Slashdot Mirror

When was it? They used to advertise heavily on TV. It positioned itself as a search service, and the pitch was that every time you used it for a search, you were automatically getting entered for free into a sweepstakes. The obnoxious ad showed a "plain-folks" lady, presumably at work, asking sotto voce "If I use it at work and I win, does my boss get the money?" and the announcer saying enthusiastically "No, you get the money," and the lady replying "Good to know."

Of course I tried it, and the free sweepstakes feature was marred by the fact that it couldn't find its behind with both hands and a flashlight.

It still exists, but seems to have positioned itself as "Play games! Earn coins! Win prizes." The word "search" does not even appear on its home page, although it is apparently possible to perform a genuine Google search from the site, while, I suppose, accruing infinitesimal chances of obtaining something of value--I'm too lazy to figure it out--at http://www1.iwon.com/home/search/search_simple/

One of the first internet portals called I'won has been paying customers to surf over ten years. They have periodic lotteries for prizes. You increase you chances by looking at more parts of the site as often as possible.

iwon.com was the first thing that crossed my mind when I read this.

This AP article actually claims that the planet's surface gravity is about 1.6 times that of Earth, so maybe he's really 625 pounds. ...wow, I shouldn't have pictured that.

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

They should go for it, as it worked so well for http://www.iwon.com/

It seems to me that Google hurts consumers. The reason lies with how they do their ad ranking. Basically, the ad that generates the most revenue for Google gets ranked first -- in a lot of cases this is the ad that pays the most per click. In all cases, it's the ad that's writing the biggest check to Google.

This methodology leaves no room for providing discounts to customers. There's literally no money left over once the advertiser pays Google. Think about a simple example of an industry with average operating margins (excluding cost of customer acquisition) of 20%. In such an industry, companies have an incentive to pay anything up to 19.9% to acquire customers. Google is such an efficient marketplace that companies wind up paying that 19.9% or even more (some companies will overpay because of the value of the brand exposure).

It has surprised me for some time that no competitor to Google has arisen that somehow provides some of this money back to the customers. A simple (and completely unworkable due to fraud) example would be a search engine that gives 50% of the click revenue back to the user who clicks the ad. I'm relatively certain that something will arise someday that returns some of the revenue from search-engine ads to consumers. A clever version was the iWon portal -- they let you win cash prizes, with each link clicked counting as an entry into the drawing.

A search engine might be very successful and actually help consumers if it worked on a bounty basis. Advertisers would offer the search engine a certain dollar amount or percentage of each transaction as a rebate if customers buy stuff after clicking the ad. The search engine could then return, say, 50% of the bounty to the user. Obviously this would require more bookkeeping, but it would make the search engine much friendlier to consumers.

Until then, I still do my searching on Google but my buying on PriceWatch, PriceGrabber, etc. I still for the life of me can't understand why people click Google ads and make purchases. You're just not getting a good deal.
--
Free 411! 1-800-411-SAVE

How bad is it when you're two fricken' days later than the WSJ's OpinionJournal.com and three days later than the Associated Press?

The shark /. jumped a few years ago is now playing leapfrog using a ski jump.

AP reports online digital music sales have tripled in the last year, accounting for over 6% of sales. But there's more than meets the eye here. Profit margins on on-line digital sales are rumored to be much higher so that is much more than 6% of profits. Not only did this more than offset the decline in physical unit sales but, more importantly physical unit sales have also declined in price as well as volume, further increasing the advantages of on-line digital sales (6% gross price decline, 3% volume decline). Note that a 6% gross price decilne means an even larger profit margin decline assuming manufacturing, distribution and marketing costs are not decliniing.

The article further points out that there are 500 million iTunes songs sold and 22 million ipods sold. Averaging this gives one only 23 itunes sold per iPod: thus one can hardly say that iTunes sales are the motivating factor for iPod sales but one could neccessarily say the reverse. People are clearly filling those Ipods with their purchased CDs, borrowed and pirated music. The record industry rants about selling music too cheap and iPods leveraging their IP for sales would seem dubious.

From TFA:

Probably the most striking thing about Google Maps is the very impressive (for DHTML, anyway) graphics. Now, I'm sure that many of you old JavaScript hacks out there have known this sort of thing was possible for a long time, but it's very cool to see it (a) actually being used for something real, and (b) where normal users will see it.

Back in the Summer of 2000 iWon.com released the Prize Machine.

They didn't want people to need a plugin to use it, so they wrote it in JavaScript.

It's a slot machine with moving prize images. You click the arm and it pulls down and starts spinning. It talks to the server to see if your spin won a prize or not, and spins the wheels accordingly.

Nifty little app, actually.

From TFA:

Probably the most striking thing about Google Maps is the very impressive (for DHTML, anyway) graphics. Now, I'm sure that many of you old JavaScript hacks out there have known this sort of thing was possible for a long time, but it's very cool to see it (a) actually being used for something real, and (b) where normal users will see it.

Back in the Summer of 2000 iWon.com released the Prize Machine.

They didn't want people to need a plugin to use it, so they wrote it in JavaScript.

It's a slot machine with moving prize images. You click the arm and it pulls down and starts spinning. It talks to the server to see if your spin won a prize or not, and spins the wheels accordingly.

Nifty little app, actually.

Depends on how you define 'biggest'. Vodafone is the most international provider, but the largest by the number of subscribers I think is a Chinese operator (with more than 160 million subscribers, adding 2.5 million users per month).

Not really. You see, the parent linked to a Slashdot article discussing an article on the AP news wire entitled "Entertainment World Wary of Microsoft". But let's play your little game and pretend that the parent linked to a slashdot comment - nothing about posting an argument on slashdot and then someone else subsequently linking to it in another slashdot post causes it to be fallacious per se.

Further pursuing your line of argument (why do I bother?) and pretending that an argument posted on slashdot and then linked in another argument causes it be to false, this is still not circular reasoning.

Reg-free link for paranoid

Reuters has an interesting article today on the "popularity" of CS degrees.

High-Tech Degrees Don't Guarantee Jobs

reacted accordingly

reacted accordingly

Out of 10 analysts it's a healthy mix:
3 - Strong Buy
3 - Buy
4 - Hold

No wonder VA linux is up 15% today

I agree. Government policies that close doors to competition are bad. Linux might work in some situations, but not in others. There are plenty of good software packages out there to use, and plenty of specific packages for government, that wont exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them.

Massachusetts, the lone holdout state still suing Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) for antitrust violations, will become the first state to adopt a broad-based strategy of moving its computer systems toward open standards, including Linux, the rival operating system to Microsoft's Windows.

On Thursday, September 25, 2003 Massachusetts CIO Peter Quinn announced the state's "Freeware Initiative" - an effort requiring that all IT expenditures in 2004 and 2005 be made on open source/Linux software/platforms if possible.

While Linux community has been beleaguered by the fights like "Which fonts to include in the default distribution?" and "How do we make KDE/Gnome closer to MS Windows?", Microsoft has been investing and taking over the market share.

The company is focused as ever on keeping control of the computer market. You want the truth? Well, if you can handle it - Windows has more than 90% of the Tablet PC market. And that, remind you, is a market that just popped up few years ago.

How many Linux vendors did you see struggle for footprint in the Tablet PC market? How many of them announced R&D budgets to develop digital ink and writing recognition? Well, no wonder that Microsoft owns this market within a year, and soon enough as it gets big everyone will yell a monopoly. I guess the biggest Linux vendor was just way too busy with Bangalore job opportunities springing up.

Bill Gates sells as many shares of MSFT as he can.

Hey, people do click those ads, they do respond to spam. Look at Iwon.com, they are still in business and they pay people money to use their search engine!

Note how the genres that are dying are ones not making MONEY!

It's not about how much people are playing, its about how mcuh people are selling.

Which is quite sad because the word "dying" is a misnomer here, if we rate how much something is dying by how much people are forking out for it. I fork out exactly $0s for playing games on iWon.

This is what happens when you attempt to present an article as having ever so slight the amount of authority to it, but then not have enough people realize its so completely full of crap. I don't just want to comment on badly written articles like this, I want to be able to write to the author and publisher and say "your article sucks, it meets no minimum level of journalism and should be pulled, deleted, and eaten." Just once I want someone to write back "you are absolutely right, we'll do that right now!"

62% Said they thought evolution should be taught in school.

21% said it shouldn't.

14% were uncertain.

1% didn't care.

58% Said creationism should be taught in school.

23% said it shouldn't.

16% were uncertain.

1% didn't care.

I certainly didn't expect my rather off-hand remark, that was intended to add a little symetry and flow, to end up here.

However, creationism isn't a theory. It shouldn't be confused as such. Furthermore, the vast majority of those who pursue it as science, rather than the looking for the truth, are looking for a truth they've already decided on. Occasionally, scientists do make that mistake, but they usually resist it, and their community acts and destroys it like a cancer. Creationism is a failed hypothesis. There was a 'big bang'. There is no doubt. The mysteries that remain, are: What was its conception like? How does gravity work? Why three spacial dimensions? etc. The fact that there is yet more to learn isn't an indictement of theory, that requires contradicting evidence. In the case of creationism, they must unequivicably disprove all of cosmology (not just the big bang), geology, nuclear physics, chemistry, and of course the field of evolutionary biology to start.

Instead of being incensed that the universe, or rather sinister heathen scientists, are casting aspertions upon their God, they should have gone back and read the story of creation while taking a new look at their faith. They should have seen it for the parable it is. They could choose to believe the wisdom, and enjoy the well written fantasy. I certainly find the idea of a prankster God endearing. But oddly enough, the few creationists I've pressed on the issue, when asked, "Why does God make everything look as if it's older than the six or so millenia it is?" respond without curiosity, or intrest. Who can know the mind of God indeed. Fans of creationism just don't seem to care about how the world works as much as they care about a very superficial validation of their faith.

You might look into what those who so persecuted some of your scientists had to say. In the case of Gallileo and Darwin, almost all of their critics invoked religion. Telling. Newton was something of an asshole, and had some rather unfriendly rivals. In fact his "shoulders of giants" remark was a compliment to those he respected, but a cutting short joke to a diminuative contemperary and object of Newton's considerable contempt.

Sure, while we might not be the second coming (haha) a gift more valuable than the wisdom we pass on would be hard to come by. Which is why we should pass that wisdom on, in schools, as completely as possible. I'm truly sorry if the truth gets in the way of the crutch people use to prop up their flagging faith. But that's hardly a reason to avoid giving children their birthright. Of course the puzzles are incomplete, so much the better. While imparting our wisdom we can issue a challenge. They won't be content to be passive observers. That might not pay dividends to us, but it will for them. If there is some small chance that creationism is more than a parable (and there isn't), the only chance for it to be shown as such is the kid who has the full benefit of that understanding and the desire to explore it, so that he may find and recognize that unfound flaw. Science is about asking questions. That's it's greatest strength, and every theory's greatest foe. :) It's why the engineering that allows us to make our clever tools, like computers, is based on science as opposed to faith.

I'm a regular of the #farscape channel on irc.scifi.com, and it has been incredible. Here's a java chat link for the lazy. Random stars and makers of the show have been showing up there at least once a day, sometimes several visits throughout the day, to give encouragement to the fans. The channel grew to consistently hold hundreds of users, maxing out at 700 at a time. Here's a quick rundown of some of the news converage that we've gotten:

Its turning out to be a story not just about a bunch of SciFi geeks crying about a lost show, but a protest against corporations directing culture through actions they don't have to justify. I mean, they killed their #2 show after having already made the commitment to the year. I don't consider myself the protesting type, especially over a TV show... but I wrote a letter, linked to it from my site and sent a few emails because I think the people who make and watch the show aren't out of line to demand what was promised to them.

I guess this counts as "personal use", but it's certainly business use for the people who rescued him

I use a Logitech Trackman Marble (pre-scroll-wheel annoyance), and I've found it to be far more comfortable than the Marble FX over long usage... better for twitch games than a mouse, too, though I haven't had time for those in a year or two. In general, I agree that a trackball saves a lot of wear and tear on an arm/wrist.
--

Regardless, Trackballs are always in the same place, require far less movement to get accross the screen, are much more precise and accurate, and never get "lost" on the desk. Further, there is no need for a mousepad, and there is less risk of injury. Problem with some trackballs, the same as mice, is that some are right/left hand incompatible.

I've tried to send complaints to some of these folks. Usually they don't have a feedback link. When they do, they never care that the page doesn't work. I usually send an email when the site doesn't work with javascript disabled. Often times it's just a pull-down list that jumps you to a certain part of the site automatically, and lacks a little "go" button next to it.

They could not care less. When they do respond, it's usually "Javascript is required". One of the really good recent examples I recall is the search page at iwon.com. If javascript is disabled, you get a blank page with only their logo in the corner. They didn't seem to care when I mentioned that every other search engine/portal works without javascript. If you're up for a challenge, try poking around at iwon.com's site to find an email address or feedback entry page. They obviously don't want to hear from their users.

Yes, you are right, though it doesn't explain lycos. I was about to slam you for not trying an Inktomi-based search and posting the results.... but I tried to do the same, and it's damn difficult to tell if someone's using Inktomi or not. I found (via google) this out-of-date list. Inktomi has a list of partners, and yahoo's on the list, but it doesn't say what services each partner actually uses. This page at Inktomi mentions that AOL, iWon, MSN, and more (aprarantly 125) are using their search (it's mentioned in the top yellow box on the right side of the page). So, with that in mind, let's give these three a try and see if they product any porn sites with a query for "black bear":

• AOL's results list Condos, T-shirts, AllAlaskanGifts (paid adverts), pages about actual black bears, the B&B, Hunting, Campgrounds (not the nude one from yahoo's present search), wildlife and conservation. Pretty good...
• iWon's results page displays nothing if Javascript is disabled. I gotta get that javascript popup filtering junkbuster patch installed. For the sake of this slashdot post, I'm turning javascript back on for a moment: hmm, they're doing funny stuff and that link may not take you directly to a results page.... easy enough to do the search, but here's what I'm seeing: page about different types of bears, lodging per state, travel info, photos and articles about american and alaskan black bears, more stuff about american black bears, american bear association, dietart habits of bears, wildlife park, black bear systems (a company, funny that none of the other searches turned this one up in their top results), campground, an inn, web design company named black bear, more stuff about bears and camping. So far one of the best search results in this "black bear" benchmark, and not a single porn site yet (neglecting yahoo's return of a clothing-option campground with black bear in the name), but still one more chance for porn at MSN.......
• and here's MSN's results (damnit, went to MSN before turning javascript back off, going to shut if off right now.. ok), so let's see how MSN did: Univ of Maine Athletics (mascott is a black bear), more pages about univ of maine, info about diff species of bears, research about animal social systems, stuff about yellowstone, miccesota wince shute wildlife sanctuary, even more pages about univ of maine, the sanctuary in minnesota again, and the texas zoo

I did read the original post, and admittedly his point was that his friend tried "black bear" on yahoo 6 months ago and got porn, but for crying out loud, how fucking difficult is it to actually visit the search engine and type in BLACK BEAR and see for yourself if it really dishes up porn links? Ok, not everyone knows HTML to include nice formatting and links in their messages, but it's pretty simple to visit a search engine and actually see if it dishes up porn, instead of posting about how a third party accomplished this feat half a year ago!

(ok, rant mode off, we all know the cronological order and moderation system reward early postings)

I think it's pretty safe to say that one doesn't risk getting linked to porn when searching for "black bear" these days, and I'm skeptical that this condition really existed 6 months ago on yahoo. Some search engines (notably yahoo and MSN) have problems with wasting valuable browser screen space with redundant links, at least in this simple "black bear" benchmark. For a while now I've believe google was the best, but I'm pleasantly suprised to see that other search engines are doing quite well.

I really liked O'reilly's metaphor of the net as an ecosystem, one, that like the nascent PC industry stagnated under corporate control. He really makes an interesting point, one that I think is pretty much true. We all remember how cool the Internet used to be, and how much it sucks now... An advertising network awash in pop-up windows, Spam, and "push media". Where "portal players" compete for "eyeballs". The term, of course is from the television industry, where it actually makes some sense. But the fact that they borrow metaphors from the that industry really tells us what they think of there customer base, and where they want to take the Internet (Just look at iwon.com shudder)

Well, I'm never one to pass up a chance to bash the current state of the Internet, but O'reilly's statement really got me thinking. Could the 'ecosystem' idea be applied to the Open Source movement? The Free Software Movement has been around for a long time, helping people get good, quality software programmed mostly for fun. But, Ironically, there's money to be made in it. ESR came around and renamed the movement, and made himself quite a bit of money. And now the corporations are all over it. Some, such as IBM (witch has really always been about hardware and support) see it for what it is, a way to get good software. But others, most notably VA and RedHat depend on it for their livelihood.

We are already seeing the results of the corpiritzation of open source, and I wonder what will happen when it is completely commercialized... (or even if that will really happen)

it's 2AM, there's some marginal spell checking, but other then that...

[ c h a d &nbsp o k e r e ]

The gist of it is that Time Warner Online wants to get more and poorer people on the net (i.e. reduce the cost). In light of bravehamster's comment, that AOLTW is a vertical monopoly, meaning it doesn't force anyone to go through it but can provide its service at low cost, this is interesting.

Imagine a Time/AOL ISP that is extremely cheap, say, under $10 for unlimited modem access. Except it's only unlimited in terms of time, because you are forced to use the AOL Browser, which limits what sites you can go to. TWAOL can say, "If you want porn sites, romz or warez sites, or the like, then just pay more for another ISP." They can call it something catchy, like "Unlimited Winternet access," and justify the content controls to parental porn paranoia. Suddenly, what Time Warner's customers get so see is not the free and anarchist Internet that we enjoy, but the parts of the Internet that Time Warner wants its customers to see.

Which is what most people want. They just want to see the sports scores, trade some stocks, and check their email. So competing ISP's, which aren't vertical monopolies, have trouble staying in business. Suddenly, this vertical monoppoly starts expanding sideways.

Unrelated note, or perhaps not: Remember now that this conglomerate now owns Netscape. Go Mozilla!