A post above yours is a prefect counter-point:
Yep, and if you flip 100 coins, whatever sequence that appears from those flips is exactly as unlikely as 100 heads coming up. Astoundingly unlikely things happen all the time.
It's only a string of coincidences if you look at it from the "first flip" and try to predict where it will go. It is less astoundingly unlikely if you look at where you've been and what caused those specific things to happen. It may appear random, but it is not. I think this was the GP's point about natural selection not being at all random.
The monkey->ape->human evolution is a nice example
Just to be pedantic, I think that the facts do not support a monkey->ape->human evolutionary path, but that all of them share a common ancestor in the distant past. This is an important point as the creationists are always screaming that they were not descended from apes and falsely claiming that evolution claims this when it does not.
but if you consider that they pricematch anything you find somewhere else, then technically what they're saying is true.
It takes time to do the price comparison research, so that's only true if your time costs nothing. And even then the price is the same, not lower.
Can you imagine going to the register with a cart full of stuff and proof that everything in there costs less at another store? Can you imagine how long it would take you to get out of there with your "low cost" stuff? It would be a nightmare.
Wal-Mart has always been about one thing and one thing only: Dirt cheap stuff. They might as well make it their slogan: "Wal-Mart, where you get Dirt Cheap Stuff(TM)."
This is not really true. They work hard to make you believe that they have the lowest prices on everything, but they really only have the lowest prices on things that people know the price of. People see the low prices on these "loss leader" items and, wrongly, assume that everything must be priced low.
"How does the number-one retailer maintain an image of low prices? First, by actually making sure its prices are lower than its competitors, at least on key items. These items are called "price-sensitive" items in the industry, and it is commonly believed that the average consumer knows the "going price" of fewer than 100 items. These tend to be commodities that are purchased frequently."
and from the same article:
"Price-sensitive merchandise is displayed in prominent places such as the kiosk at the entrance to the store, as well as on end caps, in dump bins, and in gondolas down the main aisles. Consequently, when Wal-Mart customers see the items of which they know the price, the ones always priced lower in Wal-Mart, they start assuming that everything else is also priced lower than at competing stores. This assumption is simply not true."
And, not to give you information overload or anything, but here is quote from the book 'How Wal-Mart Is Destroying America (and the World)':
"Wal-Mart got by with the slogan "Always the Lowest Price. Always" for years, until the National Advertising Review Board, which is funded by the Better Business Bureau, investigated the claim that Wal-Mart always has the low(est) price. The Board found that this just was not and is not true, and promptly ordered our pals in Bentonville to stop saying it.
Wal-Mart then had to change its motto to something that barely skipped around the law-like "Always Low Prices. Always"-so near the original slogan that the public in general still perceived that Wal-Mart had the lowest prices."
And in the upper right corner do a mouse-over of the intel link in "Opinion Center: Intel". You are treated to a moronic marketing article brought to you by the "OSTG Marketing Dept". Annoying. And no way to get rid of it. Marketing is evil.
I can't do it. It hurts my brain to try to defend advertising. Suffice it to say, I'm not particularly annoyed by this instance of it. I also don't think it will be particularly successful, givin the nature of the/. audience.
Agreed.
Actually, you know what I find annoying? The name. Opinion center. As if, of all the sections on slashdot, THIS is the place to go if you want an opinion! It implies that this is the place for IMPORTANT, MEANINGFUL opinions, as opposed to the useless opinions of the unwashed masses elsewhere.
Yeah, that's the marketing spin. It is horrible and just sticks in my craw. Blah.
To me, advertising and marketing are on a moral par with masturbating in public. It's not particularly productive, it's offensive and annoying, but it doesn't really harm anyone.
I disagree. The purpose of advertising and marketing to convince people to buy more of one guy's widgets than the other guy's widgets. This usually involves lying and attempting to sway people based on anything, anything at all. It is morally equivalent to lying for money. And usually they are just hired guns, they are not even attempting to sell something they've made or produced. Advertising and marketing does harm people - it spreads misinformation and lies. It overtly (sometimes) does pyschological harm to people by attempting to convince them that they are incomplete: if you don't have X, girls won't like you or something is wrong with you.
I realize that the above may not apply to the "unobtrusive" new advertising on slashdot, but I just wanted to make a little noise about the ever more intrusive use of advertising all over the freakin' place.
(Unless it's the Adult Swim guys - those guys are awesome. "I'm sorry, that's not a hair question." hehe)
Consider this: which would you rather read, a magazine with adds scattered obtrusively throughout the publication, or one where the advertising came in a special supplement you could tear out and throw away?
Straw man. Or maybe false dictomy. The actual choice, using your analogy, would be: which would you rather read, a magazine with ads scattered obtrusively throughout the publication, or one with ads scattered obtrusively throughout the publication and advertising in a special supplement you could tear out and throw away?
I'm gonna make you defend advertising even more.:)
You know, I'm usually the first to jump on the anti-advertising, anti-corporate bandwagon, but I see no problem with this new feature.
It's not a feature. It's an advertisement.
It's unobtrusive and a great way to seperate out "slashvertisements" from real stories.
So this means there will be be no more slashvertisments? Awesome. I suspect though that these will be used in conjunction with regular old run-of-the-mill slashvertisements.
If I have an interest in seeing product announcements or opinion pieces by Intel, I now have a place to look.
Yes, you're right. There was no place before this to find PR newswire reports from Intel. I'm surprised that Intel is even still around as a company as, before this, it had nowhere to put its fluff marketing PR articles. Slashdot has saved Intel. They should probably get a kick back or something for that.
Honestly, this is how advertising should work: it's there if you want it, it's unobtrusive if you don't.
If we could all agree on "unobtrusive", I may agree with you. But we cannot. This is extra, unwanted advertising.
What the hell is up with the new "Opinion Center" thingy? It looks like I can minimize it, but I cannot. The one and only link, labeled "intel" is actully a doubleclick.net link. On the right a mouse-over pops up a huge ugly green window which contains an "article" by the "OSTG Marketing Dept." Advertising creeps in more and more. Obnoxious.
I can see how my comment may have been confusing and assumed a municiple wireless connection. Sorry for the confusion. I believe you are correct about the difficulty in getting a warrant for a municipal wireless router. It is a difficult problem.
You are assuming I'm talking about wireless routers. If it is a consumer-level wireless router, then the FBI can get a warrant for that router, as presumably, all traffic on that router is for one household. This type of warrant is equivalent to a phone tap: one house, one person (or family), one target.
But what concerns me if the FBI doing full-pipe searches at internet trunks - searching all traffic looking for a small number of people or packet contents.
The problem comes before they decide to keep or throw away the evidence though. In order to know if it is what they are looking for, they have to search it, even if it's only a grep. The 4th amendment states that "unreasonable searches and seizures" are illegal. And by definition if they identify that your traffic is not what they are looking for, they must have searched it and, most likely, searched it without a warrant.
Impossible to visualize? Yep. Not at all. You merely have to project one of the dimensions down so that you're only considering a 10-dimensional space. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 9-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 8-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 7-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 6-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 5-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 4-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 3-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 2-dimensional space. Easy.
Then just project that down so you're only considering a 1-dimensional space and you get this --> .
Impossible to visualize? Yep. Not at all. You merely have to project one of the dimensions down so that you're only considering a 10-dimensional space. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 9-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 8-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 7-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 6-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 5-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 4-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 3-dimensional space. Easy.
Then just project that down so you're only considering a 2-dimensional space. Easy.
Impossible to visualize? Yep. Not at all. You merely have to project one of the dimensions down so that you're only considering a 10-dimensional space. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 9-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 8-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 7-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 6-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 5-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 4-dimensional space. Easy.
Then just project that down so you're only considering a 3-dimensional space. Easy.
Impossible to visualize? Yep. Not at all. You merely have to project one of the dimensions down so that you're only considering a 10-dimensional space. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 9-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 8-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 7-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 6-dimensional space. Easy. Then just project that down so you're only considering a 5-dimensional space. Easy.
Then just project that down so you're only considering a 4-dimensional space. Easy.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only a string of coincidences if you look at it from the "first flip" and try to predict where it will go. It is less astoundingly unlikely if you look at where you've been and what caused those specific things to happen. It may appear random, but it is not. I think this was the GP's point about natural selection not being at all random.
Just to be pedantic, I think that the facts do not support a monkey->ape->human evolutionary path, but that all of them share a common ancestor in the distant past. This is an important point as the creationists are always screaming that they were not descended from apes and falsely claiming that evolution claims this when it does not.
FWIW.
It sounds awesome, but I'm having trouble locating CSI: Okalahoma on the regular sites. Can you give me a link? What season are they up to? -- Thanks.
It takes time to do the price comparison research, so that's only true if your time costs nothing. And even then the price is the same, not lower.
Can you imagine going to the register with a cart full of stuff and proof that everything in there costs less at another store? Can you imagine how long it would take you to get out of there with your "low cost" stuff? It would be a nightmare.
This is not really true. They work hard to make you believe that they have the lowest prices on everything, but they really only have the lowest prices on things that people know the price of. People see the low prices on these "loss leader" items and, wrongly, assume that everything must be priced low.
From public management magazine:
"How does the number-one retailer maintain an image of low prices? First, by actually making sure its prices are lower than its competitors, at least on key items. These items are called "price-sensitive" items in the industry, and it is commonly believed that the average consumer knows the "going price" of fewer than 100 items. These tend to be commodities that are purchased frequently."
and from the same article:
"Price-sensitive merchandise is displayed in prominent places such as the kiosk at the entrance to the store, as well as on end caps, in dump bins, and in gondolas down the main aisles. Consequently, when Wal-Mart customers see the items of which they know the price, the ones always priced lower in Wal-Mart, they start assuming that everything else is also priced lower than at competing stores. This assumption is simply not true."
And, not to give you information overload or anything, but here is quote from the book 'How Wal-Mart Is Destroying America (and the World)':
"Wal-Mart got by with the slogan "Always the Lowest Price. Always" for years, until the National Advertising Review Board, which is funded by the Better Business Bureau, investigated the claim that Wal-Mart always has the low(est) price. The Board found that this just was not and is not true, and promptly ordered our pals in Bentonville to stop saying it. Wal-Mart then had to change its motto to something that barely skipped around the law-like "Always Low Prices. Always"-so near the original slogan that the public in general still perceived that Wal-Mart had the lowest prices."
FWIW.
No - your other right. Look under "Why Subscribe" under the search bar on the right.
And in the upper right corner do a mouse-over of the intel link in "Opinion Center: Intel". You are treated to a moronic marketing article brought to you by the "OSTG Marketing Dept". Annoying. And no way to get rid of it. Marketing is evil.
Agreed.
Actually, you know what I find annoying? The name. Opinion center. As if, of all the sections on slashdot, THIS is the place to go if you want an opinion! It implies that this is the place for IMPORTANT, MEANINGFUL opinions, as opposed to the useless opinions of the unwashed masses elsewhere.Yeah, that's the marketing spin. It is horrible and just sticks in my craw. Blah.
I disagree. The purpose of advertising and marketing to convince people to buy more of one guy's widgets than the other guy's widgets. This usually involves lying and attempting to sway people based on anything, anything at all. It is morally equivalent to lying for money. And usually they are just hired guns, they are not even attempting to sell something they've made or produced. Advertising and marketing does harm people - it spreads misinformation and lies. It overtly (sometimes) does pyschological harm to people by attempting to convince them that they are incomplete: if you don't have X, girls won't like you or something is wrong with you.
I realize that the above may not apply to the "unobtrusive" new advertising on slashdot, but I just wanted to make a little noise about the ever more intrusive use of advertising all over the freakin' place.
(Unless it's the Adult Swim guys - those guys are awesome. "I'm sorry, that's not a hair question." hehe)
Straw man. Or maybe false dictomy. The actual choice, using your analogy, would be: which would you rather read, a magazine with ads scattered obtrusively throughout the publication, or one with ads scattered obtrusively throughout the publication and advertising in a special supplement you could tear out and throw away?
I'm gonna make you defend advertising even more. :)
Sorry for two replies, but I just had to point you to this general comment about marketing:
8 45328
:)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=219932&cid=17
Enjoy.
It's not a feature. It's an advertisement.
It's unobtrusive and a great way to seperate out "slashvertisements" from real stories.So this means there will be be no more slashvertisments? Awesome. I suspect though that these will be used in conjunction with regular old run-of-the-mill slashvertisements.
If I have an interest in seeing product announcements or opinion pieces by Intel, I now have a place to look.Yes, you're right. There was no place before this to find PR newswire reports from Intel. I'm surprised that Intel is even still around as a company as, before this, it had nowhere to put its fluff marketing PR articles. Slashdot has saved Intel. They should probably get a kick back or something for that.
Honestly, this is how advertising should work: it's there if you want it, it's unobtrusive if you don't.If we could all agree on "unobtrusive", I may agree with you. But we cannot. This is extra, unwanted advertising.
WTF?
I can see how my comment may have been confusing and assumed a municiple wireless connection. Sorry for the confusion. I believe you are correct about the difficulty in getting a warrant for a municipal wireless router. It is a difficult problem.
I don't get it.
You are assuming I'm talking about wireless routers. If it is a consumer-level wireless router, then the FBI can get a warrant for that router, as presumably, all traffic on that router is for one household. This type of warrant is equivalent to a phone tap: one house, one person (or family), one target.
But what concerns me if the FBI doing full-pipe searches at internet trunks - searching all traffic looking for a small number of people or packet contents.
The problem comes before they decide to keep or throw away the evidence though. In order to know if it is what they are looking for, they have to search it, even if it's only a grep. The 4th amendment states that "unreasonable searches and seizures" are illegal. And by definition if they identify that your traffic is not what they are looking for, they must have searched it and, most likely, searched it without a warrant.
Missle missle Missle missle missle missle Missle missle.
<blockquote> did bork after 4 or 5 levels. I switched to <quote> and that did the trick.
What's a dimension between friends, eh? Let's say we split it.
Holy crap I'm bored.
Then just project that down so you're only considering a 1-dimensional space and you get this --> .
So where's my freakin' Nobel?
Then just project that down so you're only considering a 2-dimensional space. Easy.
Then just project that down so you're only considering a 3-dimensional space. Easy.
Then just project that down so you're only considering a 4-dimensional space. Easy.