I can't believe the NG article below hasn't been posted yet. This story came back to haunt me as I watched the news Sunday evening. Particularly eerie are the two paragraphs quoted below. National Geographic Published Oct. 2004.
Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.
When did this calamity happen? It hasn't--yet. But the doomsday scenario is not far-fetched. The Federal Emergency Management Agency lists a hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the most dire threats to the nation, up there with a large earthquake in California or a terrorist attack on New York City. Even the Red Cross no longer opens hurricane shelters in the city, claiming the risk to its workers is too great.
this is just further proving that podcasting is enhancing free speech
While I agree that any self-published medium can be a good tool for free speech; I must say that the only thing worse than reading the drivel spewed by most "free speech activist" is hearing their whiny, annoying voices. Thank god we haven't "advanced" far enough for slashdot to offer audio comments.
Could this event be the one that shows people how much Podcasting can replace traditional broadcasting?
Sure, it could - but once the journalists realize they can't make enough money to eat, they'll all turn around to bash it as a mindless, useless medium, with no journalistic integrity. Oh, wait...
You seem upset that a simple label has been applied to sites such as those linked above, yet you don't offer any better alternatives. Sorry, "content creation by individuals" is much too long to be useful in most situations. As silly as the term blog is to me, and as silly as I think the media is for "reporting" on blogging, I don't see any reason to get testy about it. It's like ranting about all tissues being referred to as Kleenex, or all MP3 players being called iPods, or even using google as a verb. Silly? Perhaps. But not likely to change now that it's in common use.
Ok, I'm going to drop this and chalk it up to semantics.
Before I leave it however, I'd like to make a deal with you. I'll gladly pass along any hopeful filters I come across. You, being so clued to Apple's momentum, should be able to tell me when they're about to tank so I can dump their stock. If you have Apple that firmly in your sights, I'm going to start calling you William Tell.;)
Nah, I asked Jeeves and he couldn't find anything about gardening. He said he was pretty sure hunter gatherers were well practiced in the oldest profession before anyone cultivated land.
Re:Google hasn't peaked.
on
Has Google Peaked?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
While I occasionally find the ads coming off of search results useful, I've never seen anything in gmail that was remotely helpful.
Half joking but half serious - I'm not sure what kind of ads you're seeing in gmail, but the quality of those ads could simply be due to the content of said emails. Not all Adsense words are helpful and not everyone who's helpful buys Adsense words. I have noticed that spammers are sending email which contains words they likely have purchased Adsense words for. They're hoping the Google ad may get you to click even if they can't get you to click through the email.
While I don't disagree with your observations, I'd like to point out that advertising is the oldest profession on earth (in a chicken/egg sort of way with the other oldest profession) and that targeted advertising becomes even more important as online services become more competitive and are utilized by more of the general public. Advertising is a lucrative business no mater how much we hate it.
Google appears to be the current winner in online advertising and will likely continue to take a larger percentage of ad revenue, especially as more and more people filter out the annoying junk ads. In the least, I think they will force a number of their competitors to change the way they present ads. In the mean time Google's revenue should continue to climb.
Also, as they continue to develop the multitude of applications they have, I sense they will find ways to link almost every one of them in an easy to use interface and most likely start to offer paid variants of some of those services. They already do this with Search and Google Earth and could easily do the same with Talk. I don't think I've seen an single evening news broadcast in the 6 months that hasn't used Keyhole, so there's definitely a revenue stream coming in from that app.
Advertising started it all for Google, but they have lots of opportunity left. And the bubble burst had nothing to do with having advertising as a business model. It had everything to do with just plain bad business models.
Given the way our society works, I won't deny that I don't. I even said in another post that I'm ok with the big guys subsidizing my interests. It's something I battle with internally and I don't think there's ever an easy answer which won't contradict with at least one of my views. The only certainty I have about the current situation is that I won't buy anything from mega labels, if I can help it.
I'm a big supporter of the talented underdog; always have been. This applies to artists, athletes and others. People who perform/play because they love what they do are much more interesting to me than people who only want the attention/money that celebrity status brings. My comments generally reflect the disdain I have for talented people who; once they become popular, start to pander to the business just for the sake of attracting more publicity. I've spent much of my life admiring talented niche artists, athletes, and public servants only to watch them become popular and then deteriorate into media-whores in front of me. Fortunately, a rare few remain true to their origins and carry on with their profession as humble as when they entered it. Those folks earn publicity and wealth but also respect and admiration. My favorite recent examples are not musicians but rather athletes; Mia Hamm, Cal Ripken Jr. and Lance Armstrong.
Of course I have no respect for those who lack real talent of any kind, yet still manage to attract millions away from the struggling artists. Artists who just love what they do but are not flashy enough to succeed in our society. Thankfully the internet offers us the ability to find good content and appears to be closing the gap.
Never thought I'd be posting on this subject at slashdot. Infertility does not mean the same thing as erectile dysfunction. Nor does it mean you have your genitals removed. May I suggest some reading on the subject? http://www.ihr.com/infertility/male.html
There are many things that can cause ED yet leave a man perfectly fertile. There are also many infertile men with perfectly normal libidos and penile function.
As a man with perfectly normal libido and penile function, all I can say is there have been many, many times when I wished I were infertile - back in the day, before Fear Factor was a silly TV show.
I'm not much concerned with them lowering prices on artists I like. I just don't want any of my hard-earned money going to support some crap which I try very hard to avoid. I'd gladly pay more for my music, movies, and TV if I knew that none of that money was going to support crap, and instead was supporting only artists that I choose to support. That is why I buy directly from an artist's personal site whenever I can. I'm not a very sharing person when it comes to adding to the riches of acts like tittany, half-dollar, or P dipshit.
The sad part is; there are some good artists out there that just happen to be a part of the whole RIAA machine and will therefore not get any of my money. Their loss.
Yeah, that could work well. Especially since the crowd who buys the most popular stuff also generally believes in, "if it cost more it must be the best." The music co. and Apple could really rake it in. That would sure help to subsidize my music interest.
I'll gladly pay less to listen to my more obscure favorites.
There are a lot of hack "tech support genius" guys on the radio. They all suck and stay the stupidest shit.
Excellent post. Might I add that the hacks now include gals too? My dad used to watch Leo all the time. This is where I first learned of Tech TV. Not long ago I was telling him about Leo's podcast, in case he might be interested in downloading a few. He replied that he now listened to some woman on the radio for his tech fix. I came home and looked up who he was listening to and was mortified after hearing about 10 minutes of what Kim Kamando spews on her show. http://www.komando.com/
I'm thinking about buying dad an iPod and loading it with stuff from IT conversations just so I can cure him of his (hopefully) temporary dementia.
Leo's show is definitely good for the beginners and the average user, as others have mentioned. Plus, he's far from a MS fan boy. But what I really miss are some of the other short-lived shows like Big Thinkers, Silicon Spin, Beyond Tomorrow, Cyber Crime, and the ZDTV News. These shows were something I could sit down and tune in to. Despite a few obnoxious hosts, it was nice to see more than sound bites and press releases on tech topics. There just aren't any other shows on TV that do more than casually mention the topics these shows used to dig into. I'm willing to bet their coverage of the recent worm would have been at least intelligible.
That and I still think Erica Hill is one of the brightest talking heads on TV. Too bad she was abducted by CNN at such an early age.
This begs the question - how many "smart" virus writers just assume another persons identity to commit these acts, intentionally throwing the blame/investigation elsewhere. Know your enemies better than your friends.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted this NG article in the previous story so it's a dupe, but a damn eerie one.
the parent's post is informative, unlike the GP's post which appears to have been written just to grind an axe.
Here you go. Bonus points for looking like a haker^W hiker.
Good point but any vehicle with a trunk is probably just a little too large to leave next to his desk. I think his lack of space is at work, not home.
Looks like you should start warning your descendents.
now get off my lawn!
[When googling for expresso] I get mostly software related stuff
That's a big problem with software developers and marketers trying to choose cool names for their stuff.
Oh, how I miss the days when java was coffee, expresso was bitter coffee, latte was bitter coffee with steamed milk, and Postum was still a mystery.
100 years from now kids are going to wonder why we named tasty caffine beverages after some crappy internet software.
But sometimes the energy invested pays off handsomely.
Apple's laughing all the way to the bank and they didn't even come up with the word podcasting.
this is just further proving that podcasting is enhancing free speech
While I agree that any self-published medium can be a good tool for free speech; I must say that the only thing worse than reading the drivel spewed by most "free speech activist" is hearing their whiny, annoying voices. Thank god we haven't "advanced" far enough for slashdot to offer audio comments.
I believe they've been locked out of the cage. Which only means one thing - they're now on the loose!
Could this event be the one that shows people how much Podcasting can replace traditional broadcasting?
Sure, it could - but once the journalists realize they can't make enough money to eat, they'll all turn around to bash it as a mindless, useless medium, with no journalistic integrity. Oh, wait...
Every idiot and their dog might have a live journal, but can they produce Internet radio?
Short answer - yes and yes.
As new apps are developed to make podcasting easier, the same thing will happen to podcasting. But you knew that already. I'll be moving along now...
Amazing comments coming from someone who lists their smurf^W blog in their sig and under their UID.
Blogging is like the word "smurf".
Of *course* blogging is important if you label every fucking thing on the web "a blog".
Why can't we get over all these stupid meta-blogging articles, and realise that it's just fucking "content creation by individuals" and it doesn't need a fucking name.
You seem upset that a simple label has been applied to sites such as those linked above, yet you don't offer any better alternatives. Sorry, "content creation by individuals" is much too long to be useful in most situations. As silly as the term blog is to me, and as silly as I think the media is for "reporting" on blogging, I don't see any reason to get testy about it. It's like ranting about all tissues being referred to as Kleenex, or all MP3 players being called iPods, or even using google as a verb. Silly? Perhaps. But not likely to change now that it's in common use.
What? Can you repeat that? I couldn't hear you.
Ok, I'm going to drop this and chalk it up to semantics.
;)
Before I leave it however, I'd like to make a deal with you. I'll gladly pass along any hopeful filters I come across. You, being so clued to Apple's momentum, should be able to tell me when they're about to tank so I can dump their stock. If you have Apple that firmly in your sights, I'm going to start calling you William Tell.
I thought the oldest profession was gardening?
Nah, I asked Jeeves and he couldn't find anything about gardening. He said he was pretty sure hunter gatherers were well practiced in the oldest profession before anyone cultivated land.
While I occasionally find the ads coming off of search results useful, I've never seen anything in gmail that was remotely helpful.
Half joking but half serious - I'm not sure what kind of ads you're seeing in gmail, but the quality of those ads could simply be due to the content of said emails. Not all Adsense words are helpful and not everyone who's helpful buys Adsense words. I have noticed that spammers are sending email which contains words they likely have purchased Adsense words for. They're hoping the Google ad may get you to click even if they can't get you to click through the email.
While I don't disagree with your observations, I'd like to point out that advertising is the oldest profession on earth (in a chicken/egg sort of way with the other oldest profession) and that targeted advertising becomes even more important as online services become more competitive and are utilized by more of the general public. Advertising is a lucrative business no mater how much we hate it.
Google appears to be the current winner in online advertising and will likely continue to take a larger percentage of ad revenue, especially as more and more people filter out the annoying junk ads. In the least, I think they will force a number of their competitors to change the way they present ads. In the mean time Google's revenue should continue to climb.
Also, as they continue to develop the multitude of applications they have, I sense they will find ways to link almost every one of them in an easy to use interface and most likely start to offer paid variants of some of those services. They already do this with Search and Google Earth and could easily do the same with Talk. I don't think I've seen an single evening news broadcast in the 6 months that hasn't used Keyhole, so there's definitely a revenue stream coming in from that app.
Advertising started it all for Google, but they have lots of opportunity left. And the bubble burst had nothing to do with having advertising as a business model. It had everything to do with just plain bad business models.
I have to wonder if you have it backwards.
Given the way our society works, I won't deny that I don't. I even said in another post that I'm ok with the big guys subsidizing my interests. It's something I battle with internally and I don't think there's ever an easy answer which won't contradict with at least one of my views. The only certainty I have about the current situation is that I won't buy anything from mega labels, if I can help it.
I'm a big supporter of the talented underdog; always have been. This applies to artists, athletes and others. People who perform/play because they love what they do are much more interesting to me than people who only want the attention/money that celebrity status brings. My comments generally reflect the disdain I have for talented people who; once they become popular, start to pander to the business just for the sake of attracting more publicity. I've spent much of my life admiring talented niche artists, athletes, and public servants only to watch them become popular and then deteriorate into media-whores in front of me. Fortunately, a rare few remain true to their origins and carry on with their profession as humble as when they entered it. Those folks earn publicity and wealth but also respect and admiration. My favorite recent examples are not musicians but rather athletes; Mia Hamm, Cal Ripken Jr. and Lance Armstrong.
Of course I have no respect for those who lack real talent of any kind, yet still manage to attract millions away from the struggling artists. Artists who just love what they do but are not flashy enough to succeed in our society. Thankfully the internet offers us the ability to find good content and appears to be closing the gap.
Never thought I'd be posting on this subject at slashdot.
Infertility does not mean the same thing as erectile dysfunction. Nor does it mean you have your genitals removed. May I suggest some reading on the subject? http://www.ihr.com/infertility/male.html
There are many things that can cause ED yet leave a man perfectly fertile. There are also many infertile men with perfectly normal libidos and penile function.
As a man with perfectly normal libido and penile function, all I can say is there have been many, many times when I wished I were infertile - back in the day, before Fear Factor was a silly TV show.
I'm not much concerned with them lowering prices on artists I like. I just don't want any of my hard-earned money going to support some crap which I try very hard to avoid. I'd gladly pay more for my music, movies, and TV if I knew that none of that money was going to support crap, and instead was supporting only artists that I choose to support. That is why I buy directly from an artist's personal site whenever I can. I'm not a very sharing person when it comes to adding to the riches of acts like tittany, half-dollar, or P dipshit.
The sad part is; there are some good artists out there that just happen to be a part of the whole RIAA machine and will therefore not get any of my money. Their loss.
Yeah, that could work well. Especially since the crowd who buys the most popular stuff also generally believes in, "if it cost more it must be the best." The music co. and Apple could really rake it in. That would sure help to subsidize my music interest.
I'll gladly pay less to listen to my more obscure favorites.
I agree. Let all the rabid pop fans pay to support the ridiculous amount of promotion money and bling thrown at their idols.
There are a lot of hack "tech support genius" guys on the radio. They all suck and stay the stupidest shit.
Excellent post. Might I add that the hacks now include gals too? My dad used to watch Leo all the time. This is where I first learned of Tech TV. Not long ago I was telling him about Leo's podcast, in case he might be interested in downloading a few. He replied that he now listened to some woman on the radio for his tech fix. I came home and looked up who he was listening to and was mortified after hearing about 10 minutes of what Kim Kamando spews on her show. http://www.komando.com/
I'm thinking about buying dad an iPod and loading it with stuff from IT conversations just so I can cure him of his (hopefully) temporary dementia.
Leo's show is definitely good for the beginners and the average user, as others have mentioned. Plus, he's far from a MS fan boy. But what I really miss are some of the other short-lived shows like Big Thinkers, Silicon Spin, Beyond Tomorrow, Cyber Crime, and the ZDTV News. These shows were something I could sit down and tune in to. Despite a few obnoxious hosts, it was nice to see more than sound bites and press releases on tech topics. There just aren't any other shows on TV that do more than casually mention the topics these shows used to dig into. I'm willing to bet their coverage of the recent worm would have been at least intelligible.
That and I still think Erica Hill is one of the brightest talking heads on TV. Too bad she was abducted by CNN at such an early age.
This begs the question - how many "smart" virus writers just assume another persons identity to commit these acts, intentionally throwing the blame/investigation elsewhere. Know your enemies better than your friends.