Good idea... as an alternative. You're talking about audio books really, but I can't listen to audio books for the life of me. I'll pay attention to the first paragraph or two and then my mind wanders off, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like this. The problem is that the writing style used for reading isn't ideal for listening. The same way you can't take a book and translate it literally to a movie, you can't just read it out-loud for the best result. You must transform it to a storytelling mode, whether it's a story, news, or instructions.
Also sometimes, it's actually good to have something to look at, like in a doctor's waiting room, instead of staring at the wall or the people facing you.
The problem is there are way too many commercial breaks, they totally kill the show's mood. I think the advertisers would get a lot more respect if there were fewer breaks. Show a few at the beginning, then a bunch during a single "intermission", and a ton at the end of the show. A lot fewer people would skip over a single commercial break, and if the show's good, people will tend to keep watching the trailing ads as a form of tipping.
Quite right. But. Is journalism, in its present form, as useful as blogs?
Journalists... (hopefully) check their sources out and get confirmation and input from both sides and then report on it.
The keyword here is "hopefully". The problem is today, this doesn't happen as often, especially the "input from both sides" part. Today, too many journalists will put any number of spins on their stories, and will even pick and choose the stories with the goal of maximizing profit and not reporting facts. Yet too many consumers still regard journalists as the traditional non-biased just-the-facts-ma'am reporters. That's why journalism is becoming a 4-letter word. Ask yourself this question, which is more useful in the long run: blogs that are obviously personal entries and regarded by all with a grain of salt, or "news reports" which may or may not cover all the facts and may or may not be biased, but are mistakenly believed to be 100% of the true facts by half the population?
Remember way back in like 1996 when we all expected the internet to give voice to the common man?... Well, that's what the blogs are
Bravo! I came here to make this exact comment. The blog has finally let the world wide web (which is one part of the internet) be used to its full potential.
Now just wait for some law firm to come along and claim to own a patent on blogs...
I mean, they uploaded for everyone else to copy. Freely. With no EULA presumably.
It totally depends on how the copy is presented. With the absence of any other indications... if it's just sitting on a random server, then no, it's not legal to copy. If the server contains all warez + this copy, then it's not legal to copy. If the server contains mostly freeware and shareware, then it's legal to copy.
Real-life analogies: if you see a computer sitting outside someone's front-door, you can't just take it. If some mafia boss takes you to a warehouse full of stolen goods and gives you a computer which you take, then you're in trouble. If you go to a junkyard and find a computer, then you're free to take it.
-Announce that you have a new version but won't make it available until users have paid/donated $x (it's up to you to decide how to phrase it so it agrees with your morals).
-Display a running count of the amount of money collected.
-When you've collected enough money, publish new version, rinse, repeat.
Slashdot Mirror
Another hint: keep hitting reload, and you can get unlimited reg codes.
What's the point? You only need one set, and the more you get the more you deprive others from getting a set too.
those in the future would instantly be changed
At which instant exactly? At the time you went back in time? That plus whatever time it took you to make the change? Some other time?
As mentioned already, this all sounds like cheap sci-fi theory with holes big enough to drive a planet through.
Good idea... as an alternative. You're talking about audio books really, but I can't listen to audio books for the life of me. I'll pay attention to the first paragraph or two and then my mind wanders off, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like this. The problem is that the writing style used for reading isn't ideal for listening. The same way you can't take a book and translate it literally to a movie, you can't just read it out-loud for the best result. You must transform it to a storytelling mode, whether it's a story, news, or instructions.
Also sometimes, it's actually good to have something to look at, like in a doctor's waiting room, instead of staring at the wall or the people facing you.
The problem is there are way too many commercial breaks, they totally kill the show's mood. I think the advertisers would get a lot more respect if there were fewer breaks. Show a few at the beginning, then a bunch during a single "intermission", and a ton at the end of the show. A lot fewer people would skip over a single commercial break, and if the show's good, people will tend to keep watching the trailing ads as a form of tipping.
The Williams team also uses a scupercomputer to do a lot of their modelling, thanks to one of their major sponsors HP and a Linux supercomputer.
Blogs aren't journalism.
... (hopefully) check their sources out and get confirmation and input from both sides and then report on it.
... Well, that's what the blogs are
Quite right. But. Is journalism, in its present form, as useful as blogs?
Journalists
The keyword here is "hopefully". The problem is today, this doesn't happen as often, especially the "input from both sides" part. Today, too many journalists will put any number of spins on their stories, and will even pick and choose the stories with the goal of maximizing profit and not reporting facts. Yet too many consumers still regard journalists as the traditional non-biased just-the-facts-ma'am reporters. That's why journalism is becoming a 4-letter word. Ask yourself this question, which is more useful in the long run: blogs that are obviously personal entries and regarded by all with a grain of salt, or "news reports" which may or may not cover all the facts and may or may not be biased, but are mistakenly believed to be 100% of the true facts by half the population?
Remember way back in like 1996 when we all expected the internet to give voice to the common man?
Bravo! I came here to make this exact comment. The blog has finally let the world wide web (which is one part of the internet) be used to its full potential.
Now just wait for some law firm to come along and claim to own a patent on blogs...
OK I haven't RTFA, but from the summary, it sounds like they're just changing the name of their old magazine.
--
Take some Oregano Oil for your health and well-being.
I mean, they uploaded for everyone else to copy. Freely. With no EULA presumably.
It totally depends on how the copy is presented. With the absence of any other indications... if it's just sitting on a random server, then no, it's not legal to copy. If the server contains all warez + this copy, then it's not legal to copy. If the server contains mostly freeware and shareware, then it's legal to copy.
Real-life analogies: if you see a computer sitting outside someone's front-door, you can't just take it. If some mafia boss takes you to a warehouse full of stolen goods and gives you a computer which you take, then you're in trouble. If you go to a junkyard and find a computer, then you're free to take it.
Here's an idea for you:
-Describe this problem in your website.
-Announce that you have a new version but won't make it available until users have paid/donated $x (it's up to you to decide how to phrase it so it agrees with your morals).
-Display a running count of the amount of money collected.
-When you've collected enough money, publish new version, rinse, repeat.