Incidentally, what's up with the obvious photoshop job in the accompanying image? It looks like a chorus line.
*update* - it seems they've swapped the image out for a more sensible one. The original is here.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The battle of the graphs provides a learning opportunity says "American Elephants", and indeed it does, though possibly not in the way they're thinking.
I haven't been able to clearly identify the source of this image (which is the reason for this post: I'll show you how far back I've managed to…
One of the arguments I generally make about Web 2.0 is that, if you are an organization who happens to screw up, you should apologize and move on. Don't try to cover your tracks or shut your critics up - you'll just invite mockery and even more attention than you did before.
Unfortunately, Ralph…
In our front yard we've got a busy nest of Pogonomyrmex rugosus seed harvesting ants. Warming weather brought them out for the first time last week, and every now and again I go out to see what they're up to. Lots of digging, it seems.
Pogonomyrmex is greek for "Bearded Ant", named 150 years ago…
The blogosphere is abuzz with reports about a new initiative by commercial scholarly publishers to discredit the open access movement.
Prism describes itself as an organization to "protect the quality of scientific research", which it hopes to do by opposing policies "that threaten to introduce…
Oh my... did they just clone the same ant thrice and add a new leaf to each?
*
This photo would've been much nicer with two, no wait!, three ants!!
...but I can't be bothered to go out looking for them...
hmm..
I wonder what this 'Clone-tool' does?...
O M G !
No-one will notice a thing..
I'M BRILLIANT!
*
tsk tsk honestly...
I don't know if I should laugh or cry or explode into hysterics about that photo. Wow--and not in a good way. No one at the WSJ noticed that all three ants had the same exact pose and posture, the same shadow and light, the same everything? They should be embarrassed that they tried to sell that pathetic image as if it's real, and Getty should be horrified that it cheaply proffered a deceptively false commodity.
To be fair, Getty's website lists the photo as a "digital composite". It's more a question of why WSJ chose to use a doctored photo instead of one of the many undoctored leafcutter shots available.