Slashdot Mirror

re: Barnum misquote... http://www.historybuff.com/lib...

get it while the gettins' good, save the money - don't blow it, then get out

rinse and repeat, pt barnum was right

Offtopic: P.T. Barnum never did say, "There's a sucker born every minute.", his competitor did. Here's a link to what really went down then...

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

I and PT Barnum will be laughing our collective arses off if someone actually pays that much for a collection of 30-year old arcade games...

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

P.T. Barnum made his living doing hoaxes like this one, and is probably looking down and clapping for these guys. Barnum had so many people wanting to get in to see his museum in NYC, but the people already inside wouldn't leave fast enough. That's when he installed a sign over by the exit door, "This way to see the Egress". When people went through and found themselves on the street, they'd have a laugh, saying, "Ole' P.T. got us again!" And although attributed with saying, "There's a sucker born every minute!", here's the real story... http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

PT Barnum never actually said that. It was who said that in response to something that PT Barnum did.

correction: free press is so important to democracy that the first amendment to the Constitution specifically includes a clause for its explicit preservation. there's a reason it's called 'freedom of press,' not 'freedom of newspaper.'

i think it would be sad for professional journalism to go the way of the dodo, however i don't see this as likely to happen. we're simply seeing a shift from traditional media--like newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, etc.--to the new media of the web. and frankly, this is a very good thing. over the past few decades the mainstream media has become increasingly consolidated, with most media outlets being controlled by a handful of media conglomerates. this has not only homogenized the media, but it has also put the power of controlling how the public perceives the world into the hands of a select few.

however, with the advent of the web, we're starting to see a resurgence in independent news sources. this along with web search technology has made it easier than ever for individuals to access a wide/diverse range of media sources large and small, allowing people to account for inherent biases in the media and easily perform their own research and fact-checking. whereas newspapers and TV networks rarely publish/broadcast corrections (where people can see them) and admit to their journalistic blunders (such as the whole Saddam Hussein/al-Qaida connection, the non-existent WMDs, the incorrect reporting of election results, etc.), the online media establishment is very keen to challenge the facts reported by other news sources and identify misinformation.

frankly, this notion that print journalism is dead or dying is nothing new. TV/radio was supposed to have killed print journalism a long time ago. when JFK was shot, the newspapers found themselves unable to keep up with the live coverage and constant updates by TV networks. by the time they got a story out, it was already outdated or incorrect because the story had changed. they had to release several editions on the same day, and ended up printing different versions of the same edition with conflicting headlines. but somehow they managed to survive to this day one way or another.

personally, i'd prefer if newspapers became non-profits. by selling ads (usually about 50% of each edition) newspaper publishers become beholden to advertisers. additionally, most traditional media outlets are commercially tied to other corporate industries which have a vested interest in pushing public opinion in a certain direction, creating a very dangerous conflict of interest. for instance, General Electric, a major arms manufacturer, owns NBC, CNBC, MSNBC. this has serious implications on how these media outlets cover (or don't cover) the news.

:) I just enjoy the debate.

To say the defeat of the armada was circumstantial is overlooking the tactics at work. From http://www.historybuff.com/library/refarmada4.html

"While the Spanish Armada battle itself was not decisive, it nonetheless did serve as an inspiration for future English sailors and naval commanders. The English had successfully managed to defend their coastal waters, using clever tactics and a well-prepared defensive navy to scatter a Spanish attacking squadron. Drake himself became a prototype for future English naval captains, and his example inspired the leadership of other renowned commanders like Horatio, Lord Nelson during the Napoleonic Wars"

and from http://www.tpub.com/content/administration/12966/css/12966_11.htm

"Ignoring a chance to attack the English off Plymouth, the Spanish sailed on up the Channel while the English pecked away at them. Although these attacks did little damage, they induced the Spaniards to fire all their heavy shot with no telling effects on the English. When the Spaniards anchored in Calais, the English forced them out by floating several burning hulks down on them during the night. The next day the combined English and Dutch fleets attacked the Armada and might have crushed it had they possessed ample powder and shot. After this upsetting blow, the demoralized Spaniards fled north and rounded the British Isles to the Atlantic. There, storms nearly succeeded in finishing what the English had started."

But I take your point - British power at the time really was quite small, and the Spanish, with their pieces of eight, continued to be a massive naval power for a few good years.

Thanks. :)

a majority of us can no longer discern it from shine-ola.

Since you imply this is a change in the situation... What evidence do you have that this was ever not the case? Please be specific. Or was David Hannum just anticipating today's pinko commie public school system when he said, "There's a sucker born every minute" in 1869? I seem to recall reading about a fair bit of snake oil being sold back in the day.

It would, I admit, be great if the past had been as glorious as you say. Sadly, I suspect it's more likely the case that people are still people, same as ever: most of them are gullible, about half of them are dumber than average, and almost all of them would rather eat bread and attend circuses than contemplate the nature of truth.

There is something that's worse than the MPAA regulating home theaters. And that's Slashdot posting a link to an obvious satire piece and a great many of its readers (and possibly a certain editor) not having the intelligence to realize that its satire.

P.T. Barnum was right.

If you are referring to this quote http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html, P.T. Barnum never even said it.

According to sources found on Google, the returns did indicate Truman won by the end of the night. However, the results varied by geography back then, as they do now. In the 1948 election, the Northeastern states (whose polls would close first) voted for Dewey; the South was off doing its own thing, and the West and Midwest swung the election in favor of Truman.

News services were slower back then, and there was a press strike aggravating the situation, forcing an early decision on the headline. So the Chicago Tribune went with the early results, and cringed as the rest of the returns poured in in favor of Truman.

[I also vaguely recall an issue with the way the public-opinion polls were run then (this might have been for an earlier election): Pollsters pulled their "random" samples from vehicle registration records, and at the time, not everyone had a car. So, predictions were skewed in favor of the candidate with the wealthier supporters (in 1948, Dewey).]

Microsoft is a sideshow made for Bill and Steve to separate people from their money (no holds barred). I can't help but think of VISTA as the fat, bearded, two-headed lizard-lady/contortionist. It has every freakshow charm all wrapped up into a single pretty package that people will pay money for and then wish they hadn't.

I've got to give Bill and Steve their due for being the richest Carni wizards in the history of the world.

I'm thinking that the "reliable business principles" in question are those of P.T. Barnum. Specifically: "There's a sucker born every minute."

(For a story about where that quote came from and who really said it, check out this site)

that the disks are marginal when they're new, and that there is no way they will last as long as vinyl (contrary to all the hype about durability and tolerance for scratches), I don't think it's a viable market at all. On the other hand, they are quite viable as long as you can convince people to buy them. It's the PR that will keep them afloat. It's certainly not the tech. The whole thing is just too dependant on too many different technologies that have to come together exactly in the right way. I can listen to record on a potter's wheel and a straight pin with a paper cone. In fact, I don't see any of the "new" tech as durable in any way. Virtually all of society's infrastructure runs on century old technology (phones, internal combustion, in fact the consumption of petroleum in general). The new stuff by itself can't handle it. All this applies to DVDs as well. Talk about marginal quality...P.T. Barnum (not really) comes to mind.

you say, eventually an old trick has to stop being used, I say read the following

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

I don't know if it's true or not but every time someone posts that quote someone else seems to post a link that talks about how he didn't actually say it. I'll do it this time

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

I believe that quote was P.T. Barnum, but I could be wrong.

Yup, you are. One of those popular misconceptions. Though PT Barnum is related to the quote.
http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

Here's some info.

My first response to this article was a quote from P.T. Barnum:

"There's a sucker born every minute!"

Rather ironically, he never actually said that. Make you kind of a sucker for believing that he did. (No insult intended - I thought he had too, until I learned otherwise)

Other famous "never said it"s:
Kirk: "Beam me up scotty"
Holmes: "Elementary, my dear Watson"
Bogart: "Play it again, Sam"

We now return you to your irregularly programmed schedule

...you mean PT Barnum, and he never said that.

Check that statement again, will ya?

It certainly wasn't PT Barnum who said that. Seems like I so often have to make this post to remind folks of such.

Even before the internet, the trolls and giants had their fun

And PT Barnum's top competitor said, "There's a sucker born every minute." no, he didn't http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html/

http://www.historybuff.com/library/reftruman.html

Dewey Defeats Truman!

This is what I think about everytime I hear the words "Presidential Election and Polling" put together or used in the same article.

I want someone to come over and mow the lawn or power spray the deck. Minimal skill needed. I'll even supply the equipment! No downloading of a mower/sprayer needed. I'll even make sure they have gas! If I mention those as a 'trade' for my time and skill EVERYTIME they say they will find someone else.

Or, in the immortal words of P.T. Barnum: "A sucker is born every minute".

Actually, he didn't say that.

What was it P.T. Barnum said? oh yeah... ...ok, so it was Hannum that actually said it, but...

So the guys over at WarChalking aren't wasting their time after all? It's a good thing I don't give out my email address or order things by credit card except with my cordless non-Interweb-emabled phone. Ah goody, Microsoft really does care about my computer's security, because they just sent me another patch as an attachment to one of their spiffy emails. Excuse me while I go run the patch... stupid antivirus warnings...

*snicker* Since when did security hold any technology back?

"There's a sucker born every minute." In the grander scheme of things, that's so true.

...Of you who slept through History class, 'Dewey Defeats Truman' refers to the 1948 presidential election in which it was projected a man named Dewey would defeat encumbant president Truman, due to skewed mail-in poll results.

Link is to Historybuff for more info. Dewey Defeats Truman

Stop perpetuating this lie.

Who do you call and scream at when things break?

Your sole commercial supplier, who knows that it will now be too expensive to convert all of your systems to a competing application, and who has no clue what's really going on inside the applications he's flogging. And he's probably a David Hannum fan.

With an Open Source app you could pick almost whatever support company you liked, and they'd know that their longevity with you was a function of their performance. But that could be considered boat-rocking. )-:

You say your squatter shack was a fine place to grow up? Would you be willing to force homeless people to live in it (In NYC during winter months, the police are empowered to remove homeless people from the streets and forcibly place them in shelters)? Would you go back to live in it yourself? Would you let your kids live in it? How would you feel if you forced someone to live there and they died because of substandard safety?

If there's anything the Internet has taught me. is that Mr. George Hull (not P.T. Barnum) was right.

DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN

P.T. Barnum's quote is "There's a sucker born every minute."


Actually, that's not true either.

The problem with spam is that the cost is basicly zero per-message. $X to send Y pieces of spam, X divided by Y works out to zero point zero cents per spam.

The only way to make it die is for people to stop buying from it

Not possible. Spam works at a response rate of 1 in 10,000. The general population contains a far higher rate of mental illness, senility, and retardation, not to mention just plain gullibility and stupidity.

To to missquote something P.T. Barnum never said,
The internet: a million suckers log on every minute.

It seems to me that the only solution will come by a switch over to a new E-mail system that can link a non negligible co$t to all E-mail, or just to offending E-mail. This could be done with crypographicly signed "stamps".

Would you be willing to attach 2 cents to each E-mail where the recipient of the mail gets the money? Send mail to your friend and he gets 2 cents, he send you mail and you get the 2 cents back.

The other proposal I saw has much more expensive stamps, from 32 cents up to a few dollars. In that plan you you can keep re-using your stamps unless the recipient "redeems" the stamp. The idea is that it is generally "rude" to redeem a stamp. If you get legitimate mail from a friend or stranger you do nothing and it costs the sender nothing, if you get spam or otherwise offensive mail you click a button to redeem the stamp and the sender is out the money.

-

I wonder if anyone has ever seen someone making copies of a newspapers, and giving them away to its friends.

"There's a sucker born every minute."

A great expose of how spammers operate comes from one of the mirrored sites Behind Enemy Lines. It shows that if SPAM itself isn't always profitable, selling the service of spamming certainly is. And to make this profit, spammers will resort to illegal activities.

Of course, when you consider the morals this group has already demonstrated, it should come to no suprise that their most agressive campaign was a stock pump-n-dump scam.

Does SPAM pay? Apparently. But so do a lot of other crimes.