Bezos-Owned Washington Post Embeds Amazon Buy-It-Now Buttons Mid-sentence

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bezos-Owned Washington Post Embeds Amazon Buy-It-Now Buttons Mid-sentence

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday August 16, 2014 @07:50AM from the wait-till-they-start-delivering-papers-with-drones dept.

McGruber writes: While reading a story in the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, I saw that the paper had begun embedding Amazon Buy-It-Now links in the middle of story sentences. For example, in this article, a sentence about the sales figures for differing covers of The Great Gatsby read: At Politics and Prose, the traditional [BUY IT NOW] version — featuring the iconic eyes floating on a blue background — sold better than the DiCaprio [BUY IT NOW] cover. This change follows the July news of much larger than expected losses at Amazon and a 10-percent decline in the Amazon's stock value. In related news, the Post reports that the literary executor of George Orwell's estate has accused Amazon.com of doublespeak after they cited one of Orwell's essays in their ebook pricing debate with Hachette and other publishers.

136 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 07:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

All advertising eventually repels people. It's only a matter of time before someone seizes the opportunity and takes your customers away. Ads associate you with cheapness. There is no coming back from a reputation as an ad whore.
On a side note: Be thankful for ad blockers. I hold quite a few sites in undeserved regard because I don't see the ads.
1. Re:It's not going to work by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-16 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ad blockers repel content providers....
2. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  > Ad blockers repel content providers....
  Ad blockers force content providers to look for alternate sources of revenue.
  Like bitcoin micropayments.
3. Re:It's not going to work by ShanghaiBill · 2014-08-16 08:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  All advertising eventually repels people.
  Exactly. This is why, throughout history, companies that advertize have consistently failed, while companies that just sit back and wait for the world to beat a path to their door have prospered. Clearly, advertising doesn't work.
  
  Ads associate you with cheapness
  So true. This is why companies like Louis Vuitton and Gucci, by advertising heavily, devalue their products, and only make pennies on the dollar compared to unadvertised brands available from eBay and shipped from China.
4. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 08:18 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  Ad blockers repel content providers....
  This is web 2.0, baby. We're the content providers. And ad blockers make my content providing tolerable. You want my content? Block the ads. Oh, look at that; /. does just that. "Ads Disabled Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!"
5. Re:It's not going to work by Rick+Zeman · 2014-08-16 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  +1 for the snark.
6. Re:It's not going to work by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-16 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Bitcoin is falling in value so rapidly that it doesn't work. Ads are still the best way of paying for content, other than Slashdot-style subscriptions.
7. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 08:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Snark that misses the point.
  He wasn't talking about companies that buy ads, he's talking about companies the sell ads c.f. "ad whore."
8. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  >bitcoin
  >revenue
  It has to actually be worth something and able to buy stuff to be considered revenue
9. Re:It's not going to work by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-16 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, blocking Slashdot ads can cause you to miss things. I wouldn't know about UDoo or their obvious problem without that ad.
10. Re:It's not going to work by sillybilly · 2014-08-16 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  I still think there may be a need for a 2nd currency for intellectual property. The potential demand for IP, the thirst for knowledge is immense, but one can totally abstain and live just fine. This is different than food. So for food you could have cold hard US $'s, and for intellectual property, something like bitcoin - and I don't even have a clue what bitcoin is, I just know its a 2nd currency.
  Now with intellectual property besides the consumption part being infinite, such as I'd have no problem downloading 1 billion mp3 songs and have them on my portable harddisk so even if there is an apocalypse, or world war, or rolling blackouts, no internet, internet monthly prices going to $2000/mo that I can't afford, there are many reasons to have off line file backups instead of cloud storage halfway across the globe on some island somewhere, and getting blackmailed over it. See the blackmailing does not really work with information, because you can live without it, it works better with food. Also the incremental cost of production, and distribution, is very near zero, so it's not hard to imagine intellectual property prices between 1 and 2 cents per item, and then you might be able to afford a billion songs to download, or a billion science articles, novels, etc. However a lot of song producers can't scrape out a living with such a low cost, but as emusic shows, even the top of the chart artists pushed by the labels as their cash cows, have a hard time competing against everyday folks, the likes that come to American Idol, who can make decent songs, and when there are very limited dollars to spend, and incremental cost of a sale is zero, the prices tend to zero due to competition be the sellers. That's a basic problem with intellectual property. It's like it needs its own little world of finance, and the exchange value for dollars would be very off, by orders of magnitue.
  For instance you can assume a fully welfare society, where everyone is on welfare, has guaranteed monthly minimum income that pays for their food, in traditional dollars, and they are free to choose how they spend that, but everyone is busy and preoccupied with intellectual creations - games, game playing, social interaction, tv, movies, music, scientific research, social research, etc. etc., - mostly intellectual property, and there you could have bitcoin manage the situation, and might have like 1 US $ = 1 million bitcoin $, and that's OK, but you may need that level of granularity, or resolution when it comes to intellectual value. If anyone wants to spend their minimal but guaranteed food $ on music, so be it, but you can earn bitcoins and spend bitcoins, like some points in a game, without getting too many dollars for it, but it can manage daily preoccupations, in a world where everyone needs to keep busy, and we cannot trust people to make actual tangible real world things. like gasoline from algae, or nuclear power plant fuel rods, or gun bullets, or even plastic spray nozzles, instead we have to put cameras on every corner, and sort of keep everyone in jail in the real world out there, by putting them into an income pinch, and providing entertainment and books and such. That kind of world would really suck, you'd loose a whole lot of liberties, such as even going to a danceclub on Saturday night and spending real $'s for the entrance fee, and fucking some hoes left and right, who pop babies baby momma style, because you will not be able to afford the entrance fee, or you'd have to starve yourself a couple days to pony up the dough for it from your welfare stipend. In a world where there are no jobs, and everyone is busy buying and selling intellectual property of extremely low value, but keeps busy with it. I'd hate that kind of world. And it's unrealistic in the first place. Overpopulation issues will still arise, together with the apocalypse that would bring on, because, sooner or later something's gotta give, and it usually collapses. I don't wish to live through a world where people are so hungry they eat grass, leaves and each other,
11. Re:It's not going to work by phantomfive · 2014-08-16 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  All advertising eventually repels people.
  That's kind of delusional. People still watch the super bowl for the commercials, after all.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
12. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  > Bitcoin is falling in value so rapidly that it doesn't work.
  Forest and trees dude.
  (1) Bitcoin is just version 1.0
  (2) As a payment method rather than a value store it doesn't matter all that much if it falls or rises in value.
13. Re:It's not going to work by sillybilly · 2014-08-16 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  Welfare is only fair if everybody gets it equally, not just the needy, and pays for food, and on top of it you can have a job, and buy like a fancier place than provided by welfare, or fancier food.
14. Re:It's not going to work by Rick+Zeman · 2014-08-16 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Snark that misses the point.
  He wasn't talking about companies that buy ads, he's talking about companies the sell ads c.f. "ad whore."
  Yeah, he's talking about successful companies. While correlation isn't causation, I have to admit he has a point.
15. Re:It's not going to work by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-16 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's a second currency needed as much as there needs to be an organizer for small change transactions... there's a reason why candy bars went to $1 or more, allowing a 40 cent transaction via debit card isn't profitable. PayPal's an example of such a thing, but it's reputation has been trashed in the past.
16. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  > I wouldn't know about UDoo or their obvious problem without that ad.
  Lol. I have no idea what "UDoo" is and I don't even care enough to google it. Tons of other stuff to care about on the internet, if missing out on the occasional something or another is the price I have to pay for avoiding the mental grinding of ads, I am good with it.
17. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Universal basic income is decades overdue. It would cost no more than current systems, and I can't imagine a society more productive and enjoyable than one where the employers have to give conditions that people want rather than forcing them to work out of desperation.
18. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  On a side note: Be thankful for ad blockers.
  
  Find: **
  Replace: *
  Hopefully I'll never see another Buy It Now affiliate link again.
19. Re:It's not going to work by Iamthecheese · 2014-08-16 10:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It would cost no more than current systems
  
  This is factually incorrect. Even assuming single payer medical care is done separately and paid for all the welfare in the US a generous (Obama's)probable discretionary budget generously proportioned (assume 100% of labor, agriculture, housing, veterans benefits, and internal affairs budget go to welfare) gives 320 billion to welfare. Divided by the population of the US that's a little over $1000 per person. Now add mandatory spending (the above link includes this information) and assume 100% of food and social security spending counts as welfare, again divide by the population of the US. That's about $4400 per person. Total: $5400 per person and that assumes not a cent is needed for program administration. Your proposed amount of basic income comes to $450 per person, per month. If you want that to rise to a number people can live on you're going to have to significantly raise taxes or print 33 to 50 percent more money.
  
  Given the percentage of people who cannot be profitably employed today and given the rate at which technology is increasing that percentage I believe basic income is an absolute necessity. But we need to be realistic at how much it costs and create a realistic plan for implementing it.
  
  --
  If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
20. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's not entirely true. The companies you mention advertise heavily in certain circles and not at all in most. Doing that, web style, would indeed make them seem cheap. As to the unadvertised brands, if you're talking about knockoff copies, it's been my observational experience that many people actually seek those things out because they don't want to pay for the actual brands but they want people to think they did. Our government, which spends more money on tracking crap like that down than they do on actual problems most of us want solved, is the contributor to the lack of success of those companies, not advertising or lack of it.
21. Re: It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Are you high?
22. Re:It's not going to work by AmiMoJo · 2014-08-16 10:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Spammy advertising doesn't work and repels customers. Spam email, annoying product placement, animated/interactive adverts and the like put people off eventually. That's why you don't get "1ouis Vvitt0n" emails, or at least not from Louis Vuitton.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
23. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  I cared enough to google it and is a worthy ad that I'm now interested in buying it to play with it and design things with it. Unfortunately, with my adblocker, I never knew it even existed.
24. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  Not true at all. Ads help get product reach to people that never heard of their products. Without ads, most of the daily products you use today wouldn't be available. Unfortunately, the vast majority of ads are terrible, annoying and most don't want their products, yet they keep pushing that I have to have it.
25. Re:It's not going to work by tnk1 · 2014-08-16 12:14 · Score: 2
  
  I agree that ads are distracting, and they do decrease my enjoyment of reading, but not so much that I need to block them or refuse to look at material with advertisements.
  "Cheapness" is also something that is a false value. If I have a reason to trust the words on the page of a story with distracting formatting and ads as being a higher class of journalism than something in a pristine, well formatted, advertisement-less site, I will continue to read the sloppy site and glean what I can from it. I will also tolerate the ads to support the site, unless I know of a better way for them to obtain support.
  The reality is that in this current world, we're in the Wild West of content, but in the past, that was the case as well. Copyright and such came about and was effective because you could control a physical medium to some degree, but before that, you'd get ripped off flagrantly. It used to be common for the latest plays and such to end up in unauthorized performances in places like the American West, because no one could enforce that. In those days, you took the money you could get, and relied on patronage for the rest. And to be honest, I think we may need to return to patronage if we want a truly ad-free environment, but patronage has the stink of aristocracy or old money to it, but could be democratized by something like Kickstarters on a wider scale. Just be ready for our understanding of the creative business to change.
  Point being, if the Washington Post simultaneously becomes both low quality and ad ridden, it is doomed. However, that is not necessarily the case if it actually uses that money to maintain a certain level of quality in its reporting and analysis.
26. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  But you do get movies with very obvious, obnoxious product placement. And I've seen minutes of TV shows devoted to cars from America's #1 brand (going as far as that literal car commercial during an episode of House where one of the protagonists start extolling the features of their new car out of nowhere)
27. Re:It's not going to work by FatdogHaiku · 2014-08-16 13:20 · Score: 2
  
  There is no coming back from a reputation as an ad whore.
  Unless of course you are actually advertising prostitution...
  NSFW - http://www.sherisranch.com/
  in which case being "an ad whore" is exactly what you were shooting for!
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
28. Re:It's not going to work by sillybilly · 2014-08-16 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  I could live on 450/mo right now, in my present setup, if I did not have to drive anywhere. But I'd have to drop Internet service, maybe even natural gas, and keep rent, electric, and food. Oh and no insurance of any kind, of course. But that's like that already. I would also not have to pay taxes other than sales. I'd have to be eating a lot of rice though, but it would be doable.
  And on an income like that, in a different housing situation, I'd be a millionaire in the sticks, where, if you can get CAUV, property tax is like $20/year, which comes to $2/month. That's what I'd call cheap housing, and $450/$2=225x, which means each month you earn 224 months worth of housing cost surplus. Actually with such low housing cost food becomes the dominant item, and you still have to spend like $50/mo on that, unless you grow it yourself, and make the pottery from clay, clothing from flax, blacksmith stuff from ore, etc, yourself, and then you don't even have to pay sales tax, if you can be that self sufficient. But you still gotta pony up the $20/yr for property tax, else they sell your parcel on sheriff sale.
29. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  Try watching 'Crackle' (like a free netflix but with ads) and see if you aren't disgusted. They show the same ad each time a minimum of twice back-to-back (as if we're stupid) and it increases from there. By the time I'd watched about a half hour of Godzilla the same ad was playing 4 times in a row each break. I turned it off at that point.
30. Re:It's not going to work by sillybilly · 2014-08-16 16:19 · Score: 2
  
  Emusic charges 48 cents a song, and the supply is so immense, that the pressure on that huge, 48 cents downward is tremendous, as I could buy, instead of 24 songs on $12/mo, I don't know, 1000 songs? The sellers eager to get a piece of the pie, any tiny bit of piece, instead of all of nothing for one of them, like in a raffle ticket, are many. Such is the situation with intellectual property where the creativity of the public is let loose by opening the floodgates. Prices go to zero. I mean I see gorgeous free graffiti riding public transport trains, and it's much better, and subtle and creative, on the East Side that's almost fully black, than on the West Side that's more mixed with white, hispanic and black. Asians don't do graffiti, as far as I know, but they get good paying jobs after getting a college degree. So anyway, the intellectual creativity of people is bursting at the seams, even for free, let alone getting paid for it. That's why cents are not fine enough granularity, when you're talking a price of 0.00000023 cents for an item, and that's where bitcoin comes in. Of course in a world where they can lock down creativity better, and erect all kinds of cock blocks - such as creating music on the cloud that you hope to sell on emusic, when in fact somebody else will sell it, under their name, if it's any good, and yours gets listed too, but not presented to buyers much -, so when they take away even that, the ability to create something at all offline and sell it to your buddies in the neighborhood without it going through the network, or authorship being questioned, then they can reinstate previous intellectual property prices. Mind control, flow of information control, has always been the biggest game in town. And the powers that be may not find bitcoins tasty after all, compared to blocking everyone off from access to sell intellectual property, such as organic chemistry book authors from india selling ebooks in the US, or music artists from Brazil selling mp3's in the US, etc, etc. It's a different world these days, everybody stressed to the breaking point over that extra cent.
31. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  If it really is something useful to you then eventually regular people in your circles will talk about it and then you'll find out about it.
  Kind of like what just happened.
32. Re: It's not going to work by sillybilly · 2014-08-16 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Does it really matter?
  P.S. Substance abuse is for retards. I never been drunk in my entire life, let alone high. I don't smoke either.
33. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  Bill might have a point, but it is unrelated to the OP's claims.
34. Re:It's not going to work by rtb61 · 2014-08-16 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's no problems as it makes is a mutual repulsion society. That form of advertising earned Washington post a complete script and cookie block https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... from me, and if the page shows up blank from now on that's no problem for me. Now if script blocker https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... would only add notes that show up for a blocked script so you can remember why you blocked it. I also target advertising companies that are complicit in marketing stupidity and kill their scripts from there on in.
  If you adds are not offensive, or false, or too in your face, or bloody quite you survive, I don't mind however in you break those rules I will break your site by killing your scripts and cookies, NO COOKIES FOR YOU or for those who assist you in your malignant advertising.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
35. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 17:54 · Score: 0
  
  neither adblock nor noscript get rid of them. they're embedded into the html source. best you could do is a userscript to remove the href and the css-added 'buyitnow' button and leave the actual article text alone.
36. Re:It's not going to work by sexconker · 2014-08-16 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  Bitcoin is falling in value so rapidly that it doesn't work.
  Wrong.
  https://coinbase.com/charts
37. Re:It's not going to work by Bing+Tsher+E · 2014-08-16 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  Only because professional sports is even more repulsive, and there isn't much else on at that time.
38. Re:It's not going to work by phantomfive · 2014-08-16 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, tell us how you really feel
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
39. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-17 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  Am curious to hear how you feel about the following.
  1. Get rid of income based taxation...
  2. Impose VAT and import duty plus maybe some other taxes on property, fuel, natural resources, etc.
  3. Tax refound for anyone who signs up. No almost no other social wealth fair. Probably, 30-55% of the total VAT income but distributed on a one share of the country per person bases. (AKA everyone gets the same refund regardless of income or spending.) Also, go back to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  4. Strict rules for when the Government can borrow money and how it must allot payments taking a fixed percentage of the VAT refund.
  Let me elaborate on the above now that I given an outline.
  1. This would end all the problems with trying to figure out how much someone actually made as income and all the loops holes there in. Also, it would end corporate off shore tax loop holes.
  2. We need tax money, no duh and I feel that those are fair ways to collect it.
  3. It costs the government way too much to get poor people help, in Germany they are spending more on administration then they are on actual welfare given to people. The USA is close to the same if not worse. These costs even more since this people could theoretically be doing something to increase the amount of goods and services available in the country. Also, it gives a progressive edge to the tax the rich pay more tax but don't get any bigger return if they even bother to fill out the paper work. This money could be given to a custodian to pay for services for those who couldn't do so on their own. (mentally ill, disabled, etc) Also, once a good balance between being to big a drag for the economy and being to small to take care of people is found. It should not to be changed. Being a percentage of the national economy it would also automaticly provide people in good times with extra money which would allow them to a safty net to seek better wages. While in bad economics times giving incentive for people to work. I think it would actually cushion the economy from it's wild swings up and down.
  4. Go look at almost any government and tell me that we don't need strict rules preventing the creation of unnecessary debts. We need to make people realize that those tanks are coming out of their pocket book. If they lose part of there refund as part of paying back the loan it would make them think twice about letting the goverment take out debts.
  Okay, I made it a little more complex then I meant to but I would love to hear from you and others about the system am purposing.
40. Re:It's not going to work by fa2k · 2014-08-17 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Welfare is only fair if everybody gets it equally, not just the needy, and pays for food, and on top of it you can have a job, and buy like a fancier place than provided by welfare, or fancier food.
  '
  'No it's not fair, it's a matter of policy. Capitalism is "fair" -- you get money for doing others favours, and can buy favours in return. Any kind of tax or welfare disrupts this and is inherently unfair in this view. Most people don't, however, agree with the capitalistic definition of "favours" (or what ever the economists call it), or that you can accumulate or transfer unlimited amounts of such. Tax can then be seen as a fair way to dampen the dependence on the history of the system, placing more emphasis on recent favours. The rate of the tax and how it is spent is more of an ethical issue than an economic one.
  The world is not fair, so a system that's internally consistent and fair, but doesn't take into account the different "luck" people have, probably doesn't agree with most people's concept of fairness.
  All that said, I agree with the idea of giving everyone a basic wage (called citizen wage in my country, can't remember the English term). The productivity would probably drop as people did more useless things or did nothing, but we may also see more amazing breakthroughs, as the risk to any peson is lower. (currently, going on welfare and developing a new kind of nuclear reactor is seen as quite unaccceptable, yet there may be smart people who can't make it in academia or industry, and now have to take crappy jobs) This policy will become a necessity to have any kind of fair and humane society once automation makes even more jobs redundant, and we can only hope that people will accept the potential loss of productivity before it's too late.
41. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-17 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  He wasn't talking about companies that buy ads, he's talking about companies the sell ads c.f. "ad whore."
  That makes no sense. Since Amazon is not selling ads, why would we assume he is talking about companies that sell ads?
42. Re:It's not going to work by JasonGoatcher · 2014-08-17 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  I don't totally block the ads, I block their ability to animate past the first frame unless I click on them. That way, they can still advertise, they just can't make it obnoxious.
43. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-17 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  You should start a company where you give your employees what they want at a fair "living wage". I have no doubt it will be quite successful.
44. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-17 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  > Exactly. This is why, throughout history, companies that advertize have consistently failed, while companies that just sit back and wait for the world to beat a path to their door have prospered. Clearly, advertising doesn't work.
  This is why everyone uses Github while Sourceforge is a ghost town filled with adware-infested "download helpers".
  This is why everyone uses HN for tech news and Reddit for everything else while Slashdot is now just a pedantry circlejerk.
  Dice really knows how to fuck up web properties.
45. Re:It's not going to work by sillybilly · 2014-08-17 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  I would need a basement to try things out, start selling them on Ebay, craigslist, west side market, and similar open markets, and only if it grows, could I afford to move out of the basement and lease a space, and hire employees, only once I have something tangible and direct on paper. You can't start a business living in an apartment where you can't tap into the gas line to feed a lab Bunsen burner for instance, because the landlord does not want that, it's in the contract. Or you can't tap into the plumbing, to take hot water from the boiler to the washer, because it's not your house, you're renting. In fact I don't care what kind of junk house I'd get, as long as it had a basement, or similar lots of extra room where you can make a mess on the floor and hose it down with water, but I'm not willing to jump into say $20,000 debt to start up a business, with some pie in the sky ideas that I have no clue whether they'd work at all, and that's what's wrong with the world today, because that's what banks expect, let's start a business, under such risky assumptions, as opposed to having an already tangible flow of revenue from your basement business in a house that cost $600/year property tax after it's paid off. That's how banks are bleeding money, by forcing everyone into rent and huge housing costs, and hosing the creativity of people to do whatever they want inside their own homes, because they don't have an inside their own homes, so where the fuck are you gonna play around and tinker around, in the middle of the street, or a mall parking lot, or rent some industrial building when you can't even afford your own rent? You have to be able to acquire a basement or similar mini industrial-water-hose-rinsable contraption on minimum wage first, before you can start your own business.
46. Re:It's not going to work by sillybilly · 2014-08-17 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Rent is an exterminator of human life. Rent is supposed to be temporary, not permanent, but some people's idea is that it's supposed to be permanent. And even if they had rent to own as a general trend, I'd be absolutely not interested in rent to owning my present place, because it's in a huge property tax area. Even for free I would not want to assume the property taxes on the house, let alone pay money for it.
47. Re:It's not going to work by sillybilly · 2014-08-17 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  So in your opinion we should stop sending out welfare checks - and unemployment checks, which are like welfare checks for white people, that don't carry the same level of "shame" as straight welfare, after all, you did pay into the unemployment insurance fund and now it's payback time - and let people starve if they can't find a job, or a way to do favors for others?
48. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-17 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot only allows a user with your karma to post 25 times per day,
  so sillybilly posting as Anonymous Coward
  An income based tax is necessary for a military.
  You can't really tax people, like in the old days, by entering their homes, and taking 10% of whatever they've accumulated, during the nobility/serf era. That leads to people not accumulating anything, but living for the day and wasting everything away.
  You can't tax people based on how many windows their house has, like in the old days in the UK, where people felt it's a privacy right not to disclose their income, because then you end up with a lot of blind windows, to cut taxes, or similar silly things.
  You can't tax people simply on sales tax, because I can buy something on craigslist, and never pay sales tax on it, and you purchase items from a million different directions, hard to keep track of, instead of having an income source, of say 1 or 4 or 5 places in a year, with a W2 setup, and it's a lot easier to manage than all the different items bought on Ebay, and figuring out what the sales tax is, and how to split it between, say OR and TX, UT and TX, MD and TX, for a million items that people can buy on Ebay for $2 each, with $8 S/H. Is the S/H taxable as a sales tax? It gets complicated compared to an income tax that you earn in a fixed place, for a long time, close to home. And you can't really tax people who don't have an income, or shouldn't, and in this sense it's better to have an income tax than a property tax. But property tax is what keeps property prices down, as, unless you have a use for a property, you will relinquish it to somebody else, otherwise, with no property tax, you'd hog it and sit on it and not sell it for a gazillion dollars, and that's not good for the economy either. So property tax keeps things like real estate fluid and mobile and low priced, so it can be eminent domained by the true owners, the monarch or the people, through a sheriff sale, and given to someone who can use it better, at a decent price.
  An income tax is necessary. But it would be nice not to have to file taxes if all you get is W2's, and the W2 amounts are close to but at least to what your total taxes should be. Clinton said ask not what your country can give you, but what you can give to your country. So how about leave $100 extra for the IRS and not give it to HR Block over some stupid math and complicated tax rules waste of everybody's time we try to call job creation and an economy. Do useful, creative things with your time, instead of overhead things. And they should force job places, that, if you work to the end of the year for them, take out the correct amount from your paycheck, plus maybe $100 extra by the end of the year, but not more. Only if you have two jobs at the same time, where they don't know about each other, or other extra sources of income, like your own business, do you have to then do your taxes manually, because your job givers cannot properly estimate your income.
  sillybilly
49. Re:It's not going to work by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-18 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's a roller-coaster chart. Two incidents of being propped up... then a solid downhill with a few bumps for the rest of the time. Wasn't this near a zero three years ago? Guess where it's headed back to...
50. Re:It's not going to work by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-18 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  "So you're the cookie-blocker coming from IP address......" Sorry, sites will figure out who you are somehow.
51. Re:It's not going to work by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-18 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you need a new currency for that... just providers willing to track fractions of a penny. Right now, there's nobody offering that service, but it could be implemented once somebody figures out the right way to charge fees for that.
52. Re:It's not going to work by sexconker · 2014-08-18 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's a roller-coaster chart. Two incidents of being propped up... then a solid downhill with a few bumps for the rest of the time. Wasn't this near a zero three years ago? Guess where it's headed back to...
  It was near zero when it started out, it slowly but surely climbed, and then it sky rocketed once the frenzy started.
  There's a lot of motion if you're a speculator looking to day trade, but if you're actually using Bitcoin then it's been comparable to about $500 for several months.
  The current period is actually the longest, most stable one it's ever had since the masses learned of it.
53. Re:It's not going to work by rtb61 · 2014-08-18 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  I also kill ad bureau cookies routinely for exactly that reason but hey if they behave themselves there is no problem don't and they have successfully achieved anti-marketing with my loathing of the product/company marketed, the site that hosted the ad and the add bureau that served the ad. Two out of the three immediately lose and the last one eventually loses over the long term.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
What took them so long? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-16 07:59 · Score: 5, Funny

So apparently Washington Post has joined the Amazon Affiliates program.... that's so 1990s of them!
Amazon Prime by JeffElkins · 2014-08-16 08:00 · Score: 1

The initial stories of the purchase made sure to note that this was a "personal purchase" by Bezos. If WP is going to embed ads, is a digital subscription going to become part of Amazon Prime?

--
Why is all the good stuff already modded 5, when I have mod points?
1. Re:Amazon Prime by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-08-16 08:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It doesn't matter if the Washington Post is personally owned or not - Bezos' personal fortune is dependent on both it and on Amazon.com, and he's the one calling the shots with both companies. So this attempt to use one of his companies to drive business to another of his companies shouldn't be surprising.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:Amazon Prime by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  At least the Washington Post has some value now, other than lining bird cages.
So what's the problem here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 08:08 · Score: 0

I get why the submitter might have his panties twisted by this, and I can see why the Slashdot editors would post it thinking it might be provocative, but really, what's the big deal here?
Nobody is forcing you to read the Washington Post. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything from Amazon. You can easily avoid both of them, if you want, without any harm or negative effects to yourself. So what's the big deal here?
This obviously isn't like the near-monopoly situation we had in the mainframe world in the 1960s and 1970s, where IBM was really the only viable choice. It isn't like the near-monopoly situation in the PC world in the 1990s, when Windows was the only OS available with most new computers. It isn't even like the utilities near-monopolies or monopolies that exist in many areas.
Online news is one of the most non-monopolistic fields there is. If you don't like what the Washington Post is providing, you're free to get pretty much identical or similar content at one of the many other thousands upon thousands of online news providers who aren't owned by Amazon. The situation isn't as flexible when it comes to retail, but you still have numerous options available.
1. Re:So what's the problem here? by grcumb · 2014-08-16 12:40 · Score: 2
  
  Nobody is forcing you to read the Washington Post. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything from Amazon. You can easily avoid both of them, if you want, without any harm or negative effects to yourself. So what's the big deal here?
  Just because neither of us hangs out with him doesn't mean I don't get to tell you what a giant douchebag Jeff Bezos is. That's one of the joys of the First Amendment, my friend! Freedom of speech is the freedom to bitch inanely about things that don't directly affect you.
  You, of course, are equally free to tell me to shut the fuck up, or to take your own advice and not bitch about something that doesn't interest or affect you....
  ... But if you do decide to keep talking about the problem, and maybe even about how to address or resolve it, then you see the true glory of Open Public Dialogue - the very thing that makes Slashdot such a lovely place to be. :-)
  And no, I am not being in the least bit sarcastic, Sheldon.
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
They already do this... by JustShootMe · 2014-08-16 08:12 · Score: 0

They already do this with things such as stock quotes. They put "Apple" in there, and it automatically adds the ticker symbol, the day's performance, and a link to more information.
I don't see how this is any different.

--
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
1. Re:They already do this... by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-16 08:59 · Score: 2
  
  the stock thing provides additional information about a stock. this is an inline ad. the difference is like day and butts.
2. Re:They already do this... by JustShootMe · 2014-08-16 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Stock exchanges make money, and trading stocks is a way for companies and investors to make (or lose, but that's not the hope) money. It's an inline ad for the stock of the company being mentioned. A very well hidden inline ad, but an ad nonetheless.
  
  --
  For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
3. Re:They already do this... by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-16 09:57 · Score: 2
  
  no. it doesn't go to a location where you can buy or sell stocks, and companies don't pay for placement in articles, and it adds value to the article. buy it now links do not add value.
4. Re:They already do this... by JustShootMe · 2014-08-16 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  Sure they do. If someone wanted to know where to get more information about the referenced item and buy it, that's added value.
  It's only not added value if that's not something you want to do. Just as if, if you are not interested in the stock or its performance, it adds no value for you.
  The argument here is not about whether it adds value - it does. The argument is over the type of value it adds, the cost of that value, and whether the added value is worth the cost - which is considerable.
  
  --
  For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
5. Re:They already do this... by Chelloveck · 2014-08-16 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's not different. I find the ticker thing mighty annoying, too.
  
  --
  Chelloveck
  I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
New Amazon patent: by Tablizer · 2014-08-16 08:24 · Score: 1

One-Click boo boo

--
Table-ized A.I.
Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by slashdot_commentator · 2014-08-16 08:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not having a serious problem with this.
I hate today's commercials so much, I mute them if I can't fast forward them, and am almost forced to only watch DVR'ed content, and tend to avoid watching live TV now. I run adblock. When its a site I go to frequently, I whitelist it, and quickly block it again once I see an ad that does popups, or automatically plays audio/video, or otherwise detracts from my reading.
I would go nuts if a "buy it now" button popped up while reading fiction, but this is a newspaper article. I don't find the button intrusive, because I'm not trying to follow artistic nuance in a newspaper article. It doesn't really take up the screen, and they're placed in front of products to sell, namely "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "The Great Gatsby".
It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad, and I'm much more annoyed at large rectangular ads that break up article paragraphs. So what am I missing here?

--
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
1. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by Bob9113 · 2014-08-16 08:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad, and I'm much more annoyed at large rectangular ads that break up article paragraphs. So what am I missing here?
  IMO, the apparent conflict of interest. In an ideal free market, ad placements are competitive. Exclusive deals between entities which enjoy very large market-shares in their respective markets have a high probability of inhibiting GDP growth in the long run, according to both empirical and theoretical economics.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
2. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  In other words, fire the writers who don't adhere to using certain words in news stories.
  Looking at an example, it's way to intrusive. It's pathetically sad. If it were simple blue text with no giant button, that'd be less bad.
  I am reminded of IntelliTXT.
3. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by Mandrel · 2014-08-16 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the anti-competitive nature of such vertical integration is bad for the economy. The links are also bad for the individual because of their distraction, because they turn an independent information source into a sales force, and because they give preferential treatment to one particular vendor.
  But Slashdot does something similar with its book reviews.
4. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by McGruber · 2014-08-16 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not having a serious problem with this.
  Did you know that Politics and Prose is the best independent bookstore in Washington and, IMHO, one of the best bookstores in the country? The Politics and Prose wikipedia page says it original co-owners "became known as literary tastemakers."
  Consider that as you re-read the example I choose for the summary:
  
  At Politics and Prose, the traditional [AMAZON BUY IT NOW] version — featuring the iconic eyes floating on a blue background — sold better than the DiCaprio [AMAZON BUY IT NOW] cover.
  Do you see the problem now?
  I'll end with a shout-out to the NPR program On The Media - I look forward to hearing OTM cover this issue!
  (This post not edited by Brooke.)
5. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by lgw · 2014-08-16 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Do you see the problem now?
  
  Not even a little. The whole point of owning a newspaper is the ability to print whatever crap you want to. If Bezos wants to use his pet paper to pimp Amazon to the few dozen elderly people who still read it, more power to him. Individuals who own newspapers publishing what they want is the very essence of the First Amendment.
  Are you offended that Democratic-party-publishing-organ WaPo is being used for dirty, dirty profits? Suggesting people listen to Democratic-party-publishing-organ NPR to get their opinion about it? Are you itching to suggest some government regulatory power to help out here?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
6. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2014-08-16 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  New Washington Post headlines . . .
  "Hurricanes to slam the entire US coasts . . . and the stuff in between!" [click here to buy a hurricane survival kit]
  "Martians land in Washington and attack the White House!" [click here to buy guns and ammo]
  "Ebola epidemic hits US!" [click here to buy skin lightening cream, because only white folks will get the vaccine]
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
7. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by Mr.+Slippery · 2014-08-16 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  I would go nuts if a "buy it now" button popped up while reading fiction, but this is a newspaper article.
  When newspaper articles are written so as to be conducive to advertizing, they are fiction of the worst sort.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
8. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by Bing+Tsher+E · 2014-08-16 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  Same as it ever was.
  There was a period after the Watergate Scandal when it became popular to hold journalists up to high esteem for reasons that have never really been explained. While essentially, Journalism School majors are people who flunked out of Calculus, and THEN were also rejected by the English department.
9. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by slashdot_commentator · 2014-08-17 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't bother me then. Doesn't bother me now. In future WaPo articles, I expect my eyes to glaze by them as if they didn't exist.
  
  --
  There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Wow, seriously - that is annoying by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-08-16 08:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

There were a LOT of those "buy it now" links scattered all through the article!
If I were a Washington Post subscriber, I might very well cancel my subscription over something like that - it completely breaks up the flow of the article. That's highly annoying.

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-16 09:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  there's also something called "journalistic integrity" in which advertising content is separate from news content. The next step is for WaPo to shape its news coverage to maximize its affiliate volume. also change its name to huffpo.
2. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by reikae · 2014-08-16 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree; if all ads were as small and inconspicuous as these are, I would even consider getting rid of Adblock altogether to support the content providers. I prefer these instead of banners, even if the links do break up the flow somewhat.
3. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-16 09:30 · Score: 2
  
  The content-sales line has been blurred beyond repair. In-text ads like this has been a dream of the ad buyers since day one of the web, and they're starting to become acceptable. It's now inappropriate to talk about a title in Amazon's collection without a hyperlink to that page, and Amazon will gladly pay on a sale of that item from a customer that comes that way.
4. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by JaneTheIgnorantSlut · 2014-08-16 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  The annoying part is not the link itself, but the stupid button. The different color of the text lets me know that it might be a link and hovering the mouse over it will show me where the link goes. If it says "amazon" then I can safely assume I could buy the item in question there. It should be just an innocuous as a similar link to a blog or another article.
5. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-16 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  The content-sales line has been blurred beyond repair.
  this is the difference between content creation and journalism. Go read buzzfeed or huffpo if that's what you expect of your news.
  
  It's now inappropriate to talk about a title in Amazon's collection without a hyperlink to that page, and Amazon will gladly pay on a sale of that item from a customer that comes that way.
  I've never seen this before in a respectable news source. Nytimes, WaPo, and LATimes are the 3 top-tier papers in the nation.
6. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  Too late
7. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  Do subscribers still see them?
8. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-18 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't possible until Amazon wrote an API that notices a title an inserts the correct listing on their site. Remember, Bezos owns both WaPo and Amazon....
9. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-18 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  perhaps WaPo read all the comments and tweets, cuz the buy it now links are gone. a win for common sense!
I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash Post by Nate+the+greatest · 2014-08-16 08:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Did anyone else notice that the affiliate tag on the links suggest that the links belong to Slate magazine and not the newspaper? For the record, Bezos didn't buy Slate last year, and I don't think he owns it now. http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon... Given the unanswered questions, I'm going to assume there's more to this story. I think this could be a syndicated article which arrived with the links. Or perhaps something broke in the WP's servers, I don't know. But I do know that I checked a half dozen other articles and didn't see any affiliate links.
Exchanges by tepples · 2014-08-16 08:46 · Score: 2

Pay per page with BTC? Good luck browsing the web when you have to keep finding ways to turn dollars into bitcoins when exchange after exchange shuts down. Where is MTGOX now? And good luck getting web sites to agree on standard ways of integrating with mobile wallets.
1. Re:Exchanges by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2014-08-16 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Also have fun waiting 20 minutes for your microtransaction to clear.
  The alternative answer is simpler: I simply don't care enough about most content providers to mourn or want to prevent their passing. They shut down, some other group opens up, better luck next time convincing me you aren't completely disposable. This is what newspapers are slowly discovering: the pay walls go up, and then you realize that they basically just report whatever is on someone's blog anyway.
2. Re:Exchanges by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  > Also have fun waiting 20 minutes for your microtransaction to clear.
  Forest and trees dude.
  (1) Bitcoin is just version 1.0
  (2) Microtransactions don't need to worry about clearance, just like most stores don't need you to sign for a credit card payment under $10. It simply isn't worth the effort to cheat on a microtransaction.
3. Re:Exchanges by pepty · 2014-08-16 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  It simply isn't worth the effort to cheat on a microtransaction.
  Will it be worth the effort to be paid by one? The processor will want a cut, the currency exchange will want a cut (twice), the people keeping the system secure will want a cut ... just because the amount per transaction is tiny doesn't mean the cost per transaction will scale down similarly. And if the value of the currency is unstable, you'll have to run every flippin transaction through the currency exchange. Otherwise subscribers or the processor will game the system.
4. Re:Exchanges by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  You are doing that thing where you imagine the worst case scenario in order to rationalize your preconceptions rather than think about what it would take to make a system work. That kind of shit is for teenagers. I hope you are a teenager because then at least you'd have an excuse.
5. Re:Exchanges by horza · 2014-08-16 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't the point of Bitcoin that there is no processor? You buy a plugin for your ecommerce backend that accepts Bitcoin and et voila. Then you can exchange into your favourite currency after X days or when the wallet reaches Y amount. Or you can pay out Bitcoin directly for example by using it for all your expenses such as equipment and hosting fees, and just convert what is left over as a dividend (for now, though so many places are starting to accept it you may not need to exchange at all).
  Phiillip.
  
  --
  Property for sale in Nice, France
6. Re:Exchanges by pepty · 2014-08-17 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  If a company switches from having its revenue come from subscriptions and ads to microtransactions (say, the Washington Post) they will probably need more than just a plugin. And once they have that, voila, they will still need to convert bitcoin to $, which will have costs that scale somewhat with the number of transactions. If Bitcoin is volatile then they will have to choose to either frequently exchange bitcoins in lots of small transactions (expensive) or speculate on bitcoins by holding onto them and infrequently exchanging them. They would probably have to accept multiple different coins, unless we are positing that one coin type will become completely dominant. There are services that do that today for ~1% (for bitcoin only) but: 1, that business model is for e-commerce, not microtransactions: they would have to process thousands of times more microtransactions to get the same revenue; and 2, currency exchanges are going to be regulated and monitored to some degree, so their costs will be going up.
  Say a lot of people wanted to pay for the Washington Post using Argentine Peso, Brazilian Real, and Namibian Dollar microtransactions. How much would it cost the WP to do that? That is pretty much the expense we need to be looking at.
7. Re:Exchanges by horza · 2014-08-18 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the exposure the publisher wants. Daily if they are paranoid, or weekly seems sensible. As Bitcoin spreads the volatility goes down. Then it could be monthly. But you are missing both the points I made. You can now spend Bitcoin a lot of places, so you can spend directly from your Bitcoin account as (a) it reduces the amount of time you are holding it and (b) there are zero transaction costs for both parties making it currently the world's best currency for transactions. The second is that it doesn't matter if there are a zillion transactions of a zillionth of a dollar. There are no transaction costs, it just goes into the Bitcoin wallet and you end up with a dollar.
  At the moment you can pay the Washington Post using all those currencies. There are yanks abroad you know! WP does it by plugins that take (I presume) Paypal or VISA. They do the same thing but take a large chunk of revenue for doing very little. Bitcoin has the potential to eliminate transaction charges, that's why it's interesting.
  Phillip.
  
  --
  Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash P by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-16 09:10 · Score: 2

Slate is the national online magazine that the Post bought from Microsoft about a decade ago. So, it's a co-owned property. Seems like they programed the Post's website whenever a title is mentioned, link to the appropriate Amazon page.
Bwahahahhaha!! by Oligonicella · 2014-08-16 09:28 · Score: 1

"journalistic integrity", that's a good one.
Washington Post Beta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 09:30 · Score: 0

It's part of their sincere continuing effort to be more responsive to their readers, providing more choices and opportunities, more in tune with today's world, more socially responsible, improving worldwide literacy, etc.
less intrusive by globaljustin · 2014-08-16 09:38 · Score: 2

It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad
i have my problems with Amazon, but I'm glad this is happening
it's a way for owners of newspapers to make their online portion profitable without affecting editorial funciton
see, print has never been "dead"...it's always been a failure of the business model of the owners of the paper...usually based on a complete misunderstanding of **how to make money from the internet**
status quo in tech says, "scape personal data from users to deliver custom ads & charge more for those ads"
Amazon's method here is nothing new or 'innovative' but it's **application** here is innovative in the sense that it can systemically provide a solution to a bad business model

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Get used to it by nurb432 · 2014-08-16 09:46 · Score: 1

There are ads (buy now) everywhere in the modern world (buy now).
From billboards, to clothes, the drink you are holding, to the car that just passed you on the road, its invaded every part of our lives. Everyone is competing for your attention 24/7. Its not going away.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash P by Nate+the+greatest · 2014-08-16 09:47 · Score: 1

I don't think it's co-owned. Read the article I linked to. Also, I can't find any other affiliate links to Amazon, so there is no evidence to support the idea that "whenever a title is mentioned, link to the appropriate Amazon page". If that were the case then song titles would also link there.
The Paper that brought down a President by rmdingler · 2014-08-16 09:58 · Score: 2

The Washington Post, historically one of the most respected daily news sources, was hemorrhaging money while attempting to follow demand and make the transition from dead tree news juggernaut to an internet news site.
Major influence peddlers of the past, major newspaper owners were often more interested in the power derived from an ability to shape public opinion than the bottom line...although they were a great deal more profitable before instantaneous news became impossible to compete with.
Bezos is dealing with the challenge of ushering the decaying giant into the new World, and in some fashion, that includes monetizing the operation. A button for Amazon purchases? Were you expecting a Rakuten link?

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:The Paper that brought down a President by Bob9113 · 2014-08-16 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Bezos is dealing with the challenge of ushering the decaying giant into the new World, and in some fashion, that includes monetizing the operation. A button for Amazon purchases? Were you expecting a Rakuten link?
  Identifying and understanding the reason that an inefficient trade agreement occurs does not make it efficient. I know why a scorpion stings me, but I do not consider it a good thing.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
2. Re:The Paper that brought down a President by rmdingler · 2014-08-16 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  Identifying and understanding the reason that an inefficient trade agreement occurs does not make it efficient.
  
  Identifying and understanding are the keystone to education and betterment.
  
  I know why a scorpion stings me, but I do not consider it a good thing.
  Therein lies the behavior modification. Good and bad aside, you damn sure learn not to place your stingables in harm's way of another scorpion.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
3. Re:The Paper that brought down a President by Bob9113 · 2014-08-16 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  Therein lies the behavior modification. Good and bad aside, you damn sure learn not to place your stingables in harm's way of another scorpion.
  Seems reasonable. What's the next step; how do you recommend we do it? In this case, the stingable is the market economy, and the scorpion is collusive trade. How do we move our economic system out of the way of Bezos' actions?
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Lost chance by gmuslera · 2014-08-16 10:01 · Score: 2

The literary executor of George Orwell's estate could had accused Amazon of using Newspeak. But maybe would be Doublespeak the right language for the dystopian present of 2014.
1. Re:Lost chance by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  The literary executor of George Orwell's estate could had accused Amazon of using Newspeak. But maybe would be Doublespeak the right language for the dystopian present of 2014.
  George Orwell did warn the world about Newspeak, didn't he? BUY IT NOW
2. Re:Lost chance by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  thanks for cheapening the post Bezos! dueche
This would explain why Stripe is sponsoring blast by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 10:16 · Score: 0

Seems to do what Amazon did:
https://github.com/julianshapiro/blast
It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 10:35 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, that's not true. Look at Microsoft!
And AdBlock Plus does not remove the buy it now in the text. At least not yet.
Impressive! by BobandMax · 2014-08-16 11:26 · Score: 1

Just when I thought there could not possibly be another reason for not reading WaPo. Wow, Bezos is a true innovator!

--

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
Why the fuss? by nospam007 · 2014-08-16 12:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just add 'washingtonpost.com##.buyitnow' to your adblocker and never see it again.
I don't care who does it for what reason, if it's the owner, his son or his dog, I just block it as soon as I see it.
Re:I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash P by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 12:15 · Score: 0

Nah, they're just using the affiliate tag to track the effectiveness of the WP placement. Maybe they're willing to donate clickthru credits to Slate as a gesture.
What matters is that the placement is in Bezos' paper and the links are to Amazon.com.
Re:I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash P by ShaunC · 2014-08-16 13:05 · Score: 1

Per Wikipedia,

Slate is a United States English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On 21 December 2004 it was purchased by The Washington Post Company.
So, if Bezos owns the Washington Post and the Washington Post owns Slate, well, there we have it. WaPo's using the "slatmag-20" affiliate ID to simplify things for accounting purposes, I guess.

--
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
So what? by ArcadeMan · 2014-08-16 14:04 · Score: 1

...the paper had begun embedding Amazon Buy-It-Now links in the middle of story sentences.
I really [GET FREE SATOSHI EVERY HOUR!] don't see what [GET FREE SATOSHI FOR WATCHING ADS!] the problem is [GET FREE SATOSHI FROM FAUCETS!] with this system.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Or just, y'know... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 14:18 · Score: 1

Just repurpose the IRS to pay it out as a yearly lump sump, like those 600 dollar economic stimulus checks they were pushing a few years back. Coincidentally didn't that pretty well retroactively afford mocking by Futurama for that 'greenback' episode? That option wouldn't cost significantly more in overhead than the IRS already does. If you could add some sort of e-checking option for the IRS to direct deposit it to a citizen provided account attached to their SSN/tax info, you could cut the costs even further by making it no more than a yearly batch processed direct deposit scheme. The costs of that being exponentially less than the IRS spends each year during tax season.
Additionally: if cost benefit analysis was performed on the pharma industry, and based on what I've heard regarding pharma and medical device prices in Norway, as well as MRI prices elsewhere: There's no reason we couldn't afford it and at much reduced price rates compared to US healthcare, if only we could excise the crony system currently in place here.
Providing a basic functioning society is not THAT cost prohibitive. And the few areas where it might be (rural), can handle it the same way they currently do: County or regional funds for supplying their own with medical care. I know there is already a program like this across the California foothills, and up around the oregon border. One of my friends benefitted from it as a resident after getting stuck out there working at a Walmart for a few years (Family had promised him there were tons of jobs out where they were. He got there and found out there weren't. Took him a couple years to financially recover.) Basically they have a tax that goes into a regional pool to provide medical coverage for any/all persons who has been a resident of the area for at least 1 year. The result of it was payment of his medical fees and coverage of his medications until either he reached a high income, or relocated from the region. This helped him out immensely since he was already in debt for thousands for a previous (unrelated) medical condition, which he was still paying off.
Point being: As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, how can we NOT be leading the world in medical coverage for our own citizens? How can we still have poverty when we've got enough food to export to China? How can our citizens go hungry when we can export rice for prices that scare Asian nations about their domestic production?
Last note: Just based off my 'off-the-cuff' numbers, assuming 330 million people in the US and your 5500 per person per year: That only works out to 181 billion dollars a year to provide a minimum income to *ALL* citizens. Just going off GDP, military spending, etc.. is that even a blip in the grand scheme of things? Now mind you if such a system was put into place we'd need to start dealing with individuals abusing breeding to try and make an income (anybody with more than say 3 kids wouldn't recieve benefits, and assuming their income was below a certain threshhold should either be forced to work, told to relocate outside the country, or offered the option of sterilization.) But in the long term the benefit would be in eliminating a slew of 'niche' programs that formerly needed their own budget, oversight, etc that could simply be rolled in under the minimum income guidelines. The benefit is twofold: Laying off inefficient government workers for programs that really serve as a financial burden, and providing them with the minimum standard of unemployment while helping to eliminate the economic burdens that required unemployment and welfare to begin with. This obviously won't help anybody making more than this who 'falls down on their luck', but I'm sure according to your own logic they should either be able to finance their secondary (and luxury) expenses themselves and if not scale back to their basic pay until such time as they can get a job that allows them to return to their former level of luxury.
Of course this would only work if we cut handouts for everyone, especially corporations, and make it illegal to offer the sort of cut your throat financial incentives that are currently crippling our economy in the name of 'economic growth.'
1. Re:Or just, y'know... by sillybilly · 2014-08-16 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  - $5500 x 330,000,000 people = 1,815,000,000,000, or 1815 billion, not 181 billion like you say. That's $1.8 trillion dollars, quite a bit of dough these days. But in places like NYC $5500 does not cover your rent for a single month, let alone a full year.
  - I'm not a big fan of sterilization. Or offering to anyone to relocate from the US, which is the "great melting pot." As in good luck trying to keep your identity here, we'll blend you down and dissolve you. I could understand relocating somebody away from a place like Zimbabwe if they are not negro, or Norway if they are not white (there was a recent shooting of anybody off color in Norway (including Indian, Arab, African), to protect genetic purity of the race, and the guy barely got slapped on the hand, meaning that's how most people feel over there, they don't like forced breeding), or Mongolia if they are not mongoloid, or even a Native American reservation in the US, if they come up too low on score for being Native American.
  - I'm assuming you're from Norway living in the US. You sound like a communist instigator. People come to the US to become millionaires, not to spread the word about the benefits of socialism and communism. That's for Norway and Sweden, where people like to cooperate and be friendly with each other, not for the US. People come here to dig gold in a gold rush with a bucket and a shovel, and fuck all the hookers, while hoping they'll hit that big rock of gold that'll make them instant millionaires. Or before that, to become free farmers after their indentured servitude term of 30 years is up, as opposed to serfs in their old land. Socialism and collective interest starved the first settlers to the point of somebody killing his own wife, because socialism, lack of private property, creates a bunch of lazy fucks that die in the misery of not giving a fuck. One of my favorite commentaries describing America is http://www.cato.org/publicatio... Private Property Saved Jamestown, And With It, America By David Boaz. Even if it may not be true or historically accurate, who cares. But that was private property with 3 acres for everybody, where they could give a fuck, not universal rent for everybody, where the landlord walks in and out without a warrant, because it's not your house, or you have to bucket the hot water, because you can't make a connection yourself to the washer (btw, lucky you, most people need to go to laundromats), and if you try to escape rent, we knock your house down with an excavator, shoot your tires on the highway to make you late from work to get a taxi to miss payments, or sell you a cheap car with a loose, fluid coupling steering, and a remote in it to spin you into the side rail at 60 mph on the highway. But the powers that be made only my pinky hurt.
2. Re:Or just, y'know... by sillybilly · 2014-08-16 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Of course everyone dreaming about becoming a millionaire, and the prevalence of hookers or hooker like people, is also what's wrong with America, that invites things like 9-11. There is two sides to every story, to Norway, and to America: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. That's both of them.
3. Re:Or just, y'know... by Iamthecheese · 2014-08-17 04:17 · Score: 1
  I agree that this would be a very cost effective and simple way to administer the program, ideal in every way. Furthermore since a tax cut (even an unearned âoeearned incomeâ tax credit) is politically much more viable.
  
  Everyone likes the words âoetax breakâ.
  Republicans have been standing behind âoetax cutsâ that amount to giving money to companies for a long time and it would be VERY exploitable to see Republican leaders try to argue against this "tax cut".
  A tax cut avoids oversight by not being a budget item.
  I feel health care is outside the appropriate scope of this conversation, so I won't address your comments on that matter.
  As user sillybilly pointed out your numbers for doubling the UBI provision are off by a factor of ten. But you're underestimating the amount that can be wrung from other programs. Corporate tax cuts amount to a trillion dollars of spending. I'm not arguing that this is free money. Eliminating these cuts will have a profound and negative effect on the economy if they're not replaced with explicit measures elsewhere. Companies will stop research the tax cuts incentivise, many will try to move overseas, With all the dirty money in US politics it will be difficult to eliminate the cuts anyway. On the other hand a new law that directly eliminates the less helpful corporate tax breaks and move any incentives to a direct and openly debated form would not only help take corporate money out of politics but raise half a trillion dollars a year.
  Furthermore a huge amount of the US budget and state budgets amount to welfare in the form of jobs programs. We're making hundreds of billions of dollars of unneeded military equipment to save jobs. Our military is overmanned to help keep unemployment low. We allow many governmental departments to become bloated just to keep offering those jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Look in any political speech and you'll find that word. What's needed is a complete change of focus. The aim isn't to keep people active, it's to keep them fed, clothed, and mentally healthy. Eliminate every jobs program. That alone will cut the military by 1/3, speed the functioning of the government, improve and permit innovation in government work, improve overall human health, and benefit every aspect of society. But more importantly it will provide 600 billion dollars to the US government and add 30% to the budgets of most states to give back as lowered tax or use for actually useful work.
  Now we have increased unemployment by 20% and, combined with aggregating all dirrect welfare, raised 2.5 trillion dollars. We can hand out $646 to every man, woman and child.* But wait! There's more!
  
  Giving money for each child is probably unwise
  
  12 million of those people are illegal immigrants.
  People will refuse to work in overly dangerous jobs.
  People will tend to not be forced to commit crimes to survive
  People will refuse to work in particularly unpleasant jobs.
  The extra money will give people the security they need to try and start companies, make and try to sell inventions, and go to school
  People will quit their jobs to care for their children
  everyone who lives for their art will have enough money to practice full time
  People will have time to work for charity.
  The net effect of these will be to disincentivise illegal immigration, (lowering the cost to prevent that) force companies to improve working conditions, encourage automation, get children off the streets (deprive gangs of new members), largely eliminate homelessnes
  --
  If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
4. Re:Or just, y'know... by sillybilly · 2014-08-17 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  You're dead wrong that a UBI would eliminate the incentive of illegal immigration? Are you kidding me? The US already can't keep the floodgates closed, they keep leaking all over the place, life really sucks in the rest of the world, because they make you work for peanuts there, but a lot of immigrants come here, and can't find a job, and have to pay huge cost of living, and say it was better back where they came from, like Mexico, or Bangladesh, where doctors were cheaper, housing was affordable, and even if they made little, they did have a job, and could work with their financial math.
Re:I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash P by Jayfar · 2014-08-16 14:29 · Score: 1

No. Bezos bought the Washington Post newspaper and online version, but he did not buy the Washington Post Company, which owns slate.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon...
--quote--
First, Slate is a property of the Washington Post Company but is not part of the Washington Post. Neither it nor Foreign Policy nor the Root have been sold. In fact, Bezos isn't even buying the building in which the Post is currently located.
--end quote--
Buy It Now is an Ebay trademark by ayesnymous · 2014-08-16 15:55 · Score: 1

Buy It Now is an Ebay trademark.
Bezos asks for more U.S. government corruption? by Futurepower(R) · 2014-08-16 17:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

I was wondering why the Washington Post was spamming me! How did the Washington Post get my email address? Now I know. Jeff Bezos is allowing his "personal purchase" to have the email address I gave to Amazon.

Bezos apparently bought the Washington Post so that he can use it to try to force legislators to give him attention. The U.S. is becoming even more a rich-get-richer country.

The subjects of the spam messages:

{SPECIAL PREVIEW} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!

{24 HOURS ONLY} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!

{EXTENDED} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!

I think it is a very effective advertising campaign. The effect will be that people will try to avoid buying things from Amazon. Also, after the "Summer Sale", digital access to the Washington Post will cost $100 per year!
advertising works by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 17:37 · Score: 0

when you're advertising something I want/need, at the best possible price. Only then is it useful against me. I've never clicked on an ad and bought anything.
Youtube inserts ads in the middle of a song by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 18:53 · Score: 0

Youtube has gotten more ad aggressive lately. I've even had songs or concerts stop in the middle and and runs. Complete with a great increase in volume. I'm going to crawl in a cave.
Further reading: Ubik, P.K. Dick
All the traffic will bear. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-16 19:56 · Score: 0

This is the way of things, just as it should be. If we, the people tolerate it, so it shall remain, and probably fester and get worse and worse, up to a point.
If out of sheer disgust, people stop buying the post, (or if they do it anyway,) either way it will stop. This is like watching a gazelle being chased on the savannah by a lioness; not that either the post is gazelle-like, nor Amazon any kind of lioness, but as we watch them run, we know this: if the gazelle is fit enough, she will outrun the lioness, and if not, the lioness shall so be proven the better of the two, but however we may sympathize with the plight of the gazelle, or root for the lion to get that tasty and nourishing meal, our hopes as individuals are irrelevant.
Que sera, sera. If Bezos observes that there is a penny minted that remains as yet not his, and thinks this will help him possess it, he's probably mistaken, but it's his to do with as he pleases. As for me, I don't read that rag anyway, so... what will be will be.
Re:I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash P by Nate+the+greatest · 2014-08-16 21:15 · Score: 1

That is the same article I linked to and which the other commenters aren't bothering to read. Kudos for finding the correct info.
Hosts = best adblocker (+ more)... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-17 10:20 · Score: 0

It does MORE than any single browser addon & more efficiently for added security, speed, reliability, & FAR more + fixes DNS redirect security issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Re:I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash P by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-18 05:17 · Score: 1

Okay... so Washington Post Company sold the Washington Post... how confusing. Thanks for the correction.
Re:I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash P by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-08-18 05:21 · Score: 1

In another thread, somebody pointed out that it was the Washington Post was divested from the Washington Post Company, leaving it as The Slate Group because they sold the piece that generated the company name.
Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 02:09 · Score: 0

Regarding AdBlock/W. Palant: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & he can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default + 'souled-out' to GOOGLE).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result:
Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts & certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
ClarityRay is also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (however - it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from 1 FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - Funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Hosts = a superior solution that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 02:58 · Score: 0

Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... so *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk