This happens every single time Facebook debuts a new feature. X amount of people go completely bonkers. A few weeks, maybe months, later everyone goes back to not caring.
Very true. It does happen with every single feature. Which makes me wonder -- are the Facebook viral Marketing people really that good, or is the Facebook user base a shallow, reactionary attention-seeking bunch?
Imagine for a moment the good that all that hot air and organized citzenry could do. And look what they actually do -- every time. What a total waste.
Spend the money on SETI and get me off this stupid rock!!!
Re:3 million dollars per year is a pittance
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 1
Three million dollars a year is a small price to pay for the chance at discovering another sentient race in the galaxy, even if it is a longshot. It is one cent per year per individual.
Yes! And how much is everyone willing to pay for Facebook? Exactly... conclusive proof that there is no intelligent life on Earth.
Or is that just conclusive proof that there is no intelligent life in Corporations?
Either way, keep paying for SETI. I want off this dumb rock!
The irony that this product is THE most used among design professionals, and is itself an ugly monstrosity, designed by committee, very badly.
This has needed to happen for a very long time. Although it does mean that those of us who are professionals are probably going to have retrain to rid ourselves of the esoteric plethora of keyboard shortcuts we've had to learn to use over a long period of time.
Just one personal gripe about PS in case anyone from Adobe is reading -- why on Earth are the dialog boxes modal? When I open up a dialog box, decide that I need to move the picture underneath to see it better (since dialogue boxes are all sizes under the sun), but I can't do that can I? No, I have to close the dialog box, move the picture, and re-open the dialogue box -- that's just plain dumb!
Like most people out there, I love what I can do with Photoshop (and most other Adobe apps) but I despise the product. I would jump ship tomorrow for a better product. I don't doubt for one second that I am alone. Adobe needs serious competition. Considering the preposterous cost of their apps, and the fact that they don't make them well, I don't really understand why there's not a long list of competitors, those guys can't be the only ones who know how to code this type of application.
Damnit! Now we EUers can't feel smug anymore and belittle our less free friends in the US;-))
Those of us in the UK never could. We look to China and Soviet Russia as lands of Freedom and Ambrosia. I'm sure the UK is already storing the security camera image of everyone boarding a plane indefinitely. I don't think they even do that in North Korea.
Every time I see stuff like this and I'm reminded of something Günter Grass said, about how once the Berlin wall came down the way was opened up for Fascism to have free reign again.
Seems to be true. Red or Blue -- they both screw you.
Somehow in this techstrubation system I see research like this that has completely lost touch with what is good about living simply, without gadgets or crutches or machines that inevitably make things better for a minority of people in power, but worse for a majority of not-in-power people.
Yes, great post. This is of course occurring in the UK, where in the past 5 years alone more tech has been employed to monitor more people than anywhere else. Currently the monitoring has proved worthless for its stated purpose, yet more appears every day.
In theory, the UK is a few minor legal changes away from a totalitarian nightmare. In practice, there is no need to make those legal changes. The UK population is currently malleable, gullible and very easy to control -- as long as they have credit, cars, and alcohol, and are afraid of irrational abstract enemies like terrorists and pedophiles, you can get them to do anything.
The BBC is not state run or state owned. If you think the BBC is biased in favour of the Labour government you aught to read some of the recent history between the two. Sure the BBC has a bias but it is one all of its own and compared to the other companies you mention it as close to impartial as makes no difference.
Technically, you are provably correct. However, in reality this is one of the most naive statements I've ever read here. The BBC is to all intents and purposes state owned -- if by no other fact that its board of trustee are members of the establishment. The BBC most suredly has maintained an establishment bias since the 1970s (red or blue matters not a damn - there's little difference).
The BBC is a propaganda tool foremost, and an erstwhile purveyor of mediocre infotainment and entertainment second.
BBC might be slanted but compared to CNN or Fox, the BBC is a goddamn breath of fresh air.
Hmm, not so fast there, Winston Smith...
Fox and CNN are obviously slanted -- actually that makes them a devil we know -- which is actually far safer than the BBC, who are just as slanted, but are much better at hiding it.
Trust the BBC as much or more than Fox or CNN, and you are just as foolish as the people who trust Fox or CNN.
It's unfathomable to me how an IT head could be this far out of touch with his user numbers.
Don't worry. He wasn't that out of touch. He's a dept head in a large bureaucracy, a quasi-government organisation too. He's just doing what every middle manager does: rather than defend the truth, he's using statistics to cover his ass.
On second thoughts... do worry, because this type of behaviour is exactly what's wrong with society.
According to this, the BBC signed an agreement with Micro$oft, er,... the devil,... back in September of 2006 to collaborate on, "search and navigation, distribution and 'content enablement'". Makes you go, "Hmmmmmmmmm?",...
No surprise at all. I know they've stated that this didn't have anything to do with MS deals. And I'm sure they will be able to prove that to the satisfaction of those who don't much care. However, since the BBC is forbidden from advertising products, this kind of under the table deal goes on all the time. The BBC is full of carefully placed products and industries, all appearing to be coincidental. They've been doing this for at least 30 years and are extremely good at it by now.
What I find a little strange is how some people consider someone talking on a cell phone in a restaurant automatically rude, even if they're speaking at a normal volume. If someone's in a conversation at another table, is it really that bad if the other participant in the conversation isn't actually in the restaurant?
Were that the case, then you'd be correct. However, firstly I think we all know that this is rarely true. Those who use phones in such situations, tend to like the sound of their own voices -- they rarely speak at a volume which is respectful to others.
But this isn't the real problem. It's the ringtones, and the incoming sms notification tones. Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow people to download ringtones should be considered an enemy of civilization. And the sms tones are Pavlovian. Whenever you hear them you automatically check your own phone or pocket, at least mentally, if not in actuality. Can we not get peace from them for a few hours?
No-one needs cell phones. Humanity survived just fine without them since the beginning of time.
That there should be areas where they are not permitted is just fine. There should be many more of these areas. Anyone who is taking a cell phone into the theater or a classical concert should not be attending such events -- ever. They clearly do not have the brains or sensitivity to appreciate the performance. They can ask ushers to look after their phones for example, if they are one of the very few people who genuinely need to be on call. (lives at stake, not $s at stake)
Eventually there will be no peace to do any thinking -- (dons tinfoil hat) maybe that's all part of the plan?
Yes, I agree. The crazy thing about most of the posts there is that they seem to be viewing cellphone use as an inalienable right. I suspect that the majority of the more hysterically pro-cellphone-use posts here are from those too young to remember a world where cell phones did not exist.
Here's the thing, the human race survived just fine for millennia without cell phones. Jammers don't block landlines. In an emergency situation in a place of business the staff of the business are perfectly capable of using a landline.
In the days before cell phones, people going to restaurants or theaters or whatever used to leave messages with those who needed to contact them as to where they would be. Doctors, people on call, etc can be responsible and respectful to other patrons and do that again.
NOBODY, repeat NOBODY, NEEDS a cell phone. People just think they do, and many of them are damned selfish about it using them.
isnt a smartphone not just a small pc with a radio stack?
Yes, but with one very significant difference. You buy your PC, you can even build your own and you have complete control over it. Try doing that with a smart phone -- with even a cheapskate bottom of the range phone.
While I'd love a small pc that had true notebook capability with me at all times, the last thing I want to do is be further shafted by a phone service provider. And in 20 years of owning cellphones in a variety of countries, I can safely safe that there is not one occasion where I have not, to some degree, been shafted by a phone service provider. I have two university degrees, one in numerate sciences, but I struggle to understand how the numbers on any cellphone contract add up.
The only way I'm owning a smartphone is if someone else is paying -- or there is a revolution in global regulation that strips the asshole cartel-like phone companies of all their power.
I'm sure the only significant barrier to smartphone adoption is the criminals that operate the phone companies.
The failure is that not nearly as many people are as funny or as clever as they think they are. They don't have good senses of timing, of editing, of rhythm, or of narrative structure.
200% true! In fact you can see this effect in professional TV every day. Despite the amount of money spent, and training, if the talent isn't there...
However, the beauty of this new system is it does allow more cream to rise. (not a pr0n reference, although that is also true) I trained as a videographer and film cameraman over 20 years ago in the UK. It was (and to some degree still is) very difficult to succeed in the UK in this business, unless you knew the right people. Elitist organisations, unions and funding bodies all did their best to keep out those they didn't like.
To some degree this would be valid, were it not for the fact that the UK film and TV industry in the past 20 years is at best mediocre, and at worst, truly awful. There's very little new ideas, fresh blood and innovation. Most people with talent in the UK leave to go to other countries to find real work. That's what protectionism does for you. UK film and TV does not reflect the best of UK talent, it reflects those that are most successful at networking the right people.
While 99% of Youtube and similar is total garbage, the digital revolution is the best thing that's happened to those who DO have the talent. It makes things much easier for them to succeed.
Until they in turn create the new elitists I guess...
TO dismiss it as one or two and the rest you've never heard seems a tad petulant.
How ridiculous and arrogant. How can you accuse the parent of such things when most probably he's not in the target market group for these sites? How dare you really? I read a lot of tech stuff, am on Slashdot every single day, this is the first I've ever heard of Tianji, or LinkedIn, I've vaguely head of some of the others but never visited their sites, nor am I entirely sure of what they do. I have heard of MySpace. I have heard of Livejournal and Friendster but was under the impression that both were dying a death. I have heard of Salesforce.com but I would be astonished if anyone outside of a major corporation has -- this is a very specialized business service.
No, you should direct your ire towards the marketing dept of some of these websites -- they have totally failed to get any message across. Perhaps Google is really doing them a huge favor with this new service.
Yes, and sadly the one thing they seem not to be doing, is the one thing they should be doing -- developing the next gen of search. We are still a long long way away from adequate search.
He did. But the difference here is that Eliza has the deal with Fox, and she's hired him (and Tim Minear). At least they have 7 episodes guaranteed. It's more than Drive ever got.
establishes Apple as THE platform for photographers and designers by removing the Windows competition.
For professional designers, photographers, architects and many other creative pros, Apple is THE platform, and has always been THE platform.
This actually is partly because of Adobe historically, which made mac only apps for a very long time. It's also partly a typeface issue -- related to MS's desire to save cash and invent their own, rather than pay licenses from established foundries.
It is also partly due to the quality of the monitors that ship with Apples.
It is also a legacy thing in that for many years at the start of the pc revolution, Apples were the only pcs with true GUIs, and that could handle image files.
The fact that design has been an intrinsic element in the styling of Apple computers has never hurt them amongst those who work in design.
That all said... the last thing this planet needs is Adobe having MORE of a monopoly. It really is long overdue that someone builds an Adobe killer app.
A large number of people are so sick and tired of politics as usual that they are willing to support anyone who is unusual.
Ah yes, I see your mistake. You think that people actually get to choose who they really want to vote for. Ignoring the (really very gravely serious) fact that a political party just eliminated a candidate from not being media friendly, then you still have to have a candidate that can raise around $1million per day to run for president -- probably more as an independent. Where, and from hom do you think that money will come? People who are revolutionary mavericks? Or large corporations?
And you still think you have free choice? Democracy is smoke and mirrors -- your vote is valueless. Red, Blue -- what's the difference, the same guys are paying them at the end of the day.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine for a moment the good that all that hot air and organized citzenry could do. And look what they actually do -- every time. What a total waste.
Spend the money on SETI and get me off this stupid rock!!!
Or is that just conclusive proof that there is no intelligent life in Corporations?
Either way, keep paying for SETI. I want off this dumb rock!
The irony that this product is THE most used among design professionals, and is itself an ugly monstrosity, designed by committee, very badly.
This has needed to happen for a very long time. Although it does mean that those of us who are professionals are probably going to have retrain to rid ourselves of the esoteric plethora of keyboard shortcuts we've had to learn to use over a long period of time.
Just one personal gripe about PS in case anyone from Adobe is reading -- why on Earth are the dialog boxes modal? When I open up a dialog box, decide that I need to move the picture underneath to see it better (since dialogue boxes are all sizes under the sun), but I can't do that can I? No, I have to close the dialog box, move the picture, and re-open the dialogue box -- that's just plain dumb!
Like most people out there, I love what I can do with Photoshop (and most other Adobe apps) but I despise the product. I would jump ship tomorrow for a better product. I don't doubt for one second that I am alone. Adobe needs serious competition. Considering the preposterous cost of their apps, and the fact that they don't make them well, I don't really understand why there's not a long list of competitors, those guys can't be the only ones who know how to code this type of application.
Quoth Symbian: Google is not experienced enough.
I read this as: Wow! Google will have new ideas!
And as: Symbian has run out of ideas. Pretty bad day to work for Symbian, or own Symbian stock as far as I can see.
Every time I see stuff like this and I'm reminded of something Günter Grass said, about how once the Berlin wall came down the way was opened up for Fascism to have free reign again.
Seems to be true. Red or Blue -- they both screw you.
In theory, the UK is a few minor legal changes away from a totalitarian nightmare. In practice, there is no need to make those legal changes. The UK population is currently malleable, gullible and very easy to control -- as long as they have credit, cars, and alcohol, and are afraid of irrational abstract enemies like terrorists and pedophiles, you can get them to do anything.
The BBC is a propaganda tool foremost, and an erstwhile purveyor of mediocre infotainment and entertainment second.
Fox and CNN are obviously slanted -- actually that makes them a devil we know -- which is actually far safer than the BBC, who are just as slanted, but are much better at hiding it.
Trust the BBC as much or more than Fox or CNN, and you are just as foolish as the people who trust Fox or CNN.
On second thoughts... do worry, because this type of behaviour is exactly what's wrong with society.
But this isn't the real problem. It's the ringtones, and the incoming sms notification tones. Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow people to download ringtones should be considered an enemy of civilization. And the sms tones are Pavlovian. Whenever you hear them you automatically check your own phone or pocket, at least mentally, if not in actuality. Can we not get peace from them for a few hours?
No-one needs cell phones. Humanity survived just fine without them since the beginning of time.
That there should be areas where they are not permitted is just fine. There should be many more of these areas. Anyone who is taking a cell phone into the theater or a classical concert should not be attending such events -- ever. They clearly do not have the brains or sensitivity to appreciate the performance. They can ask ushers to look after their phones for example, if they are one of the very few people who genuinely need to be on call. (lives at stake, not $s at stake)
Eventually there will be no peace to do any thinking -- (dons tinfoil hat) maybe that's all part of the plan?
Yes, I agree. The crazy thing about most of the posts there is that they seem to be viewing cellphone use as an inalienable right. I suspect that the majority of the more hysterically pro-cellphone-use posts here are from those too young to remember a world where cell phones did not exist.
Here's the thing, the human race survived just fine for millennia without cell phones. Jammers don't block landlines. In an emergency situation in a place of business the staff of the business are perfectly capable of using a landline.
In the days before cell phones, people going to restaurants or theaters or whatever used to leave messages with those who needed to contact them as to where they would be. Doctors, people on call, etc can be responsible and respectful to other patrons and do that again.
NOBODY, repeat NOBODY, NEEDS a cell phone. People just think they do, and many of them are damned selfish about it using them.
While I'd love a small pc that had true notebook capability with me at all times, the last thing I want to do is be further shafted by a phone service provider. And in 20 years of owning cellphones in a variety of countries, I can safely safe that there is not one occasion where I have not, to some degree, been shafted by a phone service provider. I have two university degrees, one in numerate sciences, but I struggle to understand how the numbers on any cellphone contract add up.
The only way I'm owning a smartphone is if someone else is paying -- or there is a revolution in global regulation that strips the asshole cartel-like phone companies of all their power.
I'm sure the only significant barrier to smartphone adoption is the criminals that operate the phone companies.
Yeah... but wake the rest of us up when Final Cut Pro and Photoshop are available on the iPhone.
The average desktop PC monitor is still far too small for professional editing.
However, the beauty of this new system is it does allow more cream to rise. (not a pr0n reference, although that is also true) I trained as a videographer and film cameraman over 20 years ago in the UK. It was (and to some degree still is) very difficult to succeed in the UK in this business, unless you knew the right people. Elitist organisations, unions and funding bodies all did their best to keep out those they didn't like.
To some degree this would be valid, were it not for the fact that the UK film and TV industry in the past 20 years is at best mediocre, and at worst, truly awful. There's very little new ideas, fresh blood and innovation. Most people with talent in the UK leave to go to other countries to find real work. That's what protectionism does for you. UK film and TV does not reflect the best of UK talent, it reflects those that are most successful at networking the right people.
While 99% of Youtube and similar is total garbage, the digital revolution is the best thing that's happened to those who DO have the talent. It makes things much easier for them to succeed.
Until they in turn create the new elitists I guess...
Yes. But they aren't currently number one. And they most certainly won't be after the others network together. But thanks for playing anyway...
No, you should direct your ire towards the marketing dept of some of these websites -- they have totally failed to get any message across. Perhaps Google is really doing them a huge favor with this new service.
Yes, and sadly the one thing they seem not to be doing, is the one thing they should be doing -- developing the next gen of search. We are still a long long way away from adequate search.
He did. But the difference here is that Eliza has the deal with Fox, and she's hired him (and Tim Minear). At least they have 7 episodes guaranteed. It's more than Drive ever got.
This actually is partly because of Adobe historically, which made mac only apps for a very long time. It's also partly a typeface issue -- related to MS's desire to save cash and invent their own, rather than pay licenses from established foundries. It is also partly due to the quality of the monitors that ship with Apples. It is also a legacy thing in that for many years at the start of the pc revolution, Apples were the only pcs with true GUIs, and that could handle image files. The fact that design has been an intrinsic element in the styling of Apple computers has never hurt them amongst those who work in design.
That all said... the last thing this planet needs is Adobe having MORE of a monopoly. It really is long overdue that someone builds an Adobe killer app.
It's quite sad really, but most people don't have a life.
And you still think you have free choice? Democracy is smoke and mirrors -- your vote is valueless. Red, Blue -- what's the difference, the same guys are paying them at the end of the day.