If you think the telcos aren't going to suck at the federal teat for all they're worth, it's you that's a fucking retard.
the usa has much better free speech protections than russia
free speech leads to a populace that has a healthier critical eye than citizens in countries where few alternative narratives are allowed
russian government, by controlling media, is breeding flabby, uncritical russian minds
of course there are still critical russian minds. of course there are flabby propagandized americans. but on average, the usa does better than russia on this measure, because russian government's hostile attitude to alternative perspectives
is fox news a product of the us govt? are competing news outlets shut down, harassed, or absorbed?
According to Wikipedia, they employ 47,000 screeners. I don't know what those jobs you linked to are, but the first one is to a cargo company.
You'll need to back that assertion up. They are federal employees with federal benefits.
Until 30 years later when you realize you have to pay pensions...
Yep. I had just an antenna and was happy with it. And then I started following a local sports team. And for that reason alone I got cable TV. I would give it up tomorrow if I could just buy the games I wanted to watch a la carte. You can usually buy a special sports package for out of market games and then use a VPN to convince the servers you really are out of market, but I don't want to have to fool with that. Can't you just let me buy the games? Please????
That is really the last reason to have cable TV -- live sports.
the target of wiretaps does not have to be linked to a foreign power or terrorism.
I thought the point of the NSA was that they were meant to protect domestic communications from external threats. If the target is not linked to external threats, how can it be justified?
With the demise of tvtorrents.com, I got tired of trying to find TV episodes online and went back to IPTV with a PVR. Sure there are other sites where I could have gotten the content, but tvtorrents.com had made it easy to follow a show instead of searching through a bunch of bogus torrents that you have to actually watch to know if you got a legit episode or not.
The torrent sites are too full of fake crap nowadays to be worth the hassle. Well, maybe "fake" is too strong a word: shittily transcoded might be better.
For all *you* care. But thousands of other people (and a growing number at that) watch the videos. Is it okay if we run a few video pieces for them? Please? Maybe three or four a week? We'd appreciate it. Thx
The first I heard of memristors was in the mid '80s. I don't recall if it was HP or someone else ballyhooing them, though.
You didn't think the government was going to give up their addiction to surveillance crack that easily, did you?
Wow. I would *love* to have budget to turn out 23-minute scripted, animated videos. That would be GREAT!
These videos are "Meet the Press" style on purpose. They exist to let you see some of the people behind the software, stories, and hardware they (or their companies) make. Steven, for instance, is one of the world's more popular tech journalists. Next time you see his byline, you can mentally call up his image. You may not want to do that, but others obviously do; thousands of people watch
I agree with you about charts and graphs, up to a point. And people who have some sort of device or whatever should have a working model to show off. Otherwise, it's like my favorite PR pet peeve: Sending out a press release about a google glass look-sort-of-alike thing that is only a display and saying, "...I would love to schedule an interview for you with a Vufine team member." Instead of a review unit? Come on!
This is not a hypothetical situation. It's a press release I got today from this company: http://www.vufine.com/
Obviously, a hands-on test of an eyeglass-mount projector would be more informative than either a video or text interview -- and more fun for me, too. Why didn't they offer a test unit? Not to keep, of course. Just for a few days. Hmm?
Back to the talking head syndrome. I've made a lot of screencap videos, TV news shorts, online ad videos, TV spots, and a few music videos. So yeah, I can do fairly complex video work. 30 cuts in a 60 second piece? Sure. I've done that. BUT here we're sharing information, and a lot of it is pretty dry. We have no budget for motion video or animation, either. I could have included some shots of Steven's articles and pics of TV antennas, cableco logos, and other pieces of "visual interest." If you and a bunch of others feel the extra work/time/money is worthwhile, I'm happy to do that in future videos.
There's a whole other reason for videos of people talking: You know they're not being misquoted. Raw source material protects you against reporters changing meanings or opinions. I've been the misquoted person more than once, and I didn't like it. Even in a case like today's, where we ran a 4 minute video and 20 minutes' worth of text transcript, you can reasonably (and correctly) assume that I have the rest of the interview on a hard drive somewhere. Accuracy insurance.
Audio only? Be my guest! Listen to this video's audio on your smartphone while driving if you like. 100% up to you. But if it was sound only, you wouldn't have the option of watching the video. I was talking with someone else today about video vs. audio podcasts. His company did audio casts for a while, but he says they got a lot more response when they switched to video. And they do *not* provide transcripts.
A lot of this discussion falls into the "can't please everyone" category. Some people prefer watching people talk to reading what they say. (I'm a reader, myself.) But some people prefer visual information intake. Not you, obviously -- which is okay. Read the transcripts, don't watch or listen to the videos.
Last note: You said, "(I need to point out that anyone can grab a camera and record someone talking for ten minutes. What makes Slashdot better than all the YouTube teenagers who do this for their HS project? You have the intent, time, and money to do this. Do it right, then learn to do it well.)"
Geez! You're big on catching flies with vinegar, aren't you?
BUT if making simple videos is all that easy, why have we only gotten *one* usable video actually submitted by a Slashdot reader - ever? And it was over an hour long, and our management now wants our videos to be under 5 minutes. So we ran an excerpt of the guy's video and provided a link to the full-length version at his (non-commercial) site.
I have a guy who offered himself up for an interview because he though his product was better than one we did a video about. He does some interesting stuff I'm sure at least some
Do you have a video you want to run on Slashdot? Or a topic suggestion? Happy to check them out. Use the usual submission bin or email robin at roblimo dot com.
It has been a very long time since I bought a "latest and greatest" chip when building a new computer, because 2-3 revisions old still has many times the performance of the machine it's replacing and far more "snort" than I could ever use on day-to-day activities.
With any luck, this announcement and release will bring the price down on the chips I want by another $100 or so by January-February, when I hope to actually be building a new machine.
The bleeding edge is fine for gamers and hard-core video encoders and number crunchers, but for the rest of us folks, it is just an insane waste of money to buy the "latest and greatest." It's been a lot of years since anyone needed to do that for anything even vaguely resembling sane home or business use.