Google is nowhere near being THE content broker. For instance, Factiva has more than 9,000 newspaper, major trade publications and market research providers. I can think of many other aggregators such as Lexis-Nexis, Thompson that have been operating in the space for decades - and Google can't touch them for usefulness.
This is not to say Google may not be developing a whole new content set - which will make them a more useful content provider. However, if you are in a position to have to answer any question that pops into someone's head - which I am, Google is rarely a first choice. It is only your first choice if you know absolutely nothing about the topic. It is also part of any final search to make sure you haven't missed anything that your average Joe might come across - especially any misinformation.
It's really quite easy: excellent customer service is completely transparent. It's when things just work or people get what they need before they even know they need it.
It's Xerox having a machine that lets the company know that there is a problem - and a tech fixing it before the client even knows about it.
It's the waiter getting you the refill before you even asked for it.
It's when you boot up your computer and you can do your work - without calling the tech guy.
From that point of view, your question is a bit of a trick question because you are really asking: How do we follow-up on bad service or products that got the customer on the phone in the first place and be so good that they forget the initial inconvenience?
In most cases, you can't. But, anything you can do to solve the problem and do it with minimal fuss is a plus. The how will depend on your particular circumstances - and your customers.
They call this a straw-man argument. I wasn't arguing socialism or advocating a dogma. I was arguing that free markets do not solve every problem and are frequently inefficient - depending on your goals. This seems rather uncontraversal.
You can check out the statistics I quoted in the other post - but you basically have 15% of people uninsured and 15% covered by the state. If you aren't in that group - I'm sure the healthcare system works just fine for you.
Try leaving your HMO/PPO card at home next time you need medical care and let me know how that works out for you.
Efficiency is not everything - which is why you cannot see the problem. Even if you do accept that fact, a monopoly on telephone service actually enabled a more efficient allocation of resources since there was no need to put up multiple telephone wires or lay miles of redundent fiber optic cable.
As for Health Care, you might actually get acquianted with the facts:
"The number of people with health insurance coverage rose from 242.4 million in 2002 to 243.3 million in 2003. Nonetheless, the percentage with coverage dropped from 84.8 percent to 84.4 percent, mirroring a drop in the percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance (61.3 percent in 2002 to 60.4 percent in 2003). This decline in employment-based health insurance coverage essentially explains the drop in total private health insurance coverage, from 69.6 percent in 2002 to 68.6 percent in 2003.
So, we have more than 15% without coverage and more than another 15% being covered by the state. Is this efficient? It probably seems like it is - so long as you are one of the 70% with coverage.
The reason why most people miss the importance of tracking blogs for marketers is that they focus on the individual conversations. Marketers are interested in aggregates - which is why they look at people based on demographic, attitudes and so forth.
Why is this important? Say you were the CEO for Fair Beans Coffee company. Some guy starts complaining that you aren't supporting the troops because you aren't given them free coffee. Someone reads that and then writes about it - and then it spreads through the "blogsophere" for whatever reasons, like a chain letter.
The problem is that it isn't accurate. No one ever asked you to give free coffee to the troops. You had planned to give your workforce a day to work together to refurbish a school. But hey, it is actually a good idea - the soldiers might remember what you did and buy your coffee when they get home, so you decide to donate some.
The issue here is that you cannot react to a problem you aren't aware of - and there are occasionally opportunities where someone has a good idea that you can act on. However, if you don't know about it - people are just left with the misinformation and dislike you company based on groundless reasons.
When used in this way, it is just another way for companies to figure out what they customers want - and give it to them. Of course, there could be bad applications - but any technology can be applied for nefarious purposes.
Got to love the free market religion. There are many things that "free markets" don't handle well. For example, there is a reason why there isn't a free market for city water services. Free market "corrections" and bankrupt business and cost cutting would kill people. Free markets are why we have the best health care in the world - if you can afford to pay for it.
Free markets can be efficient - but efficiency isn't everything my friend.
However, I would flip the script and ask whether you have ever been in a situation where someone uses social constraints to increase the pain and suffering of others?
Example: asshat boss that plays games such as not providing resources necessary to do your job, creates crisis situations as a way to bring pressure on workers and manipulate them, etc.
There are people that use social constraints to stifle dialogue, get their own way and avoid accountablity - just as there are people that do the same in the absence of the social constraints. Social constraints tend to work to preserve the status quo and existing forms of authority - but that doesn't mean they are good (or bad for that matter).
I don't know - ever know anyone addicted to IRC or chat programs? Social interaction is good, healthy, etc. However, if you are spending 12 hours a day at it - whether on IRC or at a beauty salon - you have a problem.
Quick litmus test: ever dream scrolling text or that you were watching TV, etc.? Dreams typically point to problems.
Have you considered that you may have gotten better at doing crossword puzzles by practicing to do them every day? You might want to try it again without eating breakfast - but even that would leave you open to other influences such as placebo effect and so on.
I agree with your central point. However, it seems to me to be an issue of trust. Freedom implies that people will do things that you do not believe are appropriate. However, trust is the mechanism for balancing freedom. Perhaps Tor needs a more sophisticated method for verifying users based on a web of trust while at the same time providing anonymity.
I'm imagining something where people vouch for others in something like a PGP web of trust and then when something occurs from a particular sub-segment of the web that most people think is a violation of trust - people have to reverify their connections. There are problems with this too - but there seems like there might be some combination that would offer a solution.
It's like an other epithet. It needs to run its course - become hackneyed and then it can be reclaimed by the culture. Nigger, queer are fairly recent examples where the derogatory have been partially reclaimed. If you want an older example, try looking up the history of Quakers - a once derogatory term that the community uses to talk about itself 350 years later.
Bottom line: You are never going to get people to use the hacker/cracker differentiation. You almost have to be a hacker to even understand it. Let them have hacker for their exercises in fear mongering and then take it back when it has lost its novelty and they have moved on to cyber-terrorist or whatever is the next buzzword of the day. 300 years from now - hacker will mean what it is supposed to mean. You - well, actually your descendents - will just have to wait for it.
RMS is more like the tribal elder reminding you of your ideals - especially during those times when you consider putting them aside because they seem impossible to live up to.
I agree with you. My point was more directed at the issue of "not caring" or "it's not my job". You are right it isn't your job. However, if you take that position, you should also understand that TV content will reflect the interests of people that do want to influence the survey, are in the sample and take some responsibility for indicating what shows they have a preference for. Perhaps this is the reason so much of what is on television is such complete and total crap. Reality TV - you got to be kidding me...
I work in advertising. It is clear from your comments you do not understand how programs make it to TV. I'll try to explain it - as simply as possible.
ACNielsen is the ratings service that advertisers use to gauge how many people watch a particular show. They then go to what is called the upfront market where media buying companies buy commercial space in bulk from channels. The prices set are based on ACNielsen's numbers and the market - it's a bit like an auction. If advertisers do not buy ads for a particular show that covers the costs and the channel it is on is supported by advertising, it goes away and is replaced by a new show that advertisers will buy advertising for so it covers costs.
As to why it is your problem, it means if you don't watch the show in a way ACNielsen tracks it, the show is more likely to go away. It's not about legality - although I think if you live in the U.S., there are a lot of nuances in IP law and I don't know if your particular line of argumentation would work in a court of law - might also depend on your court.
As for your other comments, you don't need to care. However, you should understand that there is a causal relationship between not watching it on TV and the show not lasting. Personally, I don't watch TV, so it doesn't make a difference to me. I'm just pointing out how the system works so you can make choices to your advantage.
Minor point. You may not be watching the ads but the Sci-Fi channel sells advertising space based on tracked viewership. More viewership that can be tracked means more advertiser underwriting.
If you don't watch shows you like in a way that shows your support - i.e., that is can be tracked and sold in some way, you make it harder for the shows producers to justify the expense if they finance their shows through advertising. It's just that simple.
Your argument also is a bit weak. Cable companies, like ISPs, provide access not content. The fact that you pay the cable company and could watch the show means nothing to the cable channel producing the content. Most cable channels make their money based on ratings - just as websites make their money on banners and click-thru rates - your ISP doesn't pay them anything.
Should cable channels have other ways of paying for their content? I believe they would love to hear any ideas you have about alternatives to ratings that could be used to pay their production costs and produce a profit. If you figure that one out, you'd be this generation's equivalent of Ted Turner.
And who decides to not vote just because e-vote machines are in use? The method used to cast my vote at the polling station is the LAST thing on my mind when I go to vote.
I don't know. Perhaps if I were functionally illiterate, a technophobe, etc. this may be a factor.
Makes me think of my mother. It took me a long time to convince her to use eticking for her airline flights. Once she did it, she liked it - but there was a real barrier there where she needed encouragement to go do it. Some people are intimidated enough by the voting process (you mean I have to vote yes or no on all 146 judges? are you saying I should research each one?) that another layer may very well be enough of a disincentive for some people that they just stay home.
Funny. I've always thought of Democrats and Republicans as a case of bad cop / good cop. Ultimately, they are both on the same side - the alleged differences are just a matter of how they choose to present themselves.
Also, your comment about Democrats representing socialists, communists, peaceniks is straight out of Fox News. Care to present any evidence that any of these groups have any influence on the Democratic party?
Example, can you tell me of the two major candidates, who was the peace candidate last election? And don't even pretend that Howard Dean brought the peace issue up in the primaries - it's one of the reasons he was not selected as the Democratic candidate in the first place.
Repeat after me: correlation does not mean causation. Perhaps whatever factors causing the problem also caused the 17th amendment.
Re:I Don't Want To Admit It ... But It's True
on
No Need For Trek Anymore
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Even Homer was great mostly because he was the first (have you every actually read the Illiad (even in translation?) It's not that good!)
Homer is great because he captured Greek culture and managed to pass down to posterity a story that express the goals, hopes and dreams of that culture. The Illiad is the closest the Greeks have to a Bible, and it is brilliant.
Perhaps you read a bad translation. Try Lattimore. You might also want to try a good commentary (although, I haven't used this particular one). For other suggestions on what else you might read to really appreciate Homer, try The New Lifetime Reading Plan which suggests good translations and sources for literary criticism, historical background, and other information.
The New Lifetime Reading Plan is - without question - the most important book I have ever owned. It can help you to appreciate Homer just at it helped me to read what I thought was unreadable - James Joyces' Ulysses. The key tip is that Ulysses should be read with the help of Stuart Gilbert.
Open source may very well be a response to M$. Free software, on the other hand, is a response to any domination - whether Microsoft's or any other company that likes to restrict the freedom of people with non-disclosure agreements or the elimination of choice through anti-competitive practices.
If you look at the Constitution, copyright covers: "[o]nly the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors...and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts."
Original ideas should not become commodities that are transferred to purchasers and assignees - which is the problem with all the examples above.
Not that I'm a fan of Bush - but Clinton put more people in jail than Reagan and papa Bush combined. In many ways, Clinton was more "right" in respect to "free trade", use of power against foreign countries (anyone remember the delibrate bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade under Clinton?), and so forth than some Republicans at the time.
Liberal and conservative labels aside, you have a one party system where the two parties are different faces of the same coin. The consolidated corporate media is their propaganda arm - and you get votes by targeted direct marketing campaigns via people like Rove. If it wasn't so fundamentally wrong, you would almost has to admire the efficiency of it.
I agree that negativity is bad. However, excluding critical people because they bring up inconvenient facts is just as bad - if not worse.
"You found a critical bug that is going to push back the delivery time of our product. I'm going to make sure you are not on any future projects of mine!"
You can shoot or switch out the messenger so s/he is more "positive" all you like. It doesn't really solve the underlying problem though.
I was reading something recently that talked about business failures and how they are characterized:
A dominate leader who believes he is infallible and demands obedience
In-group of favorites marked by their obedience to their domiunate leader
Insularity from the outside world and us vs. them mentality
Sense of impending crisis
The Presidency of George Bush was the first thing that came to mind. Surely, there is no better measure for how "free" a society is than the number of dissent voices that are active in government.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is nowhere near being THE content broker. For instance, Factiva has more than 9,000 newspaper, major trade publications and market research providers. I can think of many other aggregators such as Lexis-Nexis, Thompson that have been operating in the space for decades - and Google can't touch them for usefulness.
This is not to say Google may not be developing a whole new content set - which will make them a more useful content provider. However, if you are in a position to have to answer any question that pops into someone's head - which I am, Google is rarely a first choice. It is only your first choice if you know absolutely nothing about the topic. It is also part of any final search to make sure you haven't missed anything that your average Joe might come across - especially any misinformation.
It's really quite easy: excellent customer service is completely transparent. It's when things just work or people get what they need before they even know they need it.
It's Xerox having a machine that lets the company know that there is a problem - and a tech fixing it before the client even knows about it.
It's the waiter getting you the refill before you even asked for it.
It's when you boot up your computer and you can do your work - without calling the tech guy.
From that point of view, your question is a bit of a trick question because you are really asking: How do we follow-up on bad service or products that got the customer on the phone in the first place and be so good that they forget the initial inconvenience?
In most cases, you can't. But, anything you can do to solve the problem and do it with minimal fuss is a plus. The how will depend on your particular circumstances - and your customers.
They call this a straw-man argument. I wasn't arguing socialism or advocating a dogma. I was arguing that free markets do not solve every problem and are frequently inefficient - depending on your goals. This seems rather uncontraversal.
You can check out the statistics I quoted in the other post - but you basically have 15% of people uninsured and 15% covered by the state. If you aren't in that group - I'm sure the healthcare system works just fine for you.
Try leaving your HMO/PPO card at home next time you need medical care and let me know how that works out for you.
Efficiency is not everything - which is why you cannot see the problem. Even if you do accept that fact, a monopoly on telephone service actually enabled a more efficient allocation of resources since there was no need to put up multiple telephone wires or lay miles of redundent fiber optic cable.
As for Health Care, you might actually get acquianted with the facts: "The number of people with health insurance coverage rose from 242.4 million in 2002 to 243.3 million in 2003. Nonetheless, the percentage with coverage dropped from 84.8 percent to 84.4 percent, mirroring a drop in the percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance (61.3 percent in 2002 to 60.4 percent in 2003). This decline in employment-based health insurance coverage essentially explains the drop in total private health insurance coverage, from 69.6 percent in 2002 to 68.6 percent in 2003.
So, we have more than 15% without coverage and more than another 15% being covered by the state. Is this efficient? It probably seems like it is - so long as you are one of the 70% with coverage.
The reason why most people miss the importance of tracking blogs for marketers is that they focus on the individual conversations. Marketers are interested in aggregates - which is why they look at people based on demographic, attitudes and so forth.
Why is this important? Say you were the CEO for Fair Beans Coffee company. Some guy starts complaining that you aren't supporting the troops because you aren't given them free coffee. Someone reads that and then writes about it - and then it spreads through the "blogsophere" for whatever reasons, like a chain letter.
The problem is that it isn't accurate. No one ever asked you to give free coffee to the troops. You had planned to give your workforce a day to work together to refurbish a school. But hey, it is actually a good idea - the soldiers might remember what you did and buy your coffee when they get home, so you decide to donate some.
The issue here is that you cannot react to a problem you aren't aware of - and there are occasionally opportunities where someone has a good idea that you can act on. However, if you don't know about it - people are just left with the misinformation and dislike you company based on groundless reasons.
When used in this way, it is just another way for companies to figure out what they customers want - and give it to them. Of course, there could be bad applications - but any technology can be applied for nefarious purposes.
Got to love the free market religion. There are many things that "free markets" don't handle well. For example, there is a reason why there isn't a free market for city water services. Free market "corrections" and bankrupt business and cost cutting would kill people. Free markets are why we have the best health care in the world - if you can afford to pay for it.
Free markets can be efficient - but efficiency isn't everything my friend.
In the main, I agree with your point.
However, I would flip the script and ask whether you have ever been in a situation where someone uses social constraints to increase the pain and suffering of others?
Example: asshat boss that plays games such as not providing resources necessary to do your job, creates crisis situations as a way to bring pressure on workers and manipulate them, etc.
There are people that use social constraints to stifle dialogue, get their own way and avoid accountablity - just as there are people that do the same in the absence of the social constraints. Social constraints tend to work to preserve the status quo and existing forms of authority - but that doesn't mean they are good (or bad for that matter).
I don't know - ever know anyone addicted to IRC or chat programs? Social interaction is good, healthy, etc. However, if you are spending 12 hours a day at it - whether on IRC or at a beauty salon - you have a problem.
Quick litmus test: ever dream scrolling text or that you were watching TV, etc.? Dreams typically point to problems.
Have you considered that you may have gotten better at doing crossword puzzles by practicing to do them every day? You might want to try it again without eating breakfast - but even that would leave you open to other influences such as placebo effect and so on.
I agree with your central point. However, it seems to me to be an issue of trust. Freedom implies that people will do things that you do not believe are appropriate. However, trust is the mechanism for balancing freedom. Perhaps Tor needs a more sophisticated method for verifying users based on a web of trust while at the same time providing anonymity.
I'm imagining something where people vouch for others in something like a PGP web of trust and then when something occurs from a particular sub-segment of the web that most people think is a violation of trust - people have to reverify their connections. There are problems with this too - but there seems like there might be some combination that would offer a solution.
It's like an other epithet. It needs to run its course - become hackneyed and then it can be reclaimed by the culture. Nigger, queer are fairly recent examples where the derogatory have been partially reclaimed. If you want an older example, try looking up the history of Quakers - a once derogatory term that the community uses to talk about itself 350 years later.
Bottom line: You are never going to get people to use the hacker/cracker differentiation. You almost have to be a hacker to even understand it. Let them have hacker for their exercises in fear mongering and then take it back when it has lost its novelty and they have moved on to cyber-terrorist or whatever is the next buzzword of the day. 300 years from now - hacker will mean what it is supposed to mean. You - well, actually your descendents - will just have to wait for it.
RMS is more like the tribal elder reminding you of your ideals - especially during those times when you consider putting them aside because they seem impossible to live up to.
I agree with you. My point was more directed at the issue of "not caring" or "it's not my job". You are right it isn't your job. However, if you take that position, you should also understand that TV content will reflect the interests of people that do want to influence the survey, are in the sample and take some responsibility for indicating what shows they have a preference for. Perhaps this is the reason so much of what is on television is such complete and total crap. Reality TV - you got to be kidding me...
ACNielsen is the ratings service that advertisers use to gauge how many people watch a particular show. They then go to what is called the upfront market where media buying companies buy commercial space in bulk from channels. The prices set are based on ACNielsen's numbers and the market - it's a bit like an auction. If advertisers do not buy ads for a particular show that covers the costs and the channel it is on is supported by advertising, it goes away and is replaced by a new show that advertisers will buy advertising for so it covers costs.
As to why it is your problem, it means if you don't watch the show in a way ACNielsen tracks it, the show is more likely to go away. It's not about legality - although I think if you live in the U.S., there are a lot of nuances in IP law and I don't know if your particular line of argumentation would work in a court of law - might also depend on your court.
As for your other comments, you don't need to care. However, you should understand that there is a causal relationship between not watching it on TV and the show not lasting. Personally, I don't watch TV, so it doesn't make a difference to me. I'm just pointing out how the system works so you can make choices to your advantage.
Minor point. You may not be watching the ads but the Sci-Fi channel sells advertising space based on tracked viewership. More viewership that can be tracked means more advertiser underwriting.
If you don't watch shows you like in a way that shows your support - i.e., that is can be tracked and sold in some way, you make it harder for the shows producers to justify the expense if they finance their shows through advertising. It's just that simple.
Your argument also is a bit weak. Cable companies, like ISPs, provide access not content. The fact that you pay the cable company and could watch the show means nothing to the cable channel producing the content. Most cable channels make their money based on ratings - just as websites make their money on banners and click-thru rates - your ISP doesn't pay them anything.
Should cable channels have other ways of paying for their content? I believe they would love to hear any ideas you have about alternatives to ratings that could be used to pay their production costs and produce a profit. If you figure that one out, you'd be this generation's equivalent of Ted Turner.
Yeah, life has never been quite the same since I got that Chewbecca g-string...
I don't know. Perhaps if I were functionally illiterate, a technophobe, etc. this may be a factor.
Makes me think of my mother. It took me a long time to convince her to use eticking for her airline flights. Once she did it, she liked it - but there was a real barrier there where she needed encouragement to go do it. Some people are intimidated enough by the voting process (you mean I have to vote yes or no on all 146 judges? are you saying I should research each one?) that another layer may very well be enough of a disincentive for some people that they just stay home.
Funny. I've always thought of Democrats and Republicans as a case of bad cop / good cop. Ultimately, they are both on the same side - the alleged differences are just a matter of how they choose to present themselves.
Also, your comment about Democrats representing socialists, communists, peaceniks is straight out of Fox News. Care to present any evidence that any of these groups have any influence on the Democratic party?
Example, can you tell me of the two major candidates, who was the peace candidate last election? And don't even pretend that Howard Dean brought the peace issue up in the primaries - it's one of the reasons he was not selected as the Democratic candidate in the first place.
Repeat after me: correlation does not mean causation. Perhaps whatever factors causing the problem also caused the 17th amendment.
Homer is great because he captured Greek culture and managed to pass down to posterity a story that express the goals, hopes and dreams of that culture. The Illiad is the closest the Greeks have to a Bible, and it is brilliant.
Perhaps you read a bad translation. Try Lattimore. You might also want to try a good commentary (although, I haven't used this particular one). For other suggestions on what else you might read to really appreciate Homer, try The New Lifetime Reading Plan which suggests good translations and sources for literary criticism, historical background, and other information.The New Lifetime Reading Plan is - without question - the most important book I have ever owned. It can help you to appreciate Homer just at it helped me to read what I thought was unreadable - James Joyces' Ulysses. The key tip is that Ulysses should be read with the help of Stuart Gilbert.
Open source may very well be a response to M$. Free software, on the other hand, is a response to any domination - whether Microsoft's or any other company that likes to restrict the freedom of people with non-disclosure agreements or the elimination of choice through anti-competitive practices.
You mean all that innovation that comes from 1-Click software patents, the Happy Birthday song, Winnie the Pooh, etc.
If you look at the Constitution, copyright covers: "[o]nly the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors...and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts."
Original ideas should not become commodities that are transferred to purchasers and assignees - which is the problem with all the examples above.
Not that I'm a fan of Bush - but Clinton put more people in jail than Reagan and papa Bush combined. In many ways, Clinton was more "right" in respect to "free trade", use of power against foreign countries (anyone remember the delibrate bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade under Clinton?), and so forth than some Republicans at the time.
Liberal and conservative labels aside, you have a one party system where the two parties are different faces of the same coin. The consolidated corporate media is their propaganda arm - and you get votes by targeted direct marketing campaigns via people like Rove. If it wasn't so fundamentally wrong, you would almost has to admire the efficiency of it.
I agree that negativity is bad. However, excluding critical people because they bring up inconvenient facts is just as bad - if not worse.
"You found a critical bug that is going to push back the delivery time of our product. I'm going to make sure you are not on any future projects of mine!"
You can shoot or switch out the messenger so s/he is more "positive" all you like. It doesn't really solve the underlying problem though.
I was reading something recently that talked about business failures and how they are characterized:
The Presidency of George Bush was the first thing that came to mind. Surely, there is no better measure for how "free" a society is than the number of dissent voices that are active in government.