Not ready error reading drive A Abort, Retry Fail? _
Overwrite destfile.txt? (Yes/No/All): _
Etc.
It only takes one step because they wrapped it all up in a nice little function that makes some assumptions and attempts a typical copy... anything out-of-the-ordinary requires it to come back to you for more information.
But it is an issue, searching "cougar" returned 2 cougar dating websites but searching "sugar daddy" returned 7 sugar daddy dating websites.
Why is it an issue?
Because people searching for “cougar” are more likely to want to find cougar dating services than they are to want information about the feline?
Or because people searching for cougar dating services are too dumb to figure out that “cougar” is a common feline and they will get more relevant results if they add the term “dating” to their search?
Google searches shows a bias.
They are just reflecting the bias of the users.
If you were able to aggregate all searches containing the term “cougar” or “sugar daddy”, and divide them into two groups each (although a lot of the time it’d be impossible to tell the difference, the searcher’s next search would probably give it away):
1) people who were looking for a dating service 2) people who were not
I guarantee you’d have far more people in group 2 for “cougar” vs. for “sugar daddy”.
If you stick to one tag per e-mail, tags are functionally identical to folders. How is that so complicated?
Plus, you can search through your e-mails with basically the same high-powered search that you use for Google web searches.
To put the final nail in the coffin, I’ve found its spam filtering to be nearly bulletproof, and simultaneously being exceptionally good about not putting legit messages in the spam folder. I don’t even check it anymore.
a set of rules as to how you're supposed to write things
So are English, German, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Navajo, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic... and how many people can write in more than a couple of those? How many Americans can write in more than one of them? For that matter, how many Americans can write correctly, legibly, and coherently in their own native language?
My point is, it takes some work to learn a new language (or code). Not everyone can do it, and not everyone wants to.
That I’m not sure of. CougarLife still makes the cut, though; search “cougar dating” and it shows up as a sponsored result. So that clearly isn’t the issue here; it’s just the AdSense network that they got booted from.
Anonymous Coward does have a good point though. If you've incurred a debt by pumping the gas then I don't see how the station could refuse to settle that debt using legal tender.
Well, if the pump says that cash customers pre-pay, and you pump your gas without paying for it first, they could justifiably claim that you stole the gas. However, most pumps now are electronic anyway and won’t pump any gas until you’ve either swiped your plastic or put some cash down at the register, so that situation wouldn’t even be possible at most filling stations.
gas stations are notorious for having prices ending in 9/10ths of a cent, so it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't exactly adhering to the law regarding currency
I’m not aware of anything that says that prices have to be rounded to whole cents. That would also make it difficult to price things 3/$1, would it not?
It only has to be rounded to the nearest cent when you’re paying... and they could in fact round all transactions to the nearest 10c instead of to the nearest penny and as long as you both agreed on the goods and the price it’d be perfectly legal to do that.
Ah but those guidelines are for AdWords not AdSense. What the differences are I don't know though.
AdSense is the service that webmasters register for to embed Google ads in their sites. AdWords is the service that webmasters register for to put ads for their websites on Google’s AdSense network.
“Cougar” isn’t automatically an explicit term... it can also refer to the cat. As a result, it doesn’t automatically assume that you’re searching for dating services if you search for “cougar”. Comparatively, I don’t think I have ever heard of or seen a website devoted to Sugar Daddy candies.
All you’ve proved is that “Cougar” has a lot more results relevant to the cat than “Sugar Daddy” has for the candy. Searching for cougar dating filters out most of the feline kitties... and CougarLife is the top sponsored result.
If the scalper buys all of them and then sells all of them for the higher price, then yes, you should’ve priced them higher.
If they were priced well in the first place, though, then scalpers who buy all of the tickets, then want to sell all of them for a higher price will be stuck with tickets that simply won’t sell at that price, and they’d have to drop the price back down to get rid of those tickets. You can’t very well do that, because people don’t appreciate having to pay more than someone else for exactly the same product, and Apple has to care what people think unlike some opportunistic scalper who’s just out for a quick buck.
If only 11,112 customers could afford $100 tickets, that's legit, but that would also mean scalpers would only be selling 11,112 tickets. That leaves the rest to either be purchased by customers for $30, or purchased by the middleman and eaten as a loss to support their higher ticket prices.
Concerts can have graduated tiers of pricing like that, and usually do. Better position = more expensive ticket. The analogy somewhat breaks down on that point.
Windows tried it (Student, Home, Pro, etc.) and people didn’t like it much (intentionally crippling software and then selling it for cheaper?). There’s not much feature variation on the iPad (none, basically, and that’s by design), so they can’t as easily get away with selling it to some people for higher than others. About the only justification they can have for charging some people more is the fact that they’re early buyers, and even that goes only so far (e.g. the unhappy iPhone buyers after Apple drastically reduced the price).
The original author and my self seem to be inclined to believe that it is, while you aren't. Not a thing wrong with that in the world as none of us are likely to know.
Well, I don’t know about that; RightSaidFred99 seemed to think that anybody’d be an idiot to think anything different:
This was a marketing move to try to propagate the artificial scarcity ploy Apple is using with the iPad. Nothing more. I'm surprised so many rubes don't see that, it's very obvious.
If people will pay those prices, the venue probably should raise some/all of the ticket prices to match what the market will support.
Actually, that’ll force a lot of customers out of the market (prices go up, and demand drops... that’s the demand curve).
There are two reasons why a business would want to avoid that.
First, number of customers. Repeat business is big business. Limiting the amount of people who can buy your product is necessary, by setting some price that’s profitable for you, but only to a certain extent and after that it becomes a bad thing.
Secondly, profit. Yes, profit. Making a clean profit of $90 per ticket may be less profitable than making only $20. If you get 50,000 customers when you price the tickets $30, you need to get at least 11,112 customers if you price the tickets at $100, or you’ll have only hurt your bottom line. The price is set at something which will optimize the volume of sale x profit per unit function, not just one or the other.
The demand wasn’t that high. Speculators would have bought up all of the supply, using an artificial demand to create an artificial scarcity and then trying to sell them for a higher price once they were scarce.
You may then ask – well shouldn’t Apple just charge more then? – in fact, you did ask that.
No; because if every speculator were able to buy 50, they might create an artificial scarcity, but the scarcity would drive up the price, the demand would go down, and many of the speculators would be stuck with products that nobody would buy for the prices they asked, driving the price right back down to where it started – or even below it. Net result? A few speculators might make money, but most of the people who wanted an iPad would have to wait for the black-market price to come down to something more reasonable. Since Apple doesn’t want speculators profiting off of its R&D on its product, and Apple doesn’t want its customers being forced to pay high prices or wait, it’s a lose-lose for them to allow this sort of thing... so they don’t.
Apple sets the price so that they can make the highest profit. Not highest profit per sale, but overall. If they priced it higher, they wouldn’t sell as many; if they priced it lower, they’d sell more. Speculators hoarding the products screw up this system and Apple wants to prevent that.
Another possibility is only shipping a third of what you have produced, holding the rest in a warehouse and telling everyone you've 'sold out'.
That’s not necessarily artificial. There are many real logistical reasons to prevent you from having all of your products in-store on the release date.
Not least of which is, “if we can prevent people from hoarding these (artificial demand), this store should really only need about 50 to satisfy the real demand in the area.”
No, actually, research it; you’ll find that I’m right.
Debt is not created during a sale. Until you pay for something, it belongs to the store, and if you decided to walk out with it without paying you wouldn’t be walking out with a debt, you’d be walking out with a stolen item.
When was the last time you were unable to pay with cash when purchasing electronics?
Last time I was required to show a picture ID when purchasing something, in general... well, I think that would be the last time I purchased something and they wanted to make sure I was who I said I was. Granted, they weren’t trying to limit what people bought because I was only allowed to buy two... they were trying to limit what people bought because federal law says you had to be 21 to buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh really?
Not ready error reading drive A
Abort, Retry Fail? _
Overwrite destfile.txt? (Yes/No/All): _
Etc.
It only takes one step because they wrapped it all up in a nice little function that makes some assumptions and attempts a typical copy... anything out-of-the-ordinary requires it to come back to you for more information.
According to adblock, it’s somehow loading http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/logos/swf/pacman10-hp-sound.swf.
Just call a spade a shovel, that’s what I always say...
But it is an issue, searching "cougar" returned 2 cougar dating websites but searching "sugar daddy" returned 7 sugar daddy dating websites.
Why is it an issue?
Because people searching for “cougar” are more likely to want to find cougar dating services than they are to want information about the feline?
Or because people searching for cougar dating services are too dumb to figure out that “cougar” is a common feline and they will get more relevant results if they add the term “dating” to their search?
Google searches shows a bias.
They are just reflecting the bias of the users.
If you were able to aggregate all searches containing the term “cougar” or “sugar daddy”, and divide them into two groups each (although a lot of the time it’d be impossible to tell the difference, the searcher’s next search would probably give it away):
1) people who were looking for a dating service
2) people who were not
I guarantee you’d have far more people in group 2 for “cougar” vs. for “sugar daddy”.
Yes, and paper mills are consumers of raw pine, but that doesn’t necessarily mean all the rough edges need to be filed off it first.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Perhaps writing incorrect code is half as hard as writing it correctly the first time.
You’re kidding, right?
If you stick to one tag per e-mail, tags are functionally identical to folders. How is that so complicated?
Plus, you can search through your e-mails with basically the same high-powered search that you use for Google web searches.
To put the final nail in the coffin, I’ve found its spam filtering to be nearly bulletproof, and simultaneously being exceptionally good about not putting legit messages in the spam folder. I don’t even check it anymore.
API = Application Programming Interface
UI = User Interface
I think you’re confusing “Application Programmers” with “Users”.
a set of rules as to how you're supposed to write things
So are English, German, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Navajo, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic... and how many people can write in more than a couple of those? How many Americans can write in more than one of them? For that matter, how many Americans can write correctly, legibly, and coherently in their own native language?
My point is, it takes some work to learn a new language (or code). Not everyone can do it, and not everyone wants to.
That I’m not sure of. CougarLife still makes the cut, though; search “cougar dating” and it shows up as a sponsored result. So that clearly isn’t the issue here; it’s just the AdSense network that they got booted from.
You’re absolutely correct.
Can I take small consolation in the fact that http://slashdot.com actually does redirect to slashdot.org?
Anonymous Coward does have a good point though. If you've incurred a debt by pumping the gas then I don't see how the station could refuse to settle that debt using legal tender.
Well, if the pump says that cash customers pre-pay, and you pump your gas without paying for it first, they could justifiably claim that you stole the gas. However, most pumps now are electronic anyway and won’t pump any gas until you’ve either swiped your plastic or put some cash down at the register, so that situation wouldn’t even be possible at most filling stations.
gas stations are notorious for having prices ending in 9/10ths of a cent, so it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't exactly adhering to the law regarding currency
I’m not aware of anything that says that prices have to be rounded to whole cents. That would also make it difficult to price things 3/$1, would it not?
It only has to be rounded to the nearest cent when you’re paying... and they could in fact round all transactions to the nearest 10c instead of to the nearest penny and as long as you both agreed on the goods and the price it’d be perfectly legal to do that.
Ah but those guidelines are for AdWords not AdSense. What the differences are I don't know though.
AdSense is the service that webmasters register for to embed Google ads in their sites. AdWords is the service that webmasters register for to put ads for their websites on Google’s AdSense network.
“Cougar” isn’t automatically an explicit term... it can also refer to the cat. As a result, it doesn’t automatically assume that you’re searching for dating services if you search for “cougar”. Comparatively, I don’t think I have ever heard of or seen a website devoted to Sugar Daddy candies.
All you’ve proved is that “Cougar” has a lot more results relevant to the cat than “Sugar Daddy” has for the candy. Searching for cougar dating filters out most of the feline kitties... and CougarLife is the top sponsored result.
If the scalper buys all of them and then sells all of them for the higher price, then yes, you should’ve priced them higher.
If they were priced well in the first place, though, then scalpers who buy all of the tickets, then want to sell all of them for a higher price will be stuck with tickets that simply won’t sell at that price, and they’d have to drop the price back down to get rid of those tickets. You can’t very well do that, because people don’t appreciate having to pay more than someone else for exactly the same product, and Apple has to care what people think unlike some opportunistic scalper who’s just out for a quick buck.
If only 11,112 customers could afford $100 tickets, that's legit, but that would also mean scalpers would only be selling 11,112 tickets. That leaves the rest to either be purchased by customers for $30, or purchased by the middleman and eaten as a loss to support their higher ticket prices.
Concerts can have graduated tiers of pricing like that, and usually do. Better position = more expensive ticket. The analogy somewhat breaks down on that point.
Windows tried it (Student, Home, Pro, etc.) and people didn’t like it much (intentionally crippling software and then selling it for cheaper?). There’s not much feature variation on the iPad (none, basically, and that’s by design), so they can’t as easily get away with selling it to some people for higher than others. About the only justification they can have for charging some people more is the fact that they’re early buyers, and even that goes only so far (e.g. the unhappy iPhone buyers after Apple drastically reduced the price).
The original author and my self seem to be inclined to believe that it is, while you aren't. Not a thing wrong with that in the world as none of us are likely to know.
Well, I don’t know about that; RightSaidFred99 seemed to think that anybody’d be an idiot to think anything different:
This was a marketing move to try to propagate the artificial scarcity ploy Apple is using with the iPad. Nothing more. I'm surprised so many rubes don't see that, it's very obvious.
If people will pay those prices, the venue probably should raise some/all of the ticket prices to match what the market will support.
Actually, that’ll force a lot of customers out of the market (prices go up, and demand drops... that’s the demand curve).
There are two reasons why a business would want to avoid that.
First, number of customers. Repeat business is big business. Limiting the amount of people who can buy your product is necessary, by setting some price that’s profitable for you, but only to a certain extent and after that it becomes a bad thing.
Secondly, profit. Yes, profit. Making a clean profit of $90 per ticket may be less profitable than making only $20. If you get 50,000 customers when you price the tickets $30, you need to get at least 11,112 customers if you price the tickets at $100, or you’ll have only hurt your bottom line. The price is set at something which will optimize the volume of sale x profit per unit function, not just one or the other.
The demand wasn’t that high. Speculators would have bought up all of the supply, using an artificial demand to create an artificial scarcity and then trying to sell them for a higher price once they were scarce.
You may then ask – well shouldn’t Apple just charge more then? – in fact, you did ask that.
No; because if every speculator were able to buy 50, they might create an artificial scarcity, but the scarcity would drive up the price, the demand would go down, and many of the speculators would be stuck with products that nobody would buy for the prices they asked, driving the price right back down to where it started – or even below it. Net result? A few speculators might make money, but most of the people who wanted an iPad would have to wait for the black-market price to come down to something more reasonable. Since Apple doesn’t want speculators profiting off of its R&D on its product, and Apple doesn’t want its customers being forced to pay high prices or wait, it’s a lose-lose for them to allow this sort of thing... so they don’t.
Apple sets the price so that they can make the highest profit. Not highest profit per sale, but overall. If they priced it higher, they wouldn’t sell as many; if they priced it lower, they’d sell more. Speculators hoarding the products screw up this system and Apple wants to prevent that.
Filling stations around where I live require you to pre-pay for cash transactions.
Another possibility is only shipping a third of what you have produced, holding the rest in a warehouse and telling everyone you've 'sold out'.
That’s not necessarily artificial. There are many real logistical reasons to prevent you from having all of your products in-store on the release date.
Not least of which is, “if we can prevent people from hoarding these (artificial demand), this store should really only need about 50 to satisfy the real demand in the area.”
No, actually, research it; you’ll find that I’m right.
Debt is not created during a sale. Until you pay for something, it belongs to the store, and if you decided to walk out with it without paying you wouldn’t be walking out with a debt, you’d be walking out with a stolen item.
When was the last time you were unable to pay with cash when purchasing electronics?
Last time I was required to show a picture ID when purchasing something, in general... well, I think that would be the last time I purchased something and they wanted to make sure I was who I said I was. Granted, they weren’t trying to limit what people bought because I was only allowed to buy two... they were trying to limit what people bought because federal law says you had to be 21 to buy it.
No.
Artificial scarcity is what happens when a few people buy up all the real product, artificially inflating the demand.
Telling people “no, we only have enough real products for you to buy two, sorry” is an example of real scarcity, not artificial scarcity.
And looks just like you?