So you'd rather that no one was allowed to report on any news until it had been sanitised and given some official seal of approval?
Please tell me where I said that. The rest of your argument is based on that premise, which is incorrect.
My point was not that anything should be sanitized, but that the sensationalist so-called journalism we have today does have consequences. Nothing more or less.
In one 15 minute news segment that I watched today, I counted 23 uses of the word "terror". Over the course of an hour, they had non-stop live reporting - but told us basically the same basic known *facts* - there were three of them - and filled the rest of the time with speculation and fear-mongering.
Among the patients discussing this in the doctor's office I was in today (that's why i got force-fed an hour of this crap), the consensus was that the increased police presence that we'll be seeing in several major cities was a good thing, and that those Muslims (wtf? speculation - based only on a 'what if' scenario in the NBC 'news' coverage) deserved whatever they got.
My favorite part of that segment was when they had a child psychologist come on to tell parents not to continually expose their children to images from the attack - while looping video from the attack in a sidebar next to her head.
The only thing you need to do to see the harm of such 'journalism' is open your eyes.
This a thousand times.
I was in the doctor's office today and watched over an hour of "breaking live news" in which we learned:
- bombs went off
- injuries and deaths
- speculation
- speculation
- FEAR
- speculation
- TERROR
- speculation
- TERROR SECURITY INCREASED IN MAJOR CITIES
- speculation
Then we repeated the above in a loop. And were continuing to do so when I left. I counted at least 23 uses of the word "terror" in one 15 minute segment, including the new and popular "terror event".
The noise from twitter and the noise from blogs and the noise from news -it's all the same. And people drink it up.
But Web!
Everything web!
Why make an actual desktop application with an integrated and responsive UI when you can use Web! For everything!
Which means Windows and OSX.
They will not make a linux or BSD plugin, had they wanted to stream to those platforms it would have already happened.
Yea, makes a lot of sense
Eh? If silverlight is going away as it seems to be, it's nothing to do with a business strategy - they need to be able to continue to support their service. In addition, I expect they received a fair penny from MS to use Silverlight, and it's quite possible that the specified time on that particular contract is coming to an end.
As far as other platform support: don't look for it anytime soon no matter what tech they go with. There simply is no return on investment for them to maintain and support a service for such a small portion of their user base - especially when you consider partner agreements that are likely rather restrictive in terms of DRM requirements.
A lot, since TPB does not serve the video.
I think that was kind of his point in response to the poster who said that it was easy to download hq video from TPB...
If you think porn has nothing to do with nerds, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.
Not sure if survival is what they are trying to do, more like mitigating the damage and hoping there is something left afterwards.
Which is a fancy way of saying survival, in this context.
Too, they're going to have a hard time avoiding criminal charges if the allegations have merit.
The subconscious works at a level beneath rational thought.
It does not require one to be stupid to suffer such an 'affliction' as this - merely susceptible to suggestion at the subconscious level. Where rational thinking and filtering need not apply.
'Could' isn't the same as 'did'. I can speculate just as well as the next slashdotter. Mars could have done all sorts of things.
Whew, good thing we had you to point that out for us!
Or they could sell subscriptions (to readers) and syndication rights (to other newspapers, and aggregators like Google). Presumably the original content has value. I'd be suspicious if the content was supposed valuable, but nobody but advertisers was actually willing to pay for it.
You mean syndicate to sites that present the content and slather it with their own ads?
For the most part it's not the ads. If they're not blinking or obnoxious I can live with them.
It's the tracking intrinsic to the ads that are the problem.
Use a service that allows you to host the ads on your own servers, so that I know the only person collecting my data is the site that I'm visiting.
Right, but one really big external monitor + laptop screen + big or medium sized external monitor would be even better... Moving my head and eyes doesn't bother me on a horizontal plane - organizing the monitor content correctly makes it efficient.
Cool, thanks! Hopefully my job will upgrade me soonish, I'd love to use both of my large-screen displays + laptop.
If you need me screen real estate, buy another screen. This ain't hard
Unless you're on a macbook. Which for practical purposes limits you to one external monitor. (Yes USB solutions exist, but so far they suck IMO.) That's for the 2011 mbp - maybe they fixed this shortcoming in the 2012 model?
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.
