Ha!
By choosing not to vote I *am* making my statement: I don't like the candidates or the system.
Enough with Groupthink.
Sorry to nitpick but is anyone else turned-off by the hyperbole in these write-ups?
ARS estimates the browser to be 10 percent faster. I mean, if it was three times faster than my current browser, then I'd say blistering is appropriate.
I mean, if you were driving on the freeway at 60 mph and someone passed you doing 66...would you say they were traveling "at breakneck" speed?
Enough with this.
I can't believe how many blindly partisan people simply ignore the violation of her privacy.
Would you have the same attitude if you had been the victim?
You'd be OK with someone hacking into your email, or perhaps browsing around your home to look for something that *might* indicate that you've done something wrong?
Would you say, "I guess I had it coming"?
I think it's sad that this (eternal) election has divided American citizens into Republicans or Democrats and not much else.
Damn.
Let's say you're a guy with a lawn mowing business and you have your web site (which you crudely built yourself) printed on the side of your truck.
Now, someone emails you with their name and address asking for a quote.
Good luck trying to figure out what this law (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-597.html) means!
p.s. seems to me that the lawyer who wrote this article ought to know the difference between "affect" and "effect"...
"Think about all the hotels, resorts, golf courses, pawn shops, nightclubs, check cashing, ski lodges and small businesses this is going to effect."
Nobody's watching? You better tell the 4 billion people who were planning to do just that...
Beijing expects four billion TV viewers for '08 Games
I was deeply involved in sports betting for a while. One of the first things any serious sports bettor learns is that if everyone else likes the same team as you, then start to worry.
There are several websites dedicated to come up with a public consensus on wagers. They were always a must-see for me but only as another piece of information (oddly, it's just as dumb to bet along with the crowd as it is to bet against it.)
Yes, this is gambling, but it's not like betting red or black in roulette. There here has never been so much information available: stats, trends, computers, and tons of message boards to share it all.
In the end, very few manage to win that elusive 52.x percent of the time needed to make a profit.
As for me, I did win for a while but proved to be too undisciplined to stick to my own rules :)
I by no means toe the politically correct line but....you are either ignorant or heartless.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0703/sights_n_sounds/
That's you - and many others I'm sure.
You don't know what it's like to grow up in an impoverished country. Hence you don't know what it's like to hurt for your country and to have a sense of duty to make it better.
Also, just because the talent is exported, people can still do great things to enable others to become great. You see this in soccer all the time. African talent is being exported to the top clubs in Europe but many players go back home to establish soccer academies, schools and the like.
Hats off to Hawking.
First, let me say that I realize there is much media bias.
However, it seems to me that people in the U.S. are increasingly divided. We want our viewpoints affirmed - not challenged. When was the last time you heard someone say or write "That makes sense. Maybe I'm wrong."
When I worked as a reporter, I always judged my job on controversial issues by the number of complaints I got from both sides. If they were nearly evenly divided, I knew I did well. Those I offended used almost exactly the same wording except for changing x for y in their complaints.
Maybe people are giving up newspaper for blogs because they want to hear the digested version of a story. Skip the thinking and just go to the umbrage.
The examples of citizen journalism cited (9/11, a bridge collapse) are about eyewitness accounts. Taking a picture of an event you happen to stumble into is hardly journalism.
When it comes to real in-depth news reporting, i-reporting can never, never replace professional news outlets. Solid reporting requires time, know-how, resources and money.
For example, the biggest story of the day is Kosovo declaring independence from Serbia. Tell me how that story can be researched, shot and written and presented by the average person. And for free? Yes, they can get reaction to the story. But putting it in context is entirely different.
There is much bias, sensationalism and broadcast "journalists" who are no more than pretty faces or loudmouth know-it-alls. Still, there are many real reporters out there doing real reporting. We will always need them.
I assume you mean that the *paper* delivery method is dying. As news gathering organizations, "newspapers" will survive (at least those that adapt.)
I canceled my subscription to my local newspaper around 1998, when they began putting their content online. I still use them as a source for news, however.
I'll be the first to say that the present state of the news media is sad. Still, there will always be a place for professional news gathering organizations.
Imagine the cable spewing out pornography, spam and inanity...those poor, poor fish.
I'm concerned that as more of us turn to the internet for news, the influence of the NYT grows. Not a day goes by in which one or two stories here are about an article published in the Times. Same goes for other sites such as this.
It'd be interesting to see a graph of newspaper sources in stories discussed here. I'd bet the Times would outnumber the LA Times, Detroit News, Miami Herald, Washington Post, Kansas City Star, and dozens more put together.
The effect of the Times is enormous. Not only is it becoming the U.S. national newspaper, but its influence on local news outlets is also growing. What is (often erroneously) reported as a trend in the Times is picked up by local outlets and localized, thereby spreading this misinformation. What might be of interest to liberal-leaning white folks in New York all of a sudden is reported nationwide.
Companies kill me
So? Companies kill many people.
Right! This is more like, "Please fuck off, and have a nice day."