Somehow I doubt that mobile magazines will go anywhere. They're worthless on a desktop browser or a small phone. Tablet's are their best chance, but I really think they'll have to do something novel for it to matter. However, I think the truth is readers are moving away from one source for multiple sources of information, just like music. Why buy an entire album when you really just want one track? With articles and news, even in one sitting session, why limit your focus to one distributor of reading material when a twitter, rss feed or whatever will give you many sources that you can quickly flip through? Even in our local market, well over half of the traffic to our news site is from aggregators and search. As opposed to people who come straight to the site just to see what only we have to offer. I'd guess that that ratio will only increase.
Regardless of the utility of the social aspects of RockMelt, I'm mostly not on board because I like it when I barely even notice my browser. It's really not my focus when I'm browsing the web and I don't want it to be. Chrome is doing it right at the moment. Minimal gui 'chrome', even the kicker bottom on the bottom is gone, which is nice. If you mouseover a URL only then does any semblage of a kicker panel appear. With the direction JS and specifically libraries like JQuery are taking things, who needs clunky web browser based enhancements!
God dammnit you're right, it's the pharmaceutical industry! This is incident is going into my gaming rant blog AND my conspiracy newsletter... and don't think I won't write a strongly worded letter to the pharmaceutical companies, I will.
I remember being so confused about the Pluto controversy. Maybe it's just because I'm not an astronomy nerd but I don't understand the uproar about correcting a miss-classification of a heavenly body... I remember Neil Desgrasse Tyson on the Colbert Report chiming in that it was just a simple fact. Any of you astronomy nerds reading that could explain the emotional reaction? (Not to assume, was it astronomy nerds that were upset? Maybe it was Astrology people that were upset.)
Point taken, I agree that it wasn't right to do. But if he had broken into some random persons email would it have been a year sentence? And if the fact that it's a political figure matters that much this seems more like political disobedience than purely malicious intent. Though I admit I have no idea what his intent was. Sending the evidence to wikileaks would have at least looked more politically motivated. Finally, to your point that I was 'wrong bout everything', if he had burned the computer correctly that would have been more effective that his method and he may have successfully hidden the evidence.
That's really hard to say... I feel like the rational reasons not to go on a murderous rampage are *more* of a reason than the fear of punishment. But is fear subconciously the true driver, regardlesss? Who knows?
That's a long time for making such a small mistake... There's got to be some sort of easily phrased lesson to be learned here. "If you're going to anger politically powerful people, do it anonymously" ?
He should have sent all the data he found to wiki leaks then burned his computer.
That's actually a really good point, I'm not a horror movie buff or anything but I do really enjoy some fear inducing activities. I went sky diving a couple years back and it was really incredible. Interestingly though, I don't remember feeling any fear or nervousness during the experience because of a combination of things. I think I knew rationally that there was minimal danger and I also happened to be going through a bad break-up and up until the moment I was falling It was pretty much the only thing on my mind. I wonder if I would still have enjoyed the experience without the ability to feel fear.
Hmm, being a vegetable would probably be pretty stress free but I don't think I've ever considered a carrot bold... well, unless it's used as an ingrediant in a spicy carrot cake.
That's a good point, they probably would be bolder and have less stress. I wonder if they might also end up dead faster from bad judgements; like attempting things they're unskilled at that have large negative outcomes (driving on an icy road, attacking a mugger without training or a weapon)? What I would love to see is a drug that lets you suppress a dose-Dependant chunk of your fear for a period of time. Would that still allow you to instinctively protect yourself while letting you take fairly consequence free risks?
Exactly, that would be incredibly interesting to find out about. And being able to lessen fear response instead of removing it would mitigate risk for the individual.
See, I wonder about this idea. I understand your point and it's true that I would feel fear at the idea of slapping someone I was mad at but I don't think that's the reason I restrain myself. There's plenty of rational reasons not to run into the middle of the street or slap your boss. This argument kind of reminds me of the religious argument that without a god giving laws there's no reason to be moral or lawful, when in my opinion there are many rational reasons for both. (I'm not trying to lump you in with religious folks or start a religion flameware here, though)
Now, whether or not the rational reasons would truly not push me in the right direction I can't say, I've never had the benefit of the experience of having zero fear.
I wonder if the repercussions of removing the amygdala completely would be catastrophic to the person. In a society where we don't necessarily have direct predators, would a fearless person be more bold and have less stress? I wouldn't mind a boost in either of those traits.:)
Haha, right, I remember reading at least two articles a written a couple years apart that had that same estimate... True or false, repeating that same estimated release date for a technology over multiple years is a good sign that the tech is on track?
I think they're going to need a suitable power source before this is useful in the field. When are nanotubes going to bring that huge battery increase I keep hearing about?!
Erm, like, a specific scenario? What if power stopped flowing through the lines you were leeching from. Or if you needed to go to multiple places and didn't have an infinite number of Bat-Hook power line taps. Or if the country that you invaded had a super strict home owners association and after they saw your hap-hazard bat hook hanging from their power lines you got a written warning with the possibility of a steep fine if you didn't take it down in the requisite amount of time.
This is about as much as I knew of the story, I'd read Arrington's devastated, public announcement (which seemed fishy to me) and tomshardware.com's covering of the story. I also remember lady ada being interested in the story and being dissapointed by the news, along with some insight from a hardware manufacturers perspective about why it may have failed. But I'm really curious about the conflict between Arrington and the fusion garage folks. What actually happened there?! I think I'll just make peace with the idea that I'll never know.... riiiiight now! Moving on.
Why would the military perform a missile launch to beat their chest then deny that they did it? XD
This news is going to be devastating to conspiracy theorists. No wait, denial and facts fuel that fire, nevermind.
To demonstrate that not only they can kill you, thet can do it in front of everyone and nobody will even see anything but boring daily routine, and will poke fun at anyone seeing otherwise.
Wait... wait? Assuming this is a big conspiracy, if the government successfully explains away a missile as a plane it becomes boring, yes. Just what explanation are they going to come up with that will turn the news of the destruction of china into a ho-hum, boring old news story?...
Googling doesn't really turn up any behind the scenes account of this story. What really happened? Somehow, Arrington's version of the story smells a lot like half-truths. If there are any insiders reading the/. comments, there's no need to wait for VH1 to come out with a crappy new show about the background behind failed business ventures, where comedians past the peak of their career work furiously to humorize angry chat logs and second rate re-enactments, go ahead and blab it all anonymously here... Oh, also, if VH1 is reading and you like that idea; just remember where it came from. We'll call it 'behind the silicon valley business deals', then we'll send me a royalty check.
I wonder if that UN Ambassador feels silly about his comment that it was probably a display of power aimed at asian nations... Why would the military perform a missile launch to beat their chest then deny that they did it? XD
This news is going to be devastating to conspiracy theorists. No wait, denial and facts fuel that fire, nevermind.
Slashdot Mirror
'digital magazine' even mean? How is ti different then a topic focused website or blog?
Would http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ be considered a 'digital magazine'?
No, this is what they're talking about: wired, adobe collaboration on a digital magazine It's basically what it sounds like, a digital version of a magazine format.
Somehow I doubt that mobile magazines will go anywhere. They're worthless on a desktop browser or a small phone. Tablet's are their best chance, but I really think they'll have to do something novel for it to matter. However, I think the truth is readers are moving away from one source for multiple sources of information, just like music. Why buy an entire album when you really just want one track? With articles and news, even in one sitting session, why limit your focus to one distributor of reading material when a twitter, rss feed or whatever will give you many sources that you can quickly flip through? Even in our local market, well over half of the traffic to our news site is from aggregators and search. As opposed to people who come straight to the site just to see what only we have to offer. I'd guess that that ratio will only increase.
Regardless of the utility of the social aspects of RockMelt, I'm mostly not on board because I like it when I barely even notice my browser. It's really not my focus when I'm browsing the web and I don't want it to be. Chrome is doing it right at the moment. Minimal gui 'chrome', even the kicker bottom on the bottom is gone, which is nice. If you mouseover a URL only then does any semblage of a kicker panel appear. With the direction JS and specifically libraries like JQuery are taking things, who needs clunky web browser based enhancements!
God dammnit you're right, it's the pharmaceutical industry! This is incident is going into my gaming rant blog AND my conspiracy newsletter... and don't think I won't write a strongly worded letter to the pharmaceutical companies, I will.
The tragedy of the situation is, duke nukem cures cancer... but no one will ever benefit from that. :(
Hey that's a pretty good guess.
I remember being so confused about the Pluto controversy. Maybe it's just because I'm not an astronomy nerd but I don't understand the uproar about correcting a miss-classification of a heavenly body... I remember Neil Desgrasse Tyson on the Colbert Report chiming in that it was just a simple fact. Any of you astronomy nerds reading that could explain the emotional reaction? (Not to assume, was it astronomy nerds that were upset? Maybe it was Astrology people that were upset.)
Poke a cat with a stick you might get scratched. Poke a tiger with stick and you'll prove validity in Darwinism.
Nice, there it is.
Point taken, I agree that it wasn't right to do. But if he had broken into some random persons email would it have been a year sentence? And if the fact that it's a political figure matters that much this seems more like political disobedience than purely malicious intent. Though I admit I have no idea what his intent was. Sending the evidence to wikileaks would have at least looked more politically motivated. Finally, to your point that I was 'wrong bout everything', if he had burned the computer correctly that would have been more effective that his method and he may have successfully hidden the evidence.
That's really hard to say... I feel like the rational reasons not to go on a murderous rampage are *more* of a reason than the fear of punishment. But is fear subconciously the true driver, regardlesss? Who knows?
That's a long time for making such a small mistake... There's got to be some sort of easily phrased lesson to be learned here. "If you're going to anger politically powerful people, do it anonymously" ? He should have sent all the data he found to wiki leaks then burned his computer.
That's actually a really good point, I'm not a horror movie buff or anything but I do really enjoy some fear inducing activities. I went sky diving a couple years back and it was really incredible. Interestingly though, I don't remember feeling any fear or nervousness during the experience because of a combination of things. I think I knew rationally that there was minimal danger and I also happened to be going through a bad break-up and up until the moment I was falling It was pretty much the only thing on my mind. I wonder if I would still have enjoyed the experience without the ability to feel fear.
Hmm, being a vegetable would probably be pretty stress free but I don't think I've ever considered a carrot bold... well, unless it's used as an ingrediant in a spicy carrot cake.
That's a good point, they probably would be bolder and have less stress. I wonder if they might also end up dead faster from bad judgements; like attempting things they're unskilled at that have large negative outcomes (driving on an icy road, attacking a mugger without training or a weapon)? What I would love to see is a drug that lets you suppress a dose-Dependant chunk of your fear for a period of time. Would that still allow you to instinctively protect yourself while letting you take fairly consequence free risks?
Exactly, that would be incredibly interesting to find out about. And being able to lessen fear response instead of removing it would mitigate risk for the individual.
See, I wonder about this idea. I understand your point and it's true that I would feel fear at the idea of slapping someone I was mad at but I don't think that's the reason I restrain myself. There's plenty of rational reasons not to run into the middle of the street or slap your boss. This argument kind of reminds me of the religious argument that without a god giving laws there's no reason to be moral or lawful, when in my opinion there are many rational reasons for both. (I'm not trying to lump you in with religious folks or start a religion flameware here, though) Now, whether or not the rational reasons would truly not push me in the right direction I can't say, I've never had the benefit of the experience of having zero fear.
I wonder if the repercussions of removing the amygdala completely would be catastrophic to the person. In a society where we don't necessarily have direct predators, would a fearless person be more bold and have less stress? I wouldn't mind a boost in either of those traits. :)
Haha, right, I remember reading at least two articles a written a couple years apart that had that same estimate... True or false, repeating that same estimated release date for a technology over multiple years is a good sign that the tech is on track?
It kind of sounds like Oracle is shooting themselves in the foot with these suits against google...
I think they're going to need a suitable power source before this is useful in the field. When are nanotubes going to bring that huge battery increase I keep hearing about?!
Why would you take it down?
Erm, like, a specific scenario? What if power stopped flowing through the lines you were leeching from. Or if you needed to go to multiple places and didn't have an infinite number of Bat-Hook power line taps. Or if the country that you invaded had a super strict home owners association and after they saw your hap-hazard bat hook hanging from their power lines you got a written warning with the possibility of a steep fine if you didn't take it down in the requisite amount of time.
This is about as much as I knew of the story, I'd read Arrington's devastated, public announcement (which seemed fishy to me) and tomshardware.com's covering of the story. I also remember lady ada being interested in the story and being dissapointed by the news, along with some insight from a hardware manufacturers perspective about why it may have failed. But I'm really curious about the conflict between Arrington and the fusion garage folks. What actually happened there?! I think I'll just make peace with the idea that I'll never know.... riiiiight now! Moving on.
Good point, which make this story all the more mysterious.
Why would the military perform a missile launch to beat their chest then deny that they did it? XD This news is going to be devastating to conspiracy theorists. No wait, denial and facts fuel that fire, nevermind.
To demonstrate that not only they can kill you, thet can do it in front of everyone and nobody will even see anything but boring daily routine, and will poke fun at anyone seeing otherwise.
Wait... wait? Assuming this is a big conspiracy, if the government successfully explains away a missile as a plane it becomes boring, yes. Just what explanation are they going to come up with that will turn the news of the destruction of china into a ho-hum, boring old news story?...
Googling doesn't really turn up any behind the scenes account of this story. What really happened? Somehow, Arrington's version of the story smells a lot like half-truths. If there are any insiders reading the /. comments, there's no need to wait for VH1 to come out with a crappy new show about the background behind failed business ventures, where comedians past the peak of their career work furiously to humorize angry chat logs and second rate re-enactments, go ahead and blab it all anonymously here... Oh, also, if VH1 is reading and you like that idea; just remember where it came from. We'll call it 'behind the silicon valley business deals', then we'll send me a royalty check.
I wonder if that UN Ambassador feels silly about his comment that it was probably a display of power aimed at asian nations... Why would the military perform a missile launch to beat their chest then deny that they did it? XD This news is going to be devastating to conspiracy theorists. No wait, denial and facts fuel that fire, nevermind.