I would like to point out that 5 dollars for a movie gets you to that show. 99c for a song from apple and you could listen to it until your harddrive gives out.
You're absolutely right, I can't argue that -- but I have to counter with, how many Facebook accounts are active users? I personally have an account that I haven't logged into in months that they count in their statistics. Add in all the fakes, and all the other inactive accounts I'm sure that you wouldn't even have that 45% market penetration that they claim... but the AOL statistic is accounting for people paying monthly and actively logging in. Even if they weren't using IMs, they were members.
All I'm claiming is that AOL was as commonplace as Facebook currently is. I'm not implying its better, worse or even comparable as a service - just that on a user to American person on the internet ratio, AOL is still in the lead.
That's a surprisingly refreshing course of action isn't it? To me, that's how things should work. As long as Siemens follows through, and the talk is allowed to proceed I'd be happy.
Color me cynical, but I think you mean to say that PR costs money, and since security is the first thing to go in a pointy-haired-boss meeting the next best thing is to spin it after the fact.
You're absolutely right! Don't get me wrong, I think that Facebook's privacy problems are the worst I've seen in a long time - but I think I'd be lured back into logging in once in a blue moon if that photo viewer wasn't as awful as it is.
I wish that I had mod points for you. It always feels like we're bombarded by the "facebook-is-forever" style comments, along with the "I-didn't-use-it-so-it-so-no-one-did."
As something of a social nerd, I will attest to the fact that despite having ICQ, IRC and MSN - I never had as many active people in America on those as I had on AIM.
While I agree with what you say, I would like to point out that at its prime, AOL had almost 30 million subscribers in the US when our country's entire population was 270m (give or take a few).
In 1997, when AIM was released as a standalone application, AOL already had 11% of the US population use their service at a time when only 22% of that same population was online. That means that at it's peak AIM had 50% (15m) of active American internet users using it. Now compare that to Facebook's recent estimate of about 45% (115m), despite the 100million more users Facebook has, a lot of that can be attributed to penetration of 'net users.)
Just because you didn't use it, doesn't mean it wasn't the clear cut winner in the US for communication standard.
Am I the only person left that would gladly pay MORE for something BETTER?
You're absolutely right. The problem is that we do pay more for something that isn't better. The classic example is to look at Southeast Asian bandwidth/$ rates and compare them to ours. And while I'm aware of the inconsistencies in terrain, culture and government I guess I'm just still a sucker for the bs Nationalist crap that says, "if they can do it so can we - and better."
It's that kind of ego that could really push innovation in this field but alas, I don't think that guys like you and I are all that common. I'd pay more for better to be better, but that's really just one part of a much, much larger equation.
From your post I can tell that you're just a guy looking for conflict, but it's an idle Friday so I'll indulge you. First let's address this gem:
It's a stupid argument and you are stupid to defend it when you don't understand it.
Why is it a stupid argument? Have you done the research? Were you aware that 1/3rd of all antibiotics taken currently are to/wrongly/ treat viral illnesses? Do you know how much stronger antibiotics have had to get in the past 70 years since they've been discovered just to compensate against resistant strains? Call me stupid if you want, but you're just ignorant.
People are not repeat not prescribing themselves exotic antibiotics that everything and its mom is not already resistant to, but they are trying to get them cheaper from other countries because their insurance will cover only part (or none!) of the cost.
Completely ignoring the fact that I said nothing at all about the completely bullshit prices on all things medical I would postulate again that you literally have no idea how antibiotics work. Define exotic antibiotic for me. Go ahead, I'll wait. And when you finally find the one page on Google that might support your crackpot theory, then explain to me how that affects my argument.
Remember, we already have the "death panels" that some feared would be sentencing their grandmother to death. They are simply operated by private concerns without oversight rather than government entities with insufficient oversight.
What? So now you've translated my argument that we need to protect against the overuse of antibiotics into the FoxNews death panel line? Who the hell are you, Glenn Beck?
His point was that if you allow people to take antibiotics when they're unnecessary you'll exponentially increase the rate at which bacteria, for example. will grow resistant. Forgive me for the tired saying, but it's a very slippery slope and it's one that affects us all...
So who the fuck are you, sir, to complain about using something that you clearly don't understand?
Agreed, very much so. When I was in the military generally I was stuck on a base somewhere where my options were go out and drink or stay home on my laptop. I always felt that most people would be surprised that at that point in my life, my monthly bills were internet, and WoW (utilities were free living in the barracks). That's about 50 bucks a month to have decent entertainment on hand.
I must be such an easy mark for trolls, but I'll bite:
The way they use Open Source only when it is most convenient for them tells me that every time they talk about the virtues of Open Source, they are actually full of shit. If you really think something is a virtue and if you are really committed to an ideal, you act on it whether or not it's the most convenient option.
Or it tells you that they're realistic. FOSS is awesome - and Google'snumerouscontributions should be applauded (even if they're a bit self serving). But according to you - we should act on something, even if we know that it's harmful to ourselves because we believe in a rigid immutable set of ideals... what are you, Catholic?
Let's not forget how many ads you get in the store section, either. That can't be an inconsequential sum of money to make sure that the background changes to your movie poster and not someone else's for a week.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to point out that 5 dollars for a movie gets you to that show. 99c for a song from apple and you could listen to it until your harddrive gives out.
Show me just ONE DOCUMENTED case of chiropractic causing harm to a patient.
May I direct you to this man's entire library of work? Neck Adjustments, ahoy!
That's what a high fiber diet will do to you.
Solid reference!
Speak for yourself - I slept in my Mom's living room drunk on leave plenty of times.
You're absolutely right, I can't argue that -- but I have to counter with, how many Facebook accounts are active users? I personally have an account that I haven't logged into in months that they count in their statistics. Add in all the fakes, and all the other inactive accounts I'm sure that you wouldn't even have that 45% market penetration that they claim... but the AOL statistic is accounting for people paying monthly and actively logging in. Even if they weren't using IMs, they were members.
All I'm claiming is that AOL was as commonplace as Facebook currently is. I'm not implying its better, worse or even comparable as a service - just that on a user to American person on the internet ratio, AOL is still in the lead.
That's a surprisingly refreshing course of action isn't it? To me, that's how things should work. As long as Siemens follows through, and the talk is allowed to proceed I'd be happy.
Philadelphia... the only disasters that occur with any regularity here generally relate to an increased choking hazard risk right around playoff time.
Color me cynical, but I think you mean to say that PR costs money, and since security is the first thing to go in a pointy-haired-boss meeting the next best thing is to spin it after the fact.
I don't know which part depresses me more...
The fact that you actually got a +5 for that or the fact that when I first read it I kept wondering how I could get into an Oblivion mod.
You're absolutely right! Don't get me wrong, I think that Facebook's privacy problems are the worst I've seen in a long time - but I think I'd be lured back into logging in once in a blue moon if that photo viewer wasn't as awful as it is.
I wish that I had mod points for you. It always feels like we're bombarded by the "facebook-is-forever" style comments, along with the "I-didn't-use-it-so-it-so-no-one-did."
As something of a social nerd, I will attest to the fact that despite having ICQ, IRC and MSN - I never had as many active people in America on those as I had on AIM.
While I agree with what you say, I would like to point out that at its prime, AOL had almost 30 million subscribers in the US when our country's entire population was 270m (give or take a few).
In 1997, when AIM was released as a standalone application, AOL already had 11% of the US population use their service at a time when only 22% of that same population was online. That means that at it's peak AIM had 50% (15m) of active American internet users using it. Now compare that to Facebook's recent estimate of about 45% (115m), despite the 100million more users Facebook has, a lot of that can be attributed to penetration of 'net users.)
Just because you didn't use it, doesn't mean it wasn't the clear cut winner in the US for communication standard.
I don't want to wait 8 hours between movies, otherwise I might as well just go find the nearest Blockbuster.
Coincidentally, I bet that 8 hours is the drive time to the closest video store anymore.
We need more legitimate uses for P2P. The more we have, the more Joe Schmoe will stop thinking P2P == Piracy.
Am I the only person left that would gladly pay MORE for something BETTER?
You're absolutely right. The problem is that we do pay more for something that isn't better. The classic example is to look at Southeast Asian bandwidth/$ rates and compare them to ours. And while I'm aware of the inconsistencies in terrain, culture and government I guess I'm just still a sucker for the bs Nationalist crap that says, "if they can do it so can we - and better."
It's that kind of ego that could really push innovation in this field but alas, I don't think that guys like you and I are all that common. I'd pay more for better to be better, but that's really just one part of a much, much larger equation.
It's a stupid argument and you are stupid to defend it when you don't understand it.
Why is it a stupid argument? Have you done the research? Were you aware that 1/3rd of all antibiotics taken currently are to /wrongly/ treat viral illnesses? Do you know how much stronger antibiotics have had to get in the past 70 years since they've been discovered just to compensate against resistant strains? Call me stupid if you want, but you're just ignorant.
People are not repeat not prescribing themselves exotic antibiotics that everything and its mom is not already resistant to, but they are trying to get them cheaper from other countries because their insurance will cover only part (or none!) of the cost.
Completely ignoring the fact that I said nothing at all about the completely bullshit prices on all things medical I would postulate again that you literally have no idea how antibiotics work. Define exotic antibiotic for me. Go ahead, I'll wait. And when you finally find the one page on Google that might support your crackpot theory, then explain to me how that affects my argument.
Remember, we already have the "death panels" that some feared would be sentencing their grandmother to death. They are simply operated by private concerns without oversight rather than government entities with insufficient oversight.
What? So now you've translated my argument that we need to protect against the overuse of antibiotics into the FoxNews death panel line? Who the hell are you, Glenn Beck?
His point was that if you allow people to take antibiotics when they're unnecessary you'll exponentially increase the rate at which bacteria, for example. will grow resistant. Forgive me for the tired saying, but it's a very slippery slope and it's one that affects us all...
So who the fuck are you, sir, to complain about using something that you clearly don't understand?
Yes, because Slashdot comments are usually such highbrow forms of comedy rather than being stagnated archetypes, you insensitive clod.
Agreed, very much so. When I was in the military generally I was stuck on a base somewhere where my options were go out and drink or stay home on my laptop. I always felt that most people would be surprised that at that point in my life, my monthly bills were internet, and WoW (utilities were free living in the barracks). That's about 50 bucks a month to have decent entertainment on hand.
I'd gladly make that trade again.
The way they use Open Source only when it is most convenient for them tells me that every time they talk about the virtues of Open Source, they are actually full of shit. If you really think something is a virtue and if you are really committed to an ideal, you act on it whether or not it's the most convenient option.
Or it tells you that they're realistic. FOSS is awesome - and Google's numerous contributions should be applauded (even if they're a bit self serving). But according to you - we should act on something, even if we know that it's harmful to ourselves because we believe in a rigid immutable set of ideals... what are you, Catholic?
Let's not forget how many ads you get in the store section, either. That can't be an inconsequential sum of money to make sure that the background changes to your movie poster and not someone else's for a week.
I don't think you read it, sir. In the first part he clearly says: "you pay $20USD for 1600 points ($0.80 USD per point)." after saying FTFY.
I think you mean that it's 80 points per USD.
You wouldn't believe the carpal tunnel claims...