You got that right. Its about time they did something. Talk about TCO. Think of the amount of money spyware ridden Windows machines have costed end users and businesses to repair.
You don't actually work in this part of the industry, do you? In a corporate enviroment, the user gets the blame if he repeatedly gets spyware on his system. This tends to mean he was browsing external sites, having nothing to do with his job, while using company resources.
Typically, a user who does gets infected once or twice gets enough crap from coworkers and his boss that he will stick to a tighter circle of browsing.
There is also the fact that most of the systems we found infected in my prior group were re-imaged and configured in about 20 minutes.
At my last job: Out of maybe 850 users, we would have maybe 1-2 a week need some spyware help.
Was the article submitted and checked before the update, or is Interplay still considered dead regardless?
The article has not changed. This is another case of the submitter skimming headlines and throwing links at/. without reading the article first, then the site publishes the link without fully reading the article too.
Right, but what I'm concerned about is their Privacy Policy. Since legally (and yes, IANAL) wouldn't the old owners have absolutely no say whatsoever what happens to the users information? Whats to stop these people from deciding one year down the line "hey, revenue is down, we need more money, lets sell our user lists to advertisers"?
If you weren't aware, the original owners of LJ could do the same thing, and without notifying you?
Keep in mind, even when you set up your slashdot accounts: Don't expect any website to stay in business forever. Also don't expect any information you post on said website to remain private.
Actually, why am I saying this? This is Internet 101, dude.
What will cause me to laugh hard enough to run into blood pressure problems: When Google hits hard times and sells Gmail off to another Hotmail or Yahoo. Yes, troll karma on this site. But, no matter how cool you think it is, it is part of the "ever changing face" of the Internet.
Flat-panel sets and digital programming go hand in hand. The screens on flat-panel sets can better accommodate the high-resolution picture offered by HDTV, so combining the level of detail that comes with a digital signal with the large, thin screens of flat panels means an enhanced viewing experience.
Another thing they don't mention here is the fact that 90% of the programming you are going to be watching is 480p and 720p. Now, if you have one "dot" for each of these (1280x720 for 720p) built into the display, how is that more "clear" than a CRT?
The article is a bunch of psuedo-technical jibber jabber with no facts or numbers to back up what they say.
The question I have: Why does/. post ZDNet India like it is news? It's a fluff article by an author who clearly knows nothing about HDTV.
So, while TVs probably have, in general, become lighter since this one was made, they're still going to be more than a one-person job to move. And something of that size (the 60" you suggested) would be very awkward to move, even if it was empty (i.e. a cardboard box of that size). So you're looking at two or three people.
I recently bought a 50" DLP.. It is 75lbs and my 63 year old mother and I were able to carry it from the back of a pickup about 120 feet to the living room in my loft. We both complained of sore fingertips after the move, but neither of us wore gloves. She is 5'1"/105lbs, I'm 5'7"/130lbs.
It was no big deal. I also slide it all over my place, depending on what part of the room I feel like sitting in.
Also, if you are alone, these things are so light you can lift one end up, roll a cart under it, then slide the rest on.
Yeah but many people who have them hide em behind art or such. Why not get a CRT and put it in a bigger cubby to be hidden behind your art.
Because that doesn't really look good. When I was planning my upgrade to HD, I started off looking at CRT based bigscreens and checked out a few shops offering "custom" installations where they stick the thing behind a wall and cut a bevel out for it. The problem, you need a wall you don't mind cutting. Then once it is installed, you can't go slide it over to the other side of the room when the seasons change and the sunlight comes in from a new angle.
I've always found it interesting that the really wealthy generally understates their wealth, while the middle class to moderatly wealthy flaunts their ability to spend.
Right, but you are not really dealing with reality in this thread. As many have stated, they purchase a flatty based on the overall benefits.
Also, smart consumers don't base their knowlege on an article from ZDNet's India division, one I must point out does not give any technical reasons why CRT is better, they just say it is "clearer".
On the note of "clearer", do they mean convergence? Do they mean resolution? Contrast ratio? The only shortcoming of some of the current flat panels is a so-so contrast ratio.. That tends to be the DLP and LCD projection systems, but they get amazingly better with each model.
On the note of wealth, most wealthy people I know grew up wealthy so they don't flaunt it and it is nothing new to them, as they did not grow up poor and hungry. The people I know who are moderately so, tended to come from poor families and are more likely to make a "flashy" purchase. Also, wealthy people are less likely to be bombarded with commercials, as they are generating wealth and not sitting in front of the TV 8 hours a day..:)
Consumers scrambling for sexy new flat-panel televisions may want to tune in to this less-publicized feature of the trendy boxes: They don't deliver pictures as clearly as traditional tube TVs do
I must disagree to some extent with this article and opinion. It really depends on what you call "clearly". For example, text and edges are MUCH clearer on any type of flat panel than a CRT.
There is also the issue of calibration. A CRT gradually comes out of adjustment, requiring a skilled technician to correct. In order to keep your CRT as clear as, say, a DLP, you would have to get your CRT's imaged calibrated every 6 mos to a year, the DLP will never need a "maintenance" adjustment after the first calibration. This goes for any of the digital sets.
Also, what is one to do if they require an image of 40" or greater? I have looked at the XBR 40" Sony, and anyone who would argue its image is "clearer" than any native 720p set is smoking crack. The CRT image, while sitting 4' from the set, has vertical lines and you can't focus clearly on edge text. The 50" DLP I went with has no pixel separation and the edges are much clearer.
I see the article would only address specifically plasma shortcomings and a small blurb about refresh rates. Why leave out DLP? It has the highest refresh of anything. Oh yes, because it doesn't fit with the BS the story wants to feed you.
"This week will see many 'new' digicams released at CES but few will be more than cosmetic tweaks and updates on current models. However Kodak have just announced something new (for them) - a Wi-Fi enabled digital camera that enables online photo sharing and viewing without the need for a computer. It".....
Actually, if you consider higher quality lens systems and much higher resolution a "cosmetic tweak", then um, we need to send you back to slashdot university for a while before submitting another headline.
The "Without a computer" part sounds more like marketing BS, too. Nine times out of ten, if you are in range of a Wi-fi router you have access to, you'll be within walking distance of your PC.
Yeah, I know someone will come in here and throw down their example of how this would be useful, but think about 99% of the other users out there. I predict this thing won't do so well, though a neat bit of technology.
Right, but you have kind of made my point for me with all the examples of how Palm has been screwing themselves and their customers.
Instead of honoring their mistakes by buying a broken device, then investing time in to modding it to make it usable -- Just buy the best competitor's item. I'm just saying, you aren't going to influence a major corporation any other way..
I'm sure life won't end if you threw it away today. I am suprised, though, this occurance seems to be a weekly headline. The "I bought something that doesn't work, knowingly, now want to protest the company over it after my 30 day return is up." phenomenon.
The part of this that makes capitalism say "you lose, stupid!" happened the moment you knowing handed over that $$$ for something that didn't do what you needed it to do and you kept it. This, after probably only reading material written inside the collective slashdot circle jerk, you know, the place where the suggestion of a logical approach will result in a -1 Flamebait or -1 Troll, that is, if in regards to something marketed to me in that "I CHERISH THE THING" way that is done so well around here; quite viral.
putting pressure on Palm One to provide support and fully support the new drivers.
Oh yes, Sammy. The whole 10 people who've posted on Internet forums claiming to have done this hack will really make those guys at Palm One to feel the pressure. I hear their developers will take time away from profitable projects just so you can hack an old phone.. They would really like to do that instead of selling you a next generation phone......!
No wonder america is in trouble, nobody took economics 101.
Re:I don't see what is so special here.
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
I don't know how it works nowadays, but about 10 years ago a friend and myself visited an ER and left without settling the bill.
They called a few times, all I'd say is "Sorry, I don't have any money. I'm broke.." and they eventually went away. It never hit my credit report or anything.
Yes, I know. If you are the real AP, you were a member on my board and inside the same circle of geeks from the atl area. Vandals.. I still know most of those dudes.
I was that guy who went through renegade.exe with a hex editor and used the %DF% command to replace every single bit of hardcoded text to call to an external file.
I hated wwiv.. thx for making it worth running..:]
rocketman768 writes "According to internetnews.com a workshop in Taipei has been re-labeling nearly a million AMD Athlon XPs. It seems AMD is spending more time investigating this than on releasing their new Alchemy chipset which boasts direct transfer of video from digital video recorders to portable players without the need to transcode through a PC."
Yes rocketman768, AMD has one guy that designs chipsets and manages their legal department. While his skills are incredible, he has not been managing his time well lately. This has resulted in the Alchemy being delayed. I will forward your message to HR and let them know about your concerns.
Your headline is a display of intellectualism that can only be rivaled by an autistic sea monkey. For that, the Internet thanks you.
Personally, I do, in fact, find Fox to be the better network. There isn't a single story on CNN that can not be found on Fox, but there is, indeed, an abundance of news found on Fox that CNN simply will not cover.
As a keen watcher of both networks, I disagree with your "fox covers more". Both networks have exclusive stories.
Are they bias? Of course, but CNN is more biased to the left than Fox is to the right. The primary difference is that Fox seems to have embraced the idea of wearing your biases on your sleeve... and the audience loves that sort of honesty. You may get a biased perspective, but you do get MORE THAN ONE perspective on Fox (love them or hate them) and you know where everyone there is coming from.
Not defending any intelligence that may appear on CNN, or lack thereof. But, Fox is tailor made for rightish conservatives. To even say CNN is "more left" than "Fox is right" is insane.
For starters, CNN is not terribly left. The spinners did exactly what the government wanted to do during the buildup to the war. Also, according to my last roomie (who works for CNN), he says the guest selection for shows is carefully selected to give a 50/50 left/right view. This also goes for commentary.
Then there is Fox. 18 hours of commentary. They can't even get a headline about a disater reported for more than 10 minutes without adding political commentary to the mix. Perhaps you are unaware, but take a look at the guests on Fox shows. The "liberal" will almost always be some kind of fuck up who puts up a weak fight in any arguement. Take Hannity and Colmes.. That Colmes guy is there for entertainment value only.. None of the remarks he makes really represents anything of value, all he does is take a position of whatever liberal guest is around at the moment. This is similar having a clown around to spray selzer water in its face for a quick laugh. While CNN has Crossfire, I consider that to be one for morons too. Both the left and right hosts just sit there and bark out a bunch of inciteful stuff, but this is only 45min a day and really the only hardcore stupid show they have in the lineup. Compare to Fox and their mountain of conservative talk and commentary.
There is also the fact that Fox News is owned and managed by some of the most conservative people to have ever retired from public office.
The audience appreciates that sort of respect (instead of the snooty "we aren't biased... how DARE you silly peeon-consumers!" type attitude at other networks). That's why fox has absolutely CRUSHED everyone else in the ratings for quite some time.
If you really enjoy having your news handed to you, extra brown with a side of crap, all while being yelled at like you are at boot camp, then yet, Fox is for you.
If european accents bother you, then yes. Fox all the way for you. We will make sure you get a white guy, or someone that "sounds white", to tell you your news in the most basic form of american english.
Also, where are you getting the ratings data? Both networks claim to have the largest audience, but I noticed Fox specifies "american audience" when it touts how it "stomps" the competition.
I don't see what is so special here.
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'd love to hear others' experiences in their attempt to get hired.
I have not applied at Google, but here are my last two getting-hired experiences:
Current job - 9 interviews Previous job - 12 interviews
How is that number of interviews considered unique enough to bring up in the headline? I thought this was common practice for IT shops.
The testing is a bit unusual, but if you guys wanted to even work at Wal-mart or Home Depot in the 80's you had to take a couple of tests. I even had to take a couple of lie detector and voice stress tests for minimum wage crap when a teenager.
Exactly, people complain about XP's startup time as it is, now they want to host all their apps and the OS on a network drive at the ISP's head end?
Not to flame, but XP boots much quicker than Linux does on my box. It also starts up much quicker than the G5 next door loads OSX. I think, unless you were just seeking karma-whore points, it would be most-realistic to say "OS" in this context.
Not to dispute your point, but the "space race" was a cold war pissing contest.
Right, but the nations are examples of this greed and a collective of resources. This was sort of my point.
Has getting to the moon really done much for us lately? Surely abstract technological progress has been made by funding space endeavors in general (and more specifically space probes and telescopes), and I'm not really knowledgeable enough to say whether it's worth the federal investment, but did we really need to send up some guys to put a flag in the dirt (aside from political motivations of course)?
Um, just about every electronic item you own, every "space-age" fabric you use, the technology used in your car, a better grasp of cheaper space travel, countless medical experiments with many positive results, etc. The list goes on and on. We have benefitted in many ways from this "pissing" contest. Yes, we paid great prices and it probably wasn't the best way, but it happened and we probably wouldn't have been so pressed to research and increase technology had there not been a foe there to incite us.
Not to mention the day to day deterioration of our civilization by those seeking material wealth. Little propatainment here, little get rich scam there,...
Yeah, that kind of goes both ways. With a partial consolidation of wealth, entities are able to compete against each other with greater resources and more people participating. For example, we would have not gotten to the moon without some level of greed and unity fueling us.
The thing you have to watch out for are those who think Fox is a superior news outlet vs CNN. All you have to do is stick around for a commercial break on each station and you will see they are pitching to entirely different audiences. Here is what I find typical of both networks:
Fox News - infomercial styled ads in 30-60 second blocks pitching worthless contraptions to uneducated masses. The kicker, people are buying this stuff they could have picked up at Linens 'n Things "As Seen on TV(tm)" discount asile for less. Everything is draped in red, white, and blue and there are lots of sound effects.
CNN - The same three Lexus commercials where they do nothing but show some Guines-yuppy male with glasses who suprises his thick-waisted, loud, wife with a Lexus -- yet all she notices is the over-sized red bow. This bow is the focus of apparently all their ads now. Everything is neutral colors, much more focus on them stuffy europeans and how they do a bad job reporting "overlooked" issues yet never seem to make the simple transistion over to truely balanced news.
Oh and check this! WTF happened to CNNi? Was international news that much of a danger to american eyes? I have no access to non-american news on the satellite anymore (one of my primary reasons for getting it to begin with!).:(
It seems to me the response to this disaster by governments has been more about public opinion than the welfare of the people involved
Why does that matter so much? Being a compulsive media watcher, I saw this whole ordeal unfold and it appears to have been meant to add some little sub-plot seeking to get folks to give up some money for a good cause. Since when has encouraging people to help been a bad thing? If stupid marketing sells more donations, then they should keep at it! Lives are saved regardless of the governments "feelings".. Last time I checked, the government was our citizens we elected to represent us. Sounds like they are doing their job here. For once!
Opportunity knocks on people's door in the most bizarre way
Not as much as you may think. The media likes to discover a lot of things that were obvious for many years, especially if they can hang on to the disaster-happy public long enough to play one more commercial or display another banner. Ham and CB radio have served in just about every natural or man-made disaster since they have been in the hands of citizens.
I feel sadness inside everytime it occurs to me people think the reason to buy a two-way radio is to chit-chat about BS over public air-waves. These are powerful tools, baby.
More surface area. The overall thing I'm worried about is the upcoming pollution of the airspace. Kind of what happened to outerspace
Why do people seem to care about this so much? When is the last time you had trouble getting to a high orbit because of debris left over from a previous science mission? Never?
What is next? Protesting how we littered on the moon by sticking a flag in it?
I do concur about airspace pollution, as each of these will generate a large no-fly zone around it. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if they were kept in clusters, but would be an accident waiting to happen if they dotted the landscape in regular frequency.
I do know the FAA in the US places lighting requirements for objects which rise beyond a certain ground height. I imagine there would have to be quite a massive tower built for each of these to provide sufficient warning.
Slashdot Mirror
You got that right. Its about time they did something. Talk about TCO. Think of the amount of money spyware ridden Windows machines have costed end users and businesses to repair.
You don't actually work in this part of the industry, do you? In a corporate enviroment, the user gets the blame if he repeatedly gets spyware on his system. This tends to mean he was browsing external sites, having nothing to do with his job, while using company resources.
Typically, a user who does gets infected once or twice gets enough crap from coworkers and his boss that he will stick to a tighter circle of browsing.
There is also the fact that most of the systems we found infected in my prior group were re-imaged and configured in about 20 minutes.
At my last job: Out of maybe 850 users, we would have maybe 1-2 a week need some spyware help.
The lesson: Being a karma troll is bad business.
Was the article submitted and checked before the update, or is Interplay still considered dead regardless?
/. without reading the article first, then the site publishes the link without fully reading the article too.
The article has not changed. This is another case of the submitter skimming headlines and throwing links at
Kind of like Fark.
Right, but what I'm concerned about is their Privacy Policy. Since legally (and yes, IANAL) wouldn't the old owners have absolutely no say whatsoever what happens to the users information? Whats to stop these people from deciding one year down the line "hey, revenue is down, we need more money, lets sell our user lists to advertisers"?
If you weren't aware, the original owners of LJ could do the same thing, and without notifying you?
Keep in mind, even when you set up your slashdot accounts: Don't expect any website to stay in business forever. Also don't expect any information you post on said website to remain private.
Actually, why am I saying this? This is Internet 101, dude.
What will cause me to laugh hard enough to run into blood pressure problems: When Google hits hard times and sells Gmail off to another Hotmail or Yahoo. Yes, troll karma on this site. But, no matter how cool you think it is, it is part of the "ever changing face" of the Internet.
Flat-panel sets and digital programming go hand in hand. The screens on flat-panel sets can better accommodate the high-resolution picture offered by HDTV, so combining the level of detail that comes with a digital signal with the large, thin screens of flat panels means an enhanced viewing experience.
/. post ZDNet India like it is news? It's a fluff article by an author who clearly knows nothing about HDTV.
Another thing they don't mention here is the fact that 90% of the programming you are going to be watching is 480p and 720p. Now, if you have one "dot" for each of these (1280x720 for 720p) built into the display, how is that more "clear" than a CRT?
The article is a bunch of psuedo-technical jibber jabber with no facts or numbers to back up what they say.
The question I have: Why does
So, while TVs probably have, in general, become lighter since this one was made, they're still going to be more than a one-person job to move. And something of that size (the 60" you suggested) would be very awkward to move, even if it was empty (i.e. a cardboard box of that size). So you're looking at two or three people.
I recently bought a 50" DLP.. It is 75lbs and my 63 year old mother and I were able to carry it from the back of a pickup about 120 feet to the living room in my loft. We both complained of sore fingertips after the move, but neither of us wore gloves. She is 5'1"/105lbs, I'm 5'7"/130lbs.
It was no big deal. I also slide it all over my place, depending on what part of the room I feel like sitting in.
Also, if you are alone, these things are so light you can lift one end up, roll a cart under it, then slide the rest on.
Yeah but many people who have them hide em behind art or such. Why not get a CRT and put it in a bigger cubby to be hidden behind your art.
:)
Because that doesn't really look good. When I was planning my upgrade to HD, I started off looking at CRT based bigscreens and checked out a few shops offering "custom" installations where they stick the thing behind a wall and cut a bevel out for it. The problem, you need a wall you don't mind cutting. Then once it is installed, you can't go slide it over to the other side of the room when the seasons change and the sunlight comes in from a new angle.
I've always found it interesting that the really wealthy generally understates their wealth, while the middle class to moderatly wealthy flaunts their ability to spend.
Right, but you are not really dealing with reality in this thread. As many have stated, they purchase a flatty based on the overall benefits.
Also, smart consumers don't base their knowlege on an article from ZDNet's India division, one I must point out does not give any technical reasons why CRT is better, they just say it is "clearer".
On the note of "clearer", do they mean convergence? Do they mean resolution? Contrast ratio? The only shortcoming of some of the current flat panels is a so-so contrast ratio.. That tends to be the DLP and LCD projection systems, but they get amazingly better with each model.
On the note of wealth, most wealthy people I know grew up wealthy so they don't flaunt it and it is nothing new to them, as they did not grow up poor and hungry. The people I know who are moderately so, tended to come from poor families and are more likely to make a "flashy" purchase. Also, wealthy people are less likely to be bombarded with commercials, as they are generating wealth and not sitting in front of the TV 8 hours a day..
Consumers scrambling for sexy new flat-panel televisions may want to tune in to this less-publicized feature of the trendy boxes: They don't deliver pictures as clearly as traditional tube TVs do
I must disagree to some extent with this article and opinion. It really depends on what you call "clearly". For example, text and edges are MUCH clearer on any type of flat panel than a CRT.
There is also the issue of calibration. A CRT gradually comes out of adjustment, requiring a skilled technician to correct. In order to keep your CRT as clear as, say, a DLP, you would have to get your CRT's imaged calibrated every 6 mos to a year, the DLP will never need a "maintenance" adjustment after the first calibration. This goes for any of the digital sets.
Also, what is one to do if they require an image of 40" or greater? I have looked at the XBR 40" Sony, and anyone who would argue its image is "clearer" than any native 720p set is smoking crack. The CRT image, while sitting 4' from the set, has vertical lines and you can't focus clearly on edge text. The 50" DLP I went with has no pixel separation and the edges are much clearer.
I see the article would only address specifically plasma shortcomings and a small blurb about refresh rates. Why leave out DLP? It has the highest refresh of anything. Oh yes, because it doesn't fit with the BS the story wants to feed you.
Remember kids, this is ZDNet India..
"This week will see many 'new' digicams released at CES but few will be more than cosmetic tweaks and updates on current models. However Kodak have just announced something new (for them) - a Wi-Fi enabled digital camera that enables online photo sharing and viewing without the need for a computer. It" .....
Actually, if you consider higher quality lens systems and much higher resolution a "cosmetic tweak", then um, we need to send you back to slashdot university for a while before submitting another headline.
The "Without a computer" part sounds more like marketing BS, too. Nine times out of ten, if you are in range of a Wi-fi router you have access to, you'll be within walking distance of your PC.
Yeah, I know someone will come in here and throw down their example of how this would be useful, but think about 99% of the other users out there. I predict this thing won't do so well, though a neat bit of technology.
Right, but you have kind of made my point for me with all the examples of how Palm has been screwing themselves and their customers.
Instead of honoring their mistakes by buying a broken device, then investing time in to modding it to make it usable -- Just buy the best competitor's item. I'm just saying, you aren't going to influence a major corporation any other way..
I'm sure life won't end if you threw it away today. I am suprised, though, this occurance seems to be a weekly headline. The "I bought something that doesn't work, knowingly, now want to protest the company over it after my 30 day return is up." phenomenon.
The part of this that makes capitalism say "you lose, stupid!" happened the moment you knowing handed over that $$$ for something that didn't do what you needed it to do and you kept it. This, after probably only reading material written inside the collective slashdot circle jerk, you know, the place where the suggestion of a logical approach will result in a -1 Flamebait or -1 Troll, that is, if in regards to something marketed to me in that "I CHERISH THE THING" way that is done so well around here; quite viral.
putting pressure on Palm One to provide support and fully support the new drivers.
.....!
Oh yes, Sammy. The whole 10 people who've posted on Internet forums claiming to have done this hack will really make those guys at Palm One to feel the pressure. I hear their developers will take time away from profitable projects just so you can hack an old phone.. They would really like to do that instead of selling you a next generation phone.
No wonder america is in trouble, nobody took economics 101.
I think you just made my point. Thanks, dude. ;-)
I don't know how it works nowadays, but about 10 years ago a friend and myself visited an ER and left without settling the bill.
They called a few times, all I'd say is "Sorry, I don't have any money. I'm broke.." and they eventually went away. It never hit my credit report or anything.
The Internet loves you, too.
Yes, I know. If you are the real AP, you were a member on my board and inside the same circle of geeks from the atl area. Vandals.. I still know most of those dudes.
:]
I was that guy who went through renegade.exe with a hex editor and used the %DF% command to replace every single bit of hardcoded text to call to an external file.
I hated wwiv.. thx for making it worth running..
rocketman768 writes "According to internetnews.com a workshop in Taipei has been re-labeling nearly a million AMD Athlon XPs. It seems AMD is spending more time investigating this than on releasing their new Alchemy chipset which boasts direct transfer of video from digital video recorders to portable players without the need to transcode through a PC."
Yes rocketman768, AMD has one guy that designs chipsets and manages their legal department. While his skills are incredible, he has not been managing his time well lately. This has resulted in the Alchemy being delayed. I will forward your message to HR and let them know about your concerns.
Your headline is a display of intellectualism that can only be rivaled by an autistic sea monkey. For that, the Internet thanks you.
Most of the WaReZ and films released by these groups include details about what they need, how to get recruited, etc.
/good old days
I always liked the ANSI art associated with warez group BBSes back in the 1980s and early 90s.
MMMMmm Renegade BBS all hex edited up and looking perty.
Personally, I do, in fact, find Fox to be the better network. There isn't a single story on CNN that can not be found on Fox, but there is, indeed, an abundance of news found on Fox that CNN simply will not cover.
As a keen watcher of both networks, I disagree with your "fox covers more". Both networks have exclusive stories.
Are they bias? Of course, but CNN is more biased to the left than Fox is to the right. The primary difference is that Fox seems to have embraced the idea of wearing your biases on your sleeve... and the audience loves that sort of honesty. You may get a biased perspective, but you do get MORE THAN ONE perspective on Fox (love them or hate them) and you know where everyone there is coming from.
Not defending any intelligence that may appear on CNN, or lack thereof. But, Fox is tailor made for rightish conservatives. To even say CNN is "more left" than "Fox is right" is insane.
For starters, CNN is not terribly left. The spinners did exactly what the government wanted to do during the buildup to the war. Also, according to my last roomie (who works for CNN), he says the guest selection for shows is carefully selected to give a 50/50 left/right view. This also goes for commentary.
Then there is Fox. 18 hours of commentary. They can't even get a headline about a disater reported for more than 10 minutes without adding political commentary to the mix. Perhaps you are unaware, but take a look at the guests on Fox shows. The "liberal" will almost always be some kind of fuck up who puts up a weak fight in any arguement. Take Hannity and Colmes.. That Colmes guy is there for entertainment value only.. None of the remarks he makes really represents anything of value, all he does is take a position of whatever liberal guest is around at the moment. This is similar having a clown around to spray selzer water in its face for a quick laugh. While CNN has Crossfire, I consider that to be one for morons too. Both the left and right hosts just sit there and bark out a bunch of inciteful stuff, but this is only 45min a day and really the only hardcore stupid show they have in the lineup. Compare to Fox and their mountain of conservative talk and commentary.
There is also the fact that Fox News is owned and managed by some of the most conservative people to have ever retired from public office.
The audience appreciates that sort of respect (instead of the snooty "we aren't biased... how DARE you silly peeon-consumers!" type attitude at other networks). That's why fox has absolutely CRUSHED everyone else in the ratings for quite some time.
If you really enjoy having your news handed to you, extra brown with a side of crap, all while being yelled at like you are at boot camp, then yet, Fox is for you.
If european accents bother you, then yes. Fox all the way for you. We will make sure you get a white guy, or someone that "sounds white", to tell you your news in the most basic form of american english.
Also, where are you getting the ratings data? Both networks claim to have the largest audience, but I noticed Fox specifies "american audience" when it touts how it "stomps" the competition.
I'd love to hear others' experiences in their attempt to get hired.
I have not applied at Google, but here are my last two getting-hired experiences:
Current job - 9 interviews
Previous job - 12 interviews
How is that number of interviews considered unique enough to bring up in the headline? I thought this was common practice for IT shops.
The testing is a bit unusual, but if you guys wanted to even work at Wal-mart or Home Depot in the 80's you had to take a couple of tests. I even had to take a couple of lie detector and voice stress tests for minimum wage crap when a teenager.
I hate to have to ruin my karma like this, but please refrain from lumping "HAM" operators with the CB groups. We frankly don't like that.
Yeah, I knew what I was doing. I grew up with a few ham-geek friends who'd get pretty sore about the comparison.
About the only thing a CB radio user has to know is how to turn the mic on and to not joke about jihads on channel 9.
Exactly, people complain about XP's startup time as it is, now they want to host all their apps and the OS on a network drive at the ISP's head end?
Not to flame, but XP boots much quicker than Linux does on my box. It also starts up much quicker than the G5 next door loads OSX. I think, unless you were just seeking karma-whore points, it would be most-realistic to say "OS" in this context.
Not to dispute your point, but the "space race" was a cold war pissing contest.
Right, but the nations are examples of this greed and a collective of resources. This was sort of my point.
Has getting to the moon really done much for us lately? Surely abstract technological progress has been made by funding space endeavors in general (and more specifically space probes and telescopes), and I'm not really knowledgeable enough to say whether it's worth the federal investment, but did we really need to send up some guys to put a flag in the dirt (aside from political motivations of course)?
Um, just about every electronic item you own, every "space-age" fabric you use, the technology used in your car, a better grasp of cheaper space travel, countless medical experiments with many positive results, etc. The list goes on and on. We have benefitted in many ways from this "pissing" contest. Yes, we paid great prices and it probably wasn't the best way, but it happened and we probably wouldn't have been so pressed to research and increase technology had there not been a foe there to incite us.
Not to mention the day to day deterioration of our civilization by those seeking material wealth. Little propatainment here, little get rich scam there, ...
:(
Yeah, that kind of goes both ways. With a partial consolidation of wealth, entities are able to compete against each other with greater resources and more people participating. For example, we would have not gotten to the moon without some level of greed and unity fueling us.
The thing you have to watch out for are those who think Fox is a superior news outlet vs CNN. All you have to do is stick around for a commercial break on each station and you will see they are pitching to entirely different audiences. Here is what I find typical of both networks:
Fox News - infomercial styled ads in 30-60 second blocks pitching worthless contraptions to uneducated masses. The kicker, people are buying this stuff they could have picked up at Linens 'n Things "As Seen on TV(tm)" discount asile for less. Everything is draped in red, white, and blue and there are lots of sound effects.
CNN - The same three Lexus commercials where they do nothing but show some Guines-yuppy male with glasses who suprises his thick-waisted, loud, wife with a Lexus -- yet all she notices is the over-sized red bow. This bow is the focus of apparently all their ads now. Everything is neutral colors, much more focus on them stuffy europeans and how they do a bad job reporting "overlooked" issues yet never seem to make the simple transistion over to truely balanced news.
Oh and check this! WTF happened to CNNi? Was international news that much of a danger to american eyes? I have no access to non-american news on the satellite anymore (one of my primary reasons for getting it to begin with!).
It seems to me the response to this disaster by governments has been more about public opinion than the welfare of the people involved
Why does that matter so much? Being a compulsive media watcher, I saw this whole ordeal unfold and it appears to have been meant to add some little sub-plot seeking to get folks to give up some money for a good cause. Since when has encouraging people to help been a bad thing? If stupid marketing sells more donations, then they should keep at it! Lives are saved regardless of the governments "feelings".. Last time I checked, the government was our citizens we elected to represent us. Sounds like they are doing their job here. For once!
Opportunity knocks on people's door in the most bizarre way
Not as much as you may think. The media likes to discover a lot of things that were obvious for many years, especially if they can hang on to the disaster-happy public long enough to play one more commercial or display another banner. Ham and CB radio have served in just about every natural or man-made disaster since they have been in the hands of citizens.
I feel sadness inside everytime it occurs to me people think the reason to buy a two-way radio is to chit-chat about BS over public air-waves. These are powerful tools, baby.
More surface area. The overall thing I'm worried about is the upcoming pollution of the airspace. Kind of what happened to outerspace
Why do people seem to care about this so much? When is the last time you had trouble getting to a high orbit because of debris left over from a previous science mission? Never?
What is next? Protesting how we littered on the moon by sticking a flag in it?
I do concur about airspace pollution, as each of these will generate a large no-fly zone around it. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if they were kept in clusters, but would be an accident waiting to happen if they dotted the landscape in regular frequency.
I do know the FAA in the US places lighting requirements for objects which rise beyond a certain ground height. I imagine there would have to be quite a massive tower built for each of these to provide sufficient warning.