Slashdot Mirror

or they can find another party with "Donate" button AND Google ads

The GOP has Google ads and a Donate page. I suppose you may reply and be pedantic and say that the button text is "Contribute" rather than donate, but the text "Complete the form below to make a donation." makes it pretty clear that the action is considered a "donation".

The British Conservative Party uses Google ads and they have a Donate page. The text "Why Donate?" "Make a donation" makes it obvious that this is considered a donation.

And that was just the first two that I checked, I'm sure you can find more examples.

Also, from The Fine Article, it appears that Google is being inconsistent:

the Greens candidate in the state by-election, Cathy Oke, has ads running on Google despite having multiple donate buttons on her web page. "We've sent them screenshots of the donate buttons on the ALP and the Greens sites and they've allowed all of those ads to run," she said. Google said in an email to Patten, seen by this website, that it "doesn't allow the solicitation of funds (donations) unless they're tax exempt". The Sex Party is an Australian political party and so, according to the ATO, donations are tax deductible. The party specifies this on its website.

why blame Microsoft? Have they been knowing for astroturfing here before?

Just a little...

http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg01529.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/27/microsoft_ie8_chain_letter/
http://www.1pstart.com/mercury-news-writer-accuses-microsoft-of-bribery/
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/87901
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57345892-94/microsoft-nokia-linked-to-comments-on-negative-lumia-review/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://linkprimer.com/internet-marketing/microsoft-encourages-reputation-management
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t568832-microsoft-well-take-the-astroturf-supreme-please.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/smallbusiness/30reputation.html?_r=1
http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1698666/microsoft-tests-social-media-monitoring-product
http://www.informationweek.com/news/220200062
etc
etc
etc
etc

I believe the first idea they had was farming out their search services to places like Yahoo -- which iirc was their first deal. When that didn't keep the VCs happy, they gradually became more advertising oriented and never looked back. So I don't think they had a plan to make money to start with, which is why I initially took issue with the original post when I read it.

That is roughly correct. Of course they always planned to make money, they just didn't know how at first, and the idea you mentioned was a big flop for reasons I won't get into. See here for the more or less accidental way they hit it rich.

posting anon to save mods in thread, but i would not say most people had mp3 players prior to the original ipod, i would say those who had them were early adopters and geeks like us. i still remember peoples jaws dropping in middle school when i showed them one for the first time. here is a good link from 2005 where rates were still in the 15-25% http://www.clickz.com/clickz/stats/1695501/ipod-mp3-player-adoption-at-tipping-point

It's obvious that Mozilla wants to get on Google's good side. They are making tons of money from having partnered with them to direct search bar quieries to google. Mozilla's money people must have realized that the more URLs they force-redirect and the earlier they vow to remove raw (Google-less) browsing, the more revenue and long-term partnerships they'll forge with Google: Collusion at its best

Google is scared that people will remain on their portal for less, and they're trying to make everything redirect go to their site. Each search firefox search opens up a whole new webpage and loads all of google's javascript trinkets and trackers. Rockmelt's implementation actually does things right: skip sidebar, disable keyboard navigation AND ADS, and just load the clicked links --superfast.

I stopped believing in my personal "relationship" with Mozilla since the Firefox's awesomebar in 3.0, and further, vowed to completely *avoid* 4.0 after more transgressions and questionable additions and release cycles have been announced, It will get harder to find a browser that is free of this corporate attraction to shininess and high revenue since the only other mainstream alternatives to Chrome and FF are closed: Opera, Safari... and back to IE. Anything else flags my browser session with on major sites with a lazy "sorry, you need a supported browser so that our CSS won't fail" message and full stop to my getting my content.

That is, you only get the "paper" if your pay the subscription... it is subscription-only.

It says nothing like that, you're making thing up. Yes it says it's a paid for subscription but it does not say ads will not be sold. You even say as much later, "they will reel in the advertisers, probably with loss-leader offerings to existing advertising customers." You say as "loss-leaders" yet I provided what Rupert Murdoch believed about ads, that they should cost even more. Higher ad prices not lower ones. In case there's questions about that let's try News Corp. Launches iPad Pub 'The Daily' With Big Brand Support which says:
"For its inaugural issue, The Daily features interactive ads from around 10 advertisers, in addition to ads for products from other News Corp. properties such as Fox. The interactivity of those ads varies from simple click-to-video executions, such as the one for upcoming Paramount Pictures movie Rango, to more involved app-like experiences like the one on display from Verizon, which enables users to view a range of content and even purchase products without leaving the application." That just the first result out of more than 16 million of googling the daily news corp ipad ads.

Falcon

It's convenient that you can block ads in web browsers. That may be on the way out.

You can't block ads on the iPad. One of the "advantages" being touted to advertisers for the closed ecosystems of the various "ereaders" and "pads" is that they can have unblockable, unskippable ads. There hasn't been much about this in the popular press yet, but it's being of great interest in the advertising community, where more "control over the user experience", and less control by the user, is desired.

You can already see a trend in this direction, with Flash-based video players which insert unskippable ads.

Yes,
  there's
  always envy among the inferior.

also children either don't have money or have no method of transfering it via the internet (no credit card unless their parents let them use it).

citation please?

according to this, kids don't seem to have any trouble spending online. Also, my wife plays some of those games on myspace/facebook and she's 30, so I don't think that's the issue. She only plays the free versions though, because we have other things we'd rather spend the money on.
There are always going to be people who bitch about the price, they'll even sign petitions to make things free because it doesn't cost them anything to try (at least in the short run). But, if the value received is reasonable, there will be those that will pay, and you will just have to determine if there are enough to support your business.
If not, then you need to come up with a new business model. Sometimes, something as simple as switching from a renewing monthly subscription to a non-renewing annual fee is enough to sway a market one way or another.

3: Information from a billboard cam is subpoenaed. ... 5: a bill to monitor the billboards. Anyone in opposition will be "soft on crime", "unwilling to monitor dangerous criminals", and "must be hiding something." 6: Sooner or later, Minority Report.

That's one of many slippery slopes (though, humorously, my slope also ends in Minority Report...)

Another that comes to mind is statistics, which have always been very integral to advertising, but Google is pushing this angle HARD. Basically, the more statistical data you have, the better you can target ads and thus the better you are at pushing products. This means that it is advantageous to the advertiser to discriminate as much as possible.

Example: figure out what brand clothes and items passers-by wear; if people who wear brand-name shoes pay more attention, you might want to put brand-name apparel on the ads. To push that even further, people who wear lots of bulky gold jewelry tend to like rap, so advertising the latest rap albums might turn more heads.

Worse example: This is not limited to your fashion; different classes, ages, and ethnic groups tend to react differently to ads, so they can decide that since there are lots of Hispanic passers-by, an ad targeting them would be logical.

If you've ever seen the ads in Minority Report , you have a pretty good glimpse into what this can do, even without figuring out exactly who you are by an implant, device, or facial recognition database: Dynamic displays that understand the nature of their viewer at any given moment would merely change the displayed ad to reflect each viewer. Multi-directional ads would be able to target multiple groups simultaneously. In addition, such things should suck people in (similar to the way television does), providing additional product-pushing and brand-building power.

To those of you who scoff at this sort of thing: don't. Targeted advertising is straight-up dangerous, even the stuff you think you successfully ignore, as proven by P.T. Barnum with saturation advertising (e.g. lining the walls along a street with the same ad poster over and over again) and later perfected through corporate brand building.

Over time, extremely well-targeted ads slowly wear away at your reason, biasing you in unnoticeable increments towards whatever products the advertisers are pushing. You are losing your individuality, and the corporate advertising agencies are slowly gaining influence on you in ways that colleagues, friends and family used to (rightly) monopolize. This means biasing your decision-making, your morals, your vote, and how you raise your children.

The browser war heated up when Google (and others?) started paying out on ad revenue created by in-browser searches. Apple makes some nice change on Safari. So does the Mozilla Foundation, apparently.

There would be very little competition if there wasn't money to be made.

Of course, that is kind of thwarted once one realizes that ebay OWNS cragslist! http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3394631

1. Have enough money to afford a luxury like a DVR.
2. Actually purchase said luxury.

I believe this is competitive fallout. Google Eclipses Rivals With YouTube What Effect has the purchase had on Yahoo? Is Yahoo in Pain?

It was higher than that two years ago. I've seen anywhere from six to ten percent. The rate of adoption keep climbing each year. I can't find anything more current but I wouldn't even be surprised if it were up around 20% now, though I don't think it's passed that mark yet.

In 2005, AOL saw a $333 million increase in ad revenues, with a $722 million decrease in subscription revenues. In the first half of 2006, that trend continued, with a $210 million gain in ad revenues and a $383 million decline in U.S. subscription revenue. Subscriptions still brought in more than $7 billion of AOL's $8.3 billion last year, dwarfing its $1 billion in advertising revenue.

You asked very good questions, so I have an answer for some of them. You noted, "Furthermore, these percentages don't appear to be normalized in any way." AKA the "Is It Good, Or Is It Whack?" question.

I normalized them (roughly). I found the number of Internet users per country at http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/geographics/ar ticle.php/5911_151151 and then calculated what that was as a percentage of the world total. I had a nice table made up, but tables aren't /.'s allowed HTML tags.

On the Sophos list, it turns out that China, South Korea, Poland, France, and Spain are the disproportionate producers of spam, while Germany, the UK, and Japan are relatively clean.

You asked very good questions, so I have an answer for some of them. You noted, "Furthermore, these percentages don't appear to be normalized in any way." AKA the "Is It Good, Or Is It Whack?" question.

I normalized them (roughly). I found the number of Internet users per country at http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/geographics/ar ticle.php/5911_151151 and then calculated what that was as a percentage of the world total.

On the left is the percentages of spam from the article; on the right is the percentage of Internet users.

United States 23.2 18.9
China 20.0 10.7
South Korea 7.5 3.2
France 5.2 2.4
Spain 4.8 1.6
Poland 3.6 1.0
Brazil 3.1 2.4
Italy 3.0 2.7
Germany 2.5 4.5
United Kingdom 1.8 3.5
Taiwan 1.7 1.3
Japan 1.6 8.0

Yes, I know that posting plain text is ugly, but my html was even uglier.

I'm not sure I see that BluRay/HD-DVD will obviously fail to be profitable in the short-medium term, when current HDTV owners are shelling out $1000-3000 for their TVs...

HDTV prices are dropping 20% anually.

25% of TV's sold in 2004 were HDTV's... I can't find the other figures at the moment, but a the % of new purchases that are HDTV is increasing every year by a decent amount, something like 5% more every year. And if that trend continues without changing, then just back-of-the-napkin calculations, yeah, it's 15 years for full-scale HDTV adoption. (it's hard to say whether % yearly purchses will continue to increase at the same rate... you might argue thay'll hit a ceiling unless HDTV prices can dip below $600... I might argue that adoption rates could greatly increase if the price gets low enough (eg. a lot of people suddenly bought a DVD player the year that name-brand players started selling under $99).

1. Teens (13-19) spend $94.7 billion per year, $3,309 per person.
2. 37 percent of teens' income comes from parents, the rest from jobs.
3. Online spending projections show teen expenditures are on the rise:
   o 2003: $1.7 billion
   o 2004: $2.6 billion
   o 2005: $3.6 billion
   o 2006: $4.8 billion
   

It's not a small market. When teens get jobs, more often than not what they earn is 100% discretionary, they aren't paying rent or buying their own food. I think it is unfortunate that teen culture is so consumption-driven, but that is the way it is.

That's rather vague and opionated. I was hoping for something a little more ... specific and objective.

I might as well say OSS is actively trying to destroy the software industry. It's about as valid.

It's a plauge on the industry as a whole. SInce the entire world communicates and does business via the IT industry MS is harmful to the world.

Look, if you want to come across as anything more than yet another Slashdot Anti-Microsoft Zealot, you'll need to try an sound a little less like Chicken Little.

Look at how hard they tried and succeeded in killing SPF for example. There was no need to do that. They just wanted their own patent encumbered standard so they killed an open standard.

I can't profess to keeping up with every little thing that Microsoft does, but a quick google returned this suggesting it went to the IETF to be ratified.

That's just one example. There are a million more. If you are not aware of them then you are wilfully ignorant.

No, I just don't have an irrational hatred of anything Microsoft does and a reasonable grasp on how the business world operates.

In addition to their activities which harm the industry they have actively lied, cheated and stole from their partners. All of them!. That's sleazy, unethical and yes evil. It's evil to say you are entering into a partnership and then steal technology and customers from the partner.

I think you will have a great deal of difficulty finding anything Microsoft have done that every other sizable company (software industry or otherwise) hasn't also done.

Yes but not specific. They are lobbying the govt to mandate DRMed bioses which won't run trusted code.

I presume you mean "Trusted Computing Platform". Seems to me we're coming back to that thing about not being able to pirate the latest and greatest software and media. TCP has perfectly valid technical arguments in its favour, even if you don't like it. It's highly unlikely to ever be dictating you can only use Microsoft software.

Once again, your real enemy here is not Microsoft, it is the "content" companies. If you want to stop things like DRM, you need to lobby for copyright reform and the destruction of lecherous companies like the RIAA and friends, not Microsoft. If you want to stop ridiculous things like patentable business methods, then you need to lobby for patent reform. If it's not Microsoft, it'll be (already is) Apple, or someone else.

The way SenderID basically works is that if you have a CallerID record, Exchange will use it, if not and you have a classic SPF record, it will use that. The last time I checked, incidentally, the MS SenderID wizard generated totally broken records that do not conform to any spec (not even Microsoft's). Probably that's been fixed by now?

"Classic" SPF was (also last time I checked, about a year ago) the most widely deployed anti-forgery system in the world. DomainKeys is technically better but much harder to implement. I'm told that when Microsoft's Exchange group says SenderID is "widely adopted" they are counting all SPF records as SenderID records, because SenderID uses SPF as I mentioned above. Non-SPF SenderID has vanishingly small penetration among the dozens of MS Exchange admins I regularly communicate with - nobody actually turns it on, the most they do is use it in a point-scoring system. Perhaps that's just my circle of associates, though.

I'm not normally a "Microsoft basher" (I like Windows on the desktop, although I prefer more cost-effective solutions in the server room) but in this case they really engaged in some incredibly self-destructive stupidity. Meng Wong, the inventor of SPF, bent over backwards to try to help them and was willing to re-engineer the entire spec to suit their needs, but the whole effort was sabotaged by Microsoft's greed and duplicity.

Anyway, an interesting thing about anti-spoofing technology is that the spammers are very aware of it - probably because AOL honors it on their incoming.

As I'm sure you know, spammers use fake return addresses that they steal from web pages or people's Outlook address books. Since their "business model" (if you can call it that) works off small percentages of success, it makes sense for them to avoid spoofing domains that have SPF records published. Why use a fake address that is guaranteed to be rejected by AOL, after all?

Since you're publishing an SPF record for your outgoing mail, you probably have fewer problems from spammers faking email addresses from your domain than you would otherwise. I recently advised a small research lab that was getting hundreds of "bounce" messages every day (from spam that was spoofing their users) to publish SPF. They did so, and within two weeks the problem completely went away. They don't check incoming SPF at all, they just put up the one DNS TXT RR!

Obviously, that's purely anecdotal; I'm not a confidant of spammers. But it's widely reported to work, and it worked for me on two separate occasions.

I recommend "Classic" SPF for now, and DKIM for the future... mostly because that's what Eric Allman was pushing at Linuxworld. :)

Oh, and BTW, if you are looking for an Exchange replacement check out Scalix - they are based off HP's deceased OpenMail source base and they can provide Exchange- and Outlook-compatible calendaring.

Spoken by someone who isn't in advertising. Online ads do work. That's why there's a growing industry around it. See this article.

For those of us who work in the industry and actually measure the results of ad placements, I can say you're wrong. However, where you are right is that if you add "for me" to the end of your sweeping generalization. 'Course, most everyone on Slashdot will agree with you because it's the nature of beast. There's a world out there full of people who act quite differently than Slashdotters. You are not the majority.

...the quantity of those acts would likely decrease sharply.

Hmmm...don't know how much lower you can get.

Second, copyright laws were not created to protect artists alone; they also protected publishers, but their actual goal was to serve the public interest by enticing authors and publishers to behave in certain ways beneficial to the public.

I'm sure you're aware the some early French copyright law left the artist out of the picture completely. It almost caused a riot. I, for one, have always believed that copyright law was to benefit the publishers/distributors above all else. And for some it provides a way to silence the critics. I believe that this also was part of the original intent of these laws.

Here's a copy of a story on slashgeo.org earlier this morning, there's a link to see "Google GeoAds".

Remember this story about location-aware AdSense? Google is still working on various ways to geolocate ads. All Points Blog shares their patent application for Wi-Fi location ad delivery and Google Local ads. Shimon Sandler explains the link between Google Base and those GeoAds and adds: "Wanna see it? Go to Google Local and type in the search box, booksellers nyc. You should see a little coffee cup in addition to the little red ballons. Click on the coffee cup, and an ad appears for Barnes & Noble with their logo, hyperlink, street location, and phone number."

and yet there has not been a single such case filed by Google for AdSense abuse

No? What about this one?

Found using Google, BTW.

How would you like it if you had to pay to send your 20 coleagues e-mailed Hannukah greetings or a copy of your business plan?

This site rewards you with a chance at big money with every click. One Million Dollars on Tax Day!

Seriously, there was a time this company was backed by CBS and mentioned in the same breath with Yahoo. http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/216741

Not really. Have you ever looked at their ads API? It can't even bgein to compare to what Google offers.

It takes about 90 seconds to sign up and start getting access to advertising data via Google's API. It's SOAP, so pretty much every programming language besides BASIC and Forth are supported. Google has loads of documentation online regarding their ad API program. And it's free. You get to do what you want with the data that you get back.

Yahoo has had an advertising API for 5 years now, but what does it do? What does it take to get access to it? We know it uses REST, but what data can you get back from it? How much does it cost? Where is the sample code? Is there a support forum where I can talk to other developers? What are the terms of service? Can I use it to get 3rd party access to others' data? Are there any other restrictions on using it?

The API page linked above doesn't answer any of those questions. Hell, the ads API isn't even listed on the developer resources page you linked to. Why is that?

So if I email xml-ysm@yahoo-inc.com and ask the above questions, how long before I get a response? Will all my questions be answered, or will I get more questions back then answers? Try it. I did last spring. It's an interesting response to say the least.

You're right in that Yahoo has some very nice developer resources. But this is one area where Google substantially outshines Yahoo. Send a short email to the above address and ask to get access to the Yahoo ad API. Seriously. Just send a one-liner. Take a moment to read through the canned response you get back. And then ask yourself "Why don't they just put all that info on a web page somewhere out in the open?" That you even have to email someone to begin with is odd (and annoying). What is Yahoo hiding? Why are they being so cagey?

Compare that email response to the AdWords API page at Google. Now step back and take in the Yahoo ads API page (and, I suppose the one other page regarding their API). Add in the email repsonse. Now take in all the info on Google's API. Notice a difference? Just a small one, maybe?

There's just no comparison whatsoever. Google is open, free and easy with their ads/cost data sharing. Yahoo is, to be kind, not so much any of those things.

Anyway, even if you DID manage to get API access, you better not hang your hat on that since access could get pulled for any number of spurious reasons. Take a look here for an interesting read. Yeesh.

Yahoo itself might have a decent suite of APIs, but such notions haven't as yet affected the folks who came over from Overture.

-B

Your question may have been rhetorical, but yes they do have a stake. However, the article also mentions that Craigslist was charging for ads then as well... So is the next Slashdot article titled "Wendy's is going to start charging for burgers!"?

Read the actual article on the Goodmail site
these rules ONLY apply to BULK senders and it ONLY impacts whether or not links and pictures are allowed
Linked from Goodmail home page http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3581301
"As part of its e-mail security practices, AOL blocks the display of images and hyperlinks on most high-volume messages, except if senders are on the AOL Enhanced whitelist and maintain very low complaint rates. Beginning today, AOL will also allow senders who have undergone accreditation through Goodmail to display images and hyperlinks by default. Goodmail charges accredited companies a fraction of a cent per message sent. "

From the w3c's Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0

People have strong, but divergent opinions on this. The absolute minimum being 96 x 96 pixels. Strong support is expressed for 128 x 128, however a vocal group supports bigger still.

This article states that the most mobile users use thier devices for email and weather not browsing websites.

Hope this helps....

http://www.clickz.com/experts/media/media_buy/arti cle.php/3430381

Someone say Claria?

may not be on the list, but Microsoft is enough to cause concerns.

http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3519521

Dell has become a poster child for crappy customer service. Do AMD fans want Dell dragging AMD's good name down with them? I'd prefer that Dell self-destruct on their own without pulling AMD into their vortex of suckage.

- Greg

For the launch of MSN 8 there were the MSN butterflies everywhere. Here are some pics.

Taken from http://appdomains.slashgisrs.org/article.pl?sid=05 /10/25/1419228
ClickZ article about Google using geo-targeted RSS ads. From the article: "I think there's a lot of potential in geo-targeting RSS feeds, given that the sky's the limit in the number of mobile devices it has the ability to show up on," Marshall said. "Even advertisers that may not understand it at first, I think when you explain it to them, they'd be excited.". See also our previous GeoRSS.org coverage.

Later versions of CuteFTP supposedly don't contain Aureate. Supposedly. You may or may not believe them. Better to not use CuteFTP, any other Globalscape product, any Aureate/Radiate product, or any product that ever contained Aureate. Here's a old list of programs known to contain Aureate.

Aureate changed its name to Radiate. In 2001, they settled a class action over privacy issues.

Radiate tried again with "Go!Zilla". Some versions of Go!Zilla have adware and/or spyware. The current makers of GoZilla claim "The current Go!Zilla software contains no advertising. There are several older, out-of-date versions of Go!Zilla which contain advertising from 3rd parties." But then they say "Go!Zilla will make certain partner software programs available to you during the Go!Zilla trial version's installation. These products are not necessary to the function of Go!Zilla, and you may decide if wish to install them. Make sure you read the installation prompts carefully to insure you get the best installation for you. Each partner program has its own privacy policy, and Go!Zilla is careful to screen partners for product quality and responsible privacy policies."

Or, in other words, "we're going to load up your machine with adware if you're not very, very careful during the install."

Aureate/Radiate appears to be defunct. Unclear whether they went bankrupt, were acquired, or are on the lam.

AdAware can be helpful if your system is infected with Aureate/Radiate, although it may not find attacks downloaded via the security holes.

For more details about Aureate, Radiate, and CuteFTP, click here (long .pdf).

How old were you when people stopped reading and started watching?

I admit I don't read much anymore except off a monitor, but reading requires thinking. A dog can watch and listen.

On a less serious note, this was already tried on cereal boxes in Minority Report, with mixed customer acceptance.

This is a bit of a moot point considering Google acquired a minority stake in Baidu back in 2004.

similar statistics...

• business week: google=52%
• clickz: google=59%
• zdnet: google=36.9%

right here from our "friends" at Omniture

so a visiting a page that you can adjust your privacy settings will actually compromise your privacy,
now you can see why the privacy GUI is on Macromedia's site and not built into the player, but thats not suprising

seems Flash is slowly becoming spyware, shame

So.. Yahoo is mature and Google is not because Google's news service reprints many and varied websites-- but not some of the "blogs" you like-- and Yahoo's news service reprints Reuters? I'm not entirely sure what's going on here but it sounds like you are misinterpreting some kind of personal poor experience with Google's sales department as an actual problem.

Google and Yahoo news do not even offer remotely the same kind of service, nor are the services equal in importance. Yahoo News is almost closer to the core of Yahoo's service than even the search; Google News is more auxiliary from Google's perspective, and I don't think they're even getting much money off of them.

Anyway, frankly IMO "blogs" shouldn't be on google news anyway. Period. If I wanted a blog aggregator, I'd go to a blog aggregator. Google News is a news aggregator. The difference may mostly be only in terms of what the aggregated sites choose to identify themselves as, but that's enough of a difference for me.

As for AdSense, the categories based on which things can get classified as inappropriate for AdSense are extremely broad and if you're expecting close attention paid to border cases, I think you're expecting things of the service that the service never intended. And if the person your complaint here concerns is Michelle Malkin...? Well, from what I've read of her stuff, if you're trying to defend her against accusations of racism then some article about Nelson Mandela would be only the tiniest part of the problem.

Don't be surprised if in a few more years of broadband development, that Yahoo is able to position itself as an alternative to many cable TV providers.

Wait, wasn't this exact same prediction being batted around, like, five to seven years ago? And didn't it fail to work out then either? Hm, you are a blogger, aren't you.

Microsoft/Claria Deal Dead (July 12)

Makes me wonder if this is why that bought Gator... I mean Claria.

They are counting the two separately:

Firefox Market Share Falters

China is a very distant 4th place when it comes to spam. You want to know who leads the world in spam output; its the wealthy EU countries followed very closely by Japan-Korea and the US. I don't know where that 20% for china comes from. From a study done in March of 2005:

1) Europe(*) 24.70
2) Japan-Korea 24.24
3) US 22.80
4) Greater China(**) 14.45

(*) European Union countries: 21.85%; Top spam-distributors: French, Spain, Germany, UK
** Including: China, Taiwan, Hong Kong.

source: http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/email/article. php/3491796/

Of course, I also see numbers like this from a slightly older article:

"Sophos, Inc., an anti-virus and anti-spam company based in Lynnfield, Mass., reports that the U.S. -- sending out 42.53 percent of all spam -- sits far atop its list of the world's Top 12 Spam-Producing Countries."

So, just depends on who you ask on how it breaks down, however, either way, it isn't China.

Multiplied by the approximately 934 million people online and your $0.55 figure becomes $513,700,000.00

over $500 million dollars!

Spam worldwide still wastes $$$....

9 years too long? i don't think so. on what grounds would they win? did the people who bought penis enlargement pills give good feedback? when the law takes effect has no merit, he was sending 10 mil emails a day. just multiply that by 2 weeks.

38 million people worldwide have (or will) buy stuff from email spam -- about 5 million of that figure in the USA alone (http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/ntrs/NTRS_2004.pdf).

The 38 million figure is extrapolated from the 4% value in the above report and applying it to the world online population is estimated to be 945 million (http://www.clickz.com/stats/big_picture/geographi cs/article.php/5911_151151).

For the sticklers, the actual value is about 37.8 million people.

This is why spam WON'T go away because there is a small 4% market of people online who have (or will) buy stuff from spam.

Since the spammers won't stop and the hodgepodge of anti-spam laws in place aren't effective, I just simply block all the spam I get

While people continue to wring their hands over the spam problem here, I will be enjoying a spam-free email box. How about you?

"Adware provider Claria supports the California legislation, according to D. Reed Freeman, chief privacy officer, because the confusion between spyware and adware has eroded consumer confidence and stifled the adware industry."

From the marketing scum themselves: clickz.com

They're trying to convince us that adware is ok, but spyware isn't. How much do y'all want to bet that we see more "adware" companies popping up now?