I will start by declaring my reason for my previous post.
I want to read good articles about interesting topics. I want the journalist to write exhaustively on a subject and present it with his analysis, where it is clearly stated what he has found and what are his analysis of the topic. I also want to be a good writer so it is interesting to read.
My point here is that we need to look at what kind of news/articles can we expect from a news paper with different kinds of rewarding systems.
As far as I know, ad-revenue is generated on per-click basis. So the incentive here is that a news paper would want to appeal to a 'furious clicker'.
Basically, a news paper can earn more if they dilute all the good articles with a lot of shitty contents about paris hilton. You have to click through ten articles before you find something you want to read, instead of directly understanding what a story is about. Without clicking on it.
click-click-click vs. click is 3x profit vs 1x profit
I am prepared to pay to read interesting news not diluted with shit because to some extent I value my time. Basically I think the ad system sucks, because you want to make content that attracts visitors to click, instead of articles that interest people.
Think of a big boobed blonde attention whore vs. a cute smart girl that's interesting to talk to (and also sleep with!).
Paywalling is good!
Also for customers. Because
You get more:
People will not pay for sites that have a bullshit contents. Alas, the content providers have an incentive to make good content.
Less:
Let's just fucking make some big headline about paris hilton that we just made up to increase hits and revenue!!!!!
Nope!
While the leadership of the church resembles a democratic organization it is not. I think this is the correct way, because it will show the leaders of the church that appearantly they do have to define the churches standpoint. And letting the anti-gay people speak freely that their opinion is the only right one will give the image that is is the standpoint of the whole church.
At least now there's an actual reaction and not just endless debating.
Needless to say I was one of the now 10.000 people who screamed in disgust and wrote myself out of the church from the website.
I love that you can be activist on the web!!!
Sorry for ranting....
No. The 5x performance increase over the A8 means that the increase is over A8's predecessor is 5x greater..
E.g. Speed of A8 = 100, speed of A7 (?) = 70, difference is 30-> A15 is 70+(5+1)*30=250.
Now, the A15 is 2.5 times faster than the A8. Now that was straightforward wasn't it?
Poor reception might actually raise the background noise from phones. You see when a phone dont get a strong signal it "cranks up the volume". So if you're a bee keeper, running around the hives with a phone without reception might produce more background noise than in an area of good reception...
But also I am skeptical to this research...
I'm with you. I dont understand how anyone can believe that god's word are supposed to be passed from person to person and that you are supposed to find the right chain of delivery to be accepted into heaven.
I like a concept I've chosen to call 'Contamination by free will'. When you recieve a bible or coran or whatever, some human being (with free will) have written it to the format it is distributed in.
There is no way a human being can be able to recognize the difference by words of god and man. And as you personally cant check the whole delivery chain from god to you yourself, god cannot demand that you find the words that are truly his. All information a person can get is 'Contaminated by free will'.
The only way a person can get in touch with a divinity is through himself if at all possible. Although I'm personally a sceptic, I honor this possibility.
Basically my point is that the only truths anyone should accept are those that he or she understands. No god would demand more.
Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
EXACTLY!
I did not think of bringing this forward in my post, but this another good reason for connecting governments and health care.
If they spend too little now, they will face larger costs later. There is also a incentive to improve preventive health care, because the government in the end pays when someone's sick.
Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
There is no government, only people who wants to be reelected.
And if they can make the government spend less on health care, they can lower taxes and maybe be reelected? You see?
This of could of course induce a fair amount of short sightedness into the system, but there a ways to take this into consideration as well.
Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The most important thing is not if the government is able run health as efficiently as possible. The important question is who earns money on what.
In case of 100% private health care, everybody (even insurance companies!) earns money when someone is sick. In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick. So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications.
I think that's the important incentive here to take into consideration. Do people really want a system where the doctor earns more money if you're more sick and so on?
This is comment about comments and I realize I might be doing the same thing I'm complaining that other's are. Actually I'm pretty sure I am.
Overall I dont like when comments like 'what's this doing on slashdot?'. Give attention to topics that are interesting to you personally. If a comment is not interesting, why do even bother giving it time? That's a waste of time. Reading an a boring article and then complaining about it.
What if the news papers started give their readers a choice in how they want news. Have a basic fee for the content, say 15$/month. Then add a certain sum for each medium you want to use. Say 8$/month for paper distribution, 1$/month for digital edition distribution. 1300$/month for the version were Pamela Anderson comes to your house and reads you the newspaper.
Then there would be no discussion on how to charge. Each medium would be priced accordingly to costs of delivery and demand.
Today newspapers should be about the insightful commentary, bringing together of sources and unique investigative journalism.
Hasn't this always been the goal for journalism? There may have been a time recently when the crowds were more interested in what happened the last ten seconds than real journalistic news, but I'm glad if we are heading back in the direction of quality journalism.
The problem with blogs as source for 'enlightened commentery' is that is difficult to know in which way a single blogger is biased. A newspaper is usually well known to be biased towards one end or the other, and therefore it's easier to judge their content.
As an iPhone user, i agree. The things that work on the iPhone are amazingly nice to use. But there is so much usability lacking. Hey, i cant even send someones number as TEXT MESSAGE easily. It need email or mms to do this.
But really, iphone as a phone really really really sucks. Missed calls, bad reception anyone? These things Nokia worked out in the mid 90's....
And the appstore? Everbody's talking about the number of apps. But are they REALLY that incredible? A lot of them is just there to get around limitations of the iPhone (like non-synching todo lists).
And while it might look like the amount of apps is not transferrable to another platform I think it's pretty easily done. Mostly it's just about porting the interface. The content of most apps is the important part (like my personal fitnes trainer!).
The web browsing is really nice on the iphone, but that part cant be impossible to duplicate!
After using the iphone at first I was like 'wow, omg', but then... it's a bit of a letdown. It really stands in the way i want to do stuff too often to be 'as good as everybody says'.
I'm totally agreeing.
The first things comes to mind: That's the normal description on how a battery dies.
When like 50 million laptops start using Win7 at the same time, there's a lot of them that had a battery failure waiting. While it may seem strange as a personal experience, it's certainly not from statistical viewpoint.
Not without more data.
This is definitely not just a monetary issue. It is a political and military issue as well.
Creating safe, sustainable energy production, without need of any kind of import of any kind (oil, gas, coal, biofuels) would make any country a LOT less dependent on others. This has been one of the Holy grails in politics the last 5 decades.
I find it VERY hard to believe that successful fusion technologies would have problems with finding funding for fullscale operation:) Especially in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
I will start by declaring my reason for my previous post.
I want to read good articles about interesting topics. I want the journalist to write exhaustively on a subject and present it with his analysis, where it is clearly stated what he has found and what are his analysis of the topic. I also want to be a good writer so it is interesting to read.
My point here is that we need to look at what kind of news/articles can we expect from a news paper with different kinds of rewarding systems.
As far as I know, ad-revenue is generated on per-click basis. So the incentive here is that a news paper would want to appeal to a 'furious clicker'.
Basically, a news paper can earn more if they dilute all the good articles with a lot of shitty contents about paris hilton. You have to click through ten articles before you find something you want to read, instead of directly understanding what a story is about. Without clicking on it.
click-click-click vs. click is 3x profit vs 1x profit
I am prepared to pay to read interesting news not diluted with shit because to some extent I value my time.
Basically I think the ad system sucks, because you want to make content that attracts visitors to click, instead of articles that interest people.
Think of a big boobed blonde attention whore vs. a cute smart girl that's interesting to talk to (and also sleep with!).
Paywalling is good!
Also for customers. Because
You get more:
People will not pay for sites that have a bullshit contents.
Alas, the content providers have an incentive to make good content.
Less:
Let's just fucking make some big headline about paris hilton that we just made up to increase hits and revenue!!!!!
Ads sucks!
Nope! While the leadership of the church resembles a democratic organization it is not. I think this is the correct way, because it will show the leaders of the church that appearantly they do have to define the churches standpoint. And letting the anti-gay people speak freely that their opinion is the only right one will give the image that is is the standpoint of the whole church. At least now there's an actual reaction and not just endless debating. Needless to say I was one of the now 10.000 people who screamed in disgust and wrote myself out of the church from the website. I love that you can be activist on the web!!! Sorry for ranting....
Perfect comment. This is really the only argument you need in this debate. (Also is similar to my understanding of the world).
No. The 5x performance increase over the A8 means that the increase is over A8's predecessor is 5x greater..
E.g. Speed of A8 = 100, speed of A7 (?) = 70, difference is 30-> A15 is 70+(5+1)*30=250.
Now, the A15 is 2.5 times faster than the A8. Now that was straightforward wasn't it?
Poor reception might actually raise the background noise from phones. You see when a phone dont get a strong signal it "cranks up the volume".
So if you're a bee keeper, running around the hives with a phone without reception might produce more background noise than in an area of good reception...
But also I am skeptical to this research...
Whoaa. I have to rereview your post, as my first wasn't nearly positive enough:
That's FREAKING BRILLIANT.
That might be the best iPad parody yet! I mod you fun.
We can make a verb! Podspadding! No, to wait for it to catch on.
I'm with you. I dont understand how anyone can believe that god's word are supposed to be passed from person to person and that you are supposed to find the right chain of delivery to be accepted into heaven.
I like a concept I've chosen to call 'Contamination by free will'. When you recieve a bible or coran or whatever, some human being (with free will) have written it to the format it is distributed in.
There is no way a human being can be able to recognize the difference by words of god and man. And as you personally cant check the whole delivery chain from god to you yourself, god cannot demand that you find the words that are truly his. All information a person can get is 'Contaminated by free will'.
The only way a person can get in touch with a divinity is through himself if at all possible. Although I'm personally a sceptic, I honor this possibility.
Basically my point is that the only truths anyone should accept are those that he or she understands. No god would demand more.
EXACTLY!
I did not think of bringing this forward in my post, but this another good reason for connecting governments and health care.
If they spend too little now, they will face larger costs later. There is also a incentive to improve preventive health care, because the government in the end pays when someone's sick.
There is no government, only people who wants to be reelected.
And if they can make the government spend less on health care, they can lower taxes and maybe be reelected? You see?
This of could of course induce a fair amount of short sightedness into the system, but there a ways to take this into consideration as well.
The most important thing is not if the government is able run health as efficiently as possible. The important question is who earns money on what. In case of 100% private health care, everybody (even insurance companies!) earns money when someone is sick. In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick. So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications. I think that's the important incentive here to take into consideration. Do people really want a system where the doctor earns more money if you're more sick and so on?
I am curious to what positive effect this might have in reality?
My favorite comment of the day. I like when you can put both parties in a quarrel to shame. It happens too seldom.
This is comment about comments and I realize I might be doing the same thing I'm complaining that other's are. Actually I'm pretty sure I am. Overall I dont like when comments like 'what's this doing on slashdot?'. Give attention to topics that are interesting to you personally. If a comment is not interesting, why do even bother giving it time? That's a waste of time. Reading an a boring article and then complaining about it.
I think I overpriced the Pamela Anderson alternative :/
Here is a crazy idea:
What if the news papers started give their readers a choice in how they want news. Have a basic fee for the content, say 15$/month. Then add a certain sum for each medium you want to use. Say 8$/month for paper distribution, 1$/month for digital edition distribution. 1300$/month for the version were Pamela Anderson comes to your house and reads you the newspaper.
Then there would be no discussion on how to charge. Each medium would be priced accordingly to costs of delivery and demand.
Today newspapers should be about the insightful commentary, bringing together of sources and unique investigative journalism.
Hasn't this always been the goal for journalism? There may have been a time recently when the crowds were more interested in what happened the last ten seconds than real journalistic news, but I'm glad if we are heading back in the direction of quality journalism.
The problem with blogs as source for 'enlightened commentery' is that is difficult to know in which way a single blogger is biased. A newspaper is usually well known to be biased towards one end or the other, and therefore it's easier to judge their content.
As an iPhone user, i agree. The things that work on the iPhone are amazingly nice to use. But there is so much usability lacking. Hey, i cant even send someones number as TEXT MESSAGE easily. It need email or mms to do this.
But really, iphone as a phone really really really sucks. Missed calls, bad reception anyone? These things Nokia worked out in the mid 90's....
And the appstore? Everbody's talking about the number of apps. But are they REALLY that incredible? A lot of them is just there to get around limitations of the iPhone (like non-synching todo lists).
And while it might look like the amount of apps is not transferrable to another platform I think it's pretty easily done. Mostly it's just about porting the interface. The content of most apps is the important part (like my personal fitnes trainer!).
The web browsing is really nice on the iphone, but that part cant be impossible to duplicate!
After using the iphone at first I was like 'wow, omg', but then... it's a bit of a letdown. It really stands in the way i want to do stuff too often to be 'as good as everybody says'.
Just my 2 centimeters...
And that's modded insightful and not funny why??
1e100 is the same as 1*10^100, which is a Googol, or if you're a google founder, spelled "Google"
LMCTFY (let me correct that for you)
I'm totally agreeing.
The first things comes to mind: That's the normal description on how a battery dies.
When like 50 million laptops start using Win7 at the same time, there's a lot of them that had a battery failure waiting. While it may seem strange as a personal experience, it's certainly not from statistical viewpoint.
Not without more data.
Or if there's only one dollar, how about using euros? We have plenty! And they are worth something ;)
This is definitely not just a monetary issue. It is a political and military issue as well.
:) Especially in the US.
Creating safe, sustainable energy production, without need of any kind of import of any kind (oil, gas, coal, biofuels) would make any country a LOT less dependent on others. This has been one of the Holy grails in politics the last 5 decades.
I find it VERY hard to believe that successful fusion technologies would have problems with finding funding for fullscale operation