I read the article earlier today, and a previous one about their success lobbying "blitz." They spent like $100,000 ($1 million). The "high-powered lobbyist comment" seems little more than a self-serving, completely false pat on the back.
I agree with the onermoderation comment. And it boggles the mind that the moderators still think this is flamebait, when a dozen responses are regarded as insightful./. needs a new moderation category-- -1, politically incorrect.
Since when is the exact opposite opinion flamebait
on
Maine School & Linux
·
· Score: 1
Flamebait? I disagree entirely with his view, but it is a completely valid viewpoint. My god, this post is almost identical to the headline, except it's flip-flopped Windows and Linux!
Slashdot continues to define itself as a general MS bigot. Shame.
Of course, maybe it is flamebait, since it seemed to invite such thoughtless, vitriol-filled applaud. Oh that's right; the responses to his "flamebait" post are more insightful than 90% of the comments on this topic (Linux RULEZ!!! Everyone should do this! +5 interesting).
Uh, No. Anyone who thinks the point of computers in school is to, teach kids how to use the currently popular software appications, is absolutely wrong. This attitude harkens back to the 80's when schools would use DOS computers, 'cause that's what kids would use in the "real world," not these toy Macs.
Now, we all know that a deep understanding of DOS is not of critical importance for 99%+ of those working in the "real world." Applicatios, OSes and even interface paradigms change. If you ask me, the use of computers in school should be geared towards in no particular order.
1) Becoming familiar and comfortable with how to use computers; not teaching kids how to hack the kernel, but more geared towards general computing concepts that will carry over from one platform to another, one appication to another, etc.
2) Using computers as tools to do research and write papers. By this, I don't mean making sure kids use computers to do stuff; but help kids identify when the computer is the most appropiate tool for a task. General research is done well on a computer, so it preparation for deep research, but at some point you have to go to the library to do serious work. Using a spreadsheet to keep track of expenses for a business class is a great idea, but only well after the principles are understood.
Computers are tools and should be treated as much. The best way to learn how to use a tool is by using it; guidance is nice, but I bet the kids who learn the most about computers are those who use them as an integrated part of study to get stuff done. Because THAT'S how there used in the real world.
Good point. But I bet Google can make the same profit with much lower revenue.
At one point, I was VERY close to using Yahoo! for almost everything I did online. I used the message boards, email, wap stuff, My Yahoo!, finance, Y! shopping was my first stop for obscure stuff, etc. I still use My Yahoo! and email, but I stopped using the other things as Yahoo! ceased improving them. There was a point where I would've happily paid $5-10/ month for slightly improved versions of Yahoo! services across the board, but that time has past. I still feel Yahoo! could've capitalized on their loyal user base better without alienating them.
The article is interesting, and it goes to show you how clueless you can be and still be authoritatively quoted in a major national publication.
Is this logical? 1) Create fast, relevant search engine, 2) users flock to your service becuase it is fast and relevent, 3) add discrete, marked relevant ads, 4) advertisers flock to it. Some bozo in the story wants to add ste 5: Add bigger ads, disguise them in search results. He sees step 6, advertisers flock to it, but misses step 7, customers abandon it, and step 8, advertisers leave in droves. Hmmm. Can anyone say "Altavista." The reporter writing this article should have called this out, because it is so clearly misguided. Better still is a comparison to Yahoo.
Well, let's see. Yahoo! starts out as a fast and lean service, everyone loves and uses it. They decide they need to add content. Then they decide to accept animated ads, flash-ads and pop-ups/ unders. Who loves it now? I use it less, myself.
If I'm Google, I see Yahoo!'s trajectory very clearly and vow not to fall into the same trap. The whole concept of adding ads becuase there will now be public investors is ludicrous. Everyone uses Google because it is fast, lean and relevant. The people in the article who discuss Google adding morer paid listings do not understand Google's appeal. Once the paid, undistinguished ads start, users will flock away in droves. Personally, I'm convinced that Google Inc. is too smart to let that happen.
The S&H charge when ordering from online only stores is nothing more than a relic of when the stock came off the store floor. Now, most items never see a B&M retail outlet. B&M don't tack on a S&H charge that they obviously incur in delivering the product to the store. It's called the cost of doing business. Etailers itemize S&H b/c they can get away with it.
Do you really think that it costs Amazon more in S&H charge to deliver a book to your house than it costs Barnes & Nobles? B&N has to deliver the items from their warehouses, stock the shelves, etc. Amazon ships stuff to the warehouse. When you order, they they don't ship it right away with free shipping. Instead, they probably move items by the truckload to enable them to send things in smaller batches.
Plus, that S&H charge is often a well-provided service. It's a lot easier to get it delivered to my door than to make a special trip to buy something. Really heavy stuff (TVs) cost a lot to ship, so then it makes sense to buy it in person. But bottom line, basic S&H charges should be included in the cost of goods.
Uh, so what. Why shouldn't we be charged sales tax on internet purchases? Oftentimes, the lack of a sales tax is the primary driver in a purchase; this is distorting the system. If the whole reason that those retailers exist is because they thrive on buyers who seek them out to avoid paying sales tax, then they are not adding a lot anyway.
And what's with this whole notion of "the internet economy." There is no internet economy. That's a figment of the late 90's VCs who profited off the public gullability.
A completely seperate issue is taxing internet services, i.e. access charges, etc. And are digital downloads taxed? all these issues fall into the grey area, but there are several distinct shades of grey.
Personally, I'd just pass a constitutional amendment to ban all sales taxes, since 99% of all products cross state lines, the US gov't should be able to regulate it as interstate commerce. Let the states tax in-state produced & consumed good if they want-- but they won't.
Alternatively, everyone collects sales tax depending on the state of the buyer. And yeah, I'd keep the lid on access charge taxes; that's a juridstictional nightmare. Everyone will want to levy a "bit" tax.
I see your point. I was more referring to the fact that using a product in large measure b/c it's free, deploying it on millions of devices (TiVo, anyone?), and then asking for $100 per would ruin MANY business models. For some things, $100/ processor is chump change. For TiVo, it would fundamentally damage their business model.
Seriously, at 97 cents, SCO would stand to pull in a lot of money, and many large users would pay that small bill than deal with potential litigation. $97 seems like a ridiculously large sum to ask for.
Who charges $50 for a landline? I pay about $17/month, which includes a mandatory Interstate Access Charge, etc. No call waiting, no caller ID, bare bones local service. Price cannot be beat for recevining phone calls and leeting the TiVo dial in.
Incidentally, why do we let telecoms get away with itemizing their taaxes can NOT including it in the basic cost of service? I mean, Border's doesn't charge a "Property Tax Recovery" charge when buying in-store.
Yeah, that this discussion has been modded down is ridiculous. It's clearly a salient point, and it was the 1st one to point it out. Seeing that modded down to -1 (Flamebait) makes me start to wonder about the efficiency of this moderation system. Anyway out of -1 hell, since most won't even see it? I'd like to know who modded it down.
And yeah, this IS off-topic, do your worst. But it doesn't eliminate the fact that this article getting posted is outright ridiculous. This news is at least 5 months old, posting it as a story defies logic for a site that is "News for Nerds." Get with the program.
well, other arguments aside, I believe Amazon's recommendations are based upon what items you bought/ looked at, and what other people who bought/ looked that stuff also looked at.
Using this method, Amazon will never recommend a brand-new product to anybody, because no one has looked at it yet. In other words, Amazon might recommend clothes to me (w/o me ever having looked at them)based on my buying habits, once a sufficient number of people have bought items I've bought AND bought clothes.
Right now, Amazon can't mine the database for recommendations, because there is scarcely a database to mine.
When did "engineer" become synonymous with "computer programmer?" Mechanical engineers, mechanical engineers, chemical engineers-- these are engineers. Seems to me that computer programmers everywhere like to call themselves engineers, but unless you have a degree that says "engineering" on it, I think calling yourself engineer is appropriate in the same sense that janitors call themselves "sanitation engineers," or cafeteria workers calling themselves "food service engineers."
When did people working honest jobs at catalog companies become a lower life form that murderers, thieves and other assorted felons.
This whole if-you-spam-you-are-evil-thing is getting a bit tired. It's time to hop off that saddle and get down from your horse. Write your representative, vote, organize, whatever. But please, stop acting as if spamming is the most awful thing one can do during his time on this planet.
This crowd which shouts at the top of their lungs that the internet cannot be legislated by governments, and then try to shout and shove their own way to controlling it need to take a good, long hard look in the mirror. You are basically illogical and power hungry.
OK, I was thinking more like this: There is a magazine called Rolling Stone, there is a band called The Rollings Stone. Bob Dylan wrote & performed a classic song called, "Like a Rolling Stone."
Would this situation today just makes lawyers start to foam at the mouth?
Great, let the private sector in. Here's what would happen if they were allowed in. Governments would probably foot 90% of the bill, the commercial side would run everything, and reap the benefits. My guess is no commercial enterprise could generate enough revenue to run basic station operations.
A better solution would be to keep it governmental, and start charging money (at exorbinant rates) to private concerns that want to run there tests, but can't justify the scientific calue to NASA, et.al. Unfortunately, I don't think many companies could afford the expense now, as this research would not bear fruit for many years.
Better solution: pay the Russian rocket scientists to work on ISS vehicles instead of letting someone else hire them to design missiles.
Y'know, it's not illegal to block pop-ups. Some sites just won't be useable if you do. So, they're just saying that if you don't watch the ads, don't use the site. Other than some unecessarily inflammatory language, I don't see how this is a big deal at all.
Color me idealistic, ignorant, misguided or deluded; but why not create an open-source filter for libraries to use? This would solve a lot of problems.
1) The list of blocked sites and algorithms is available.
2) The community would probably make available separate levels of filtering. Like, maybe a whitelist appropriate for little kids, something else for schools and a narrow list for purposes like libraries.
3) It would be freely available, so politically motivated censorware like NetNanny would see its market eliminated.
Yes, I know this proposal is evil, because it is caving into a bad law. But guess what, the law ins't that unreasonable, it's just that the implementations are downright awful. Most libraries would probably choose to have a modest filter (known porn sites for the most art, maybe all-numeric IPs) than nothing.
Many parents would like to have moderate filtering to kill things like obscene links hidden in slashdot discussions. I mean, even if you're surfing the net w/ your kids, how does it help with stuff like that?
This NetNanny keyword based, politally motivated filtering is A Bad Thing. And a law requiring libraries to install filtering software is A Bad Thing. But, a good, user controlled, community built filtering software is absolutely, positively, a good thing.
The shuttle can do just about anything, but it doesn't mean it should. NASA is a kludge of Air Force and NASA programs, so it meets neither's needs quite right.
The whole idea of abandoning unmanned rockets was a case of NASA (and the USA) getting ahead of itself. Expendables are a much beter solution for all but a few satellites. Hubble is the main one that comes to mind. The trouble is, ig it's not gonna be used to launch big satellites, then why such a heavy vehicle? Well, it was designed with the space station in mind, as a construction ferry.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the article earlier today, and a previous one about their success lobbying "blitz." They spent like $100,000 ($1 million). The "high-powered lobbyist comment" seems little more than a self-serving, completely false pat on the back.
I agree with the onermoderation comment. And it boggles the mind that the moderators still think this is flamebait, when a dozen responses are regarded as insightful. /. needs a new moderation category-- -1, politically incorrect.
Flamebait? I disagree entirely with his view, but it is a completely valid viewpoint. My god, this post is almost identical to the headline, except it's flip-flopped Windows and Linux!
Slashdot continues to define itself as a general MS bigot. Shame.
Of course, maybe it is flamebait, since it seemed to invite such thoughtless, vitriol-filled applaud. Oh that's right; the responses to his "flamebait" post are more insightful than 90% of the comments on this topic (Linux RULEZ!!! Everyone should do this! +5 interesting).
Uh, No. Anyone who thinks the point of computers in school is to, teach kids how to use the currently popular software appications, is absolutely wrong. This attitude harkens back to the 80's when schools would use DOS computers, 'cause that's what kids would use in the "real world," not these toy Macs.
Now, we all know that a deep understanding of DOS is not of critical importance for 99%+ of those working in the "real world." Applicatios, OSes and even interface paradigms change. If you ask me, the use of computers in school should be geared towards in no particular order.
1) Becoming familiar and comfortable with how to use computers; not teaching kids how to hack the kernel, but more geared towards general computing concepts that will carry over from one platform to another, one appication to another, etc.
2) Using computers as tools to do research and write papers. By this, I don't mean making sure kids use computers to do stuff; but help kids identify when the computer is the most appropiate tool for a task. General research is done well on a computer, so it preparation for deep research, but at some point you have to go to the library to do serious work. Using a spreadsheet to keep track of expenses for a business class is a great idea, but only well after the principles are understood.
Computers are tools and should be treated as much. The best way to learn how to use a tool is by using it; guidance is nice, but I bet the kids who learn the most about computers are those who use them as an integrated part of study to get stuff done. Because THAT'S how there used in the real world.
Good point. But I bet Google can make the same profit with much lower revenue.
At one point, I was VERY close to using Yahoo! for almost everything I did online. I used the message boards, email, wap stuff, My Yahoo!, finance, Y! shopping was my first stop for obscure stuff, etc. I still use My Yahoo! and email, but I stopped using the other things as Yahoo! ceased improving them. There was a point where I would've happily paid $5-10/ month for slightly improved versions of Yahoo! services across the board, but that time has past. I still feel Yahoo! could've capitalized on their loyal user base better without alienating them.
The article is interesting, and it goes to show you how clueless you can be and still be authoritatively quoted in a major national publication.
Is this logical? 1) Create fast, relevant search engine, 2) users flock to your service becuase it is fast and relevent, 3) add discrete, marked relevant ads, 4) advertisers flock to it. Some bozo in the story wants to add ste 5: Add bigger ads, disguise them in search results. He sees step 6, advertisers flock to it, but misses step 7, customers abandon it, and step 8, advertisers leave in droves. Hmmm. Can anyone say "Altavista." The reporter writing this article should have called this out, because it is so clearly misguided. Better still is a comparison to Yahoo.
Well, let's see. Yahoo! starts out as a fast and lean service, everyone loves and uses it. They decide they need to add content. Then they decide to accept animated ads, flash-ads and pop-ups/ unders. Who loves it now? I use it less, myself.
If I'm Google, I see Yahoo!'s trajectory very clearly and vow not to fall into the same trap. The whole concept of adding ads becuase there will now be public investors is ludicrous. Everyone uses Google because it is fast, lean and relevant. The people in the article who discuss Google adding morer paid listings do not understand Google's appeal. Once the paid, undistinguished ads start, users will flock away in droves. Personally, I'm convinced that Google Inc. is too smart to let that happen.
States charge sales tax because it's a revenue source. Everything else (consume recourses, etc.) is just a lof of marketing hooey. I'll say it again.
States charge sales tax because it's a revenue source.
The S&H charge when ordering from online only stores is nothing more than a relic of when the stock came off the store floor. Now, most items never see a B&M retail outlet. B&M don't tack on a S&H charge that they obviously incur in delivering the product to the store. It's called the cost of doing business. Etailers itemize S&H b/c they can get away with it.
Do you really think that it costs Amazon more in S&H charge to deliver a book to your house than it costs Barnes & Nobles? B&N has to deliver the items from their warehouses, stock the shelves, etc. Amazon ships stuff to the warehouse. When you order, they they don't ship it right away with free shipping. Instead, they probably move items by the truckload to enable them to send things in smaller batches.
Plus, that S&H charge is often a well-provided service. It's a lot easier to get it delivered to my door than to make a special trip to buy something. Really heavy stuff (TVs) cost a lot to ship, so then it makes sense to buy it in person. But bottom line, basic S&H charges should be included in the cost of goods.
Uh, so what. Why shouldn't we be charged sales tax on internet purchases? Oftentimes, the lack of a sales tax is the primary driver in a purchase; this is distorting the system. If the whole reason that those retailers exist is because they thrive on buyers who seek them out to avoid paying sales tax, then they are not adding a lot anyway.
And what's with this whole notion of "the internet economy." There is no internet economy. That's a figment of the late 90's VCs who profited off the public gullability.
A completely seperate issue is taxing internet services, i.e. access charges, etc. And are digital downloads taxed? all these issues fall into the grey area, but there are several distinct shades of grey.
Personally, I'd just pass a constitutional amendment to ban all sales taxes, since 99% of all products cross state lines, the US gov't should be able to regulate it as interstate commerce. Let the states tax in-state produced & consumed good if they want-- but they won't.
Alternatively, everyone collects sales tax depending on the state of the buyer. And yeah, I'd keep the lid on access charge taxes; that's a juridstictional nightmare. Everyone will want to levy a "bit" tax.
I see your point. I was more referring to the fact that using a product in large measure b/c it's free, deploying it on millions of devices (TiVo, anyone?), and then asking for $100 per would ruin MANY business models. For some things, $100/ processor is chump change. For TiVo, it would fundamentally damage their business model.
Seriously, at 97 cents, SCO would stand to pull in a lot of money, and many large users would pay that small bill than deal with potential litigation. $97 seems like a ridiculously large sum to ask for.
Who charges $50 for a landline? I pay about $17/month, which includes a mandatory Interstate Access Charge, etc. No call waiting, no caller ID, bare bones local service. Price cannot be beat for recevining phone calls and leeting the TiVo dial in.
Incidentally, why do we let telecoms get away with itemizing their taaxes can NOT including it in the basic cost of service? I mean, Border's doesn't charge a "Property Tax Recovery" charge when buying in-store.
Yeah, that this discussion has been modded down is ridiculous. It's clearly a salient point, and it was the 1st one to point it out. Seeing that modded down to -1 (Flamebait) makes me start to wonder about the efficiency of this moderation system. Anyway out of -1 hell, since most won't even see it? I'd like to know who modded it down.
And yeah, this IS off-topic, do your worst. But it doesn't eliminate the fact that this article getting posted is outright ridiculous. This news is at least 5 months old, posting it as a story defies logic for a site that is "News for Nerds." Get with the program.
And at obscure Mom & Pop stores like Fry's. For example, I bought 2 120GB (one for my PowerMac, one for my DirecTiVo) drives for $100 each in August.
well, other arguments aside, I believe Amazon's recommendations are based upon what items you bought/ looked at, and what other people who bought/ looked that stuff also looked at.
Using this method, Amazon will never recommend a brand-new product to anybody, because no one has looked at it yet. In other words, Amazon might recommend clothes to me (w/o me ever having looked at them)based on my buying habits, once a sufficient number of people have bought items I've bought AND bought clothes.
Right now, Amazon can't mine the database for recommendations, because there is scarcely a database to mine.
When did "engineer" become synonymous with "computer programmer?" Mechanical engineers, mechanical engineers, chemical engineers-- these are engineers. Seems to me that computer programmers everywhere like to call themselves engineers, but unless you have a degree that says "engineering" on it, I think calling yourself engineer is appropriate in the same sense that janitors call themselves "sanitation engineers," or cafeteria workers calling themselves "food service engineers."
When did people working honest jobs at catalog companies become a lower life form that murderers, thieves and other assorted felons.
This whole if-you-spam-you-are-evil-thing is getting a bit tired. It's time to hop off that saddle and get down from your horse. Write your representative, vote, organize, whatever. But please, stop acting as if spamming is the most awful thing one can do during his time on this planet.
This crowd which shouts at the top of their lungs that the internet cannot be legislated by governments, and then try to shout and shove their own way to controlling it need to take a good, long hard look in the mirror. You are basically illogical and power hungry.
Of course, there's a group of Oklahomans who want to set up a spaceport in Oklahoma. So, then we might have the chance to take a city out.
OK, I was thinking more like this: There is a magazine called Rolling Stone, there is a band called The Rollings Stone. Bob Dylan wrote & performed a classic song called, "Like a Rolling Stone."
Would this situation today just makes lawyers start to foam at the mouth?
Could a start a band called The Rolling Stones? Could Mick Jagger?
Great, let the private sector in. Here's what would happen if they were allowed in. Governments would probably foot 90% of the bill, the commercial side would run everything, and reap the benefits. My guess is no commercial enterprise could generate enough revenue to run basic station operations.
A better solution would be to keep it governmental, and start charging money (at exorbinant rates) to private concerns that want to run there tests, but can't justify the scientific calue to NASA, et.al. Unfortunately, I don't think many companies could afford the expense now, as this research would not bear fruit for many years.
Better solution: pay the Russian rocket scientists to work on ISS vehicles instead of letting someone else hire them to design missiles.
Y'know, it's not illegal to block pop-ups. Some sites just won't be useable if you do. So, they're just saying that if you don't watch the ads, don't use the site. Other than some unecessarily inflammatory language, I don't see how this is a big deal at all.
And at the same time, can someone volunteer to design these nice folks a new website?
Because, damn.
Color me idealistic, ignorant, misguided or deluded; but why not create an open-source filter for libraries to use? This would solve a lot of problems.
1) The list of blocked sites and algorithms is available.
2) The community would probably make available separate levels of filtering. Like, maybe a whitelist appropriate for little kids, something else for schools and a narrow list for purposes like libraries.
3) It would be freely available, so politically motivated censorware like NetNanny would see its market eliminated.
Yes, I know this proposal is evil, because it is caving into a bad law. But guess what, the law ins't that unreasonable, it's just that the implementations are downright awful. Most libraries would probably choose to have a modest filter (known porn sites for the most art, maybe all-numeric IPs) than nothing.
Many parents would like to have moderate filtering to kill things like obscene links hidden in slashdot discussions. I mean, even if you're surfing the net w/ your kids, how does it help with stuff like that?
This NetNanny keyword based, politally motivated filtering is A Bad Thing. And a law requiring libraries to install filtering software is A Bad Thing. But, a good, user controlled, community built filtering software is absolutely, positively, a good thing.
Absolutely!
The shuttle can do just about anything, but it doesn't mean it should. NASA is a kludge of Air Force and NASA programs, so it meets neither's needs quite right.
The whole idea of abandoning unmanned rockets was a case of NASA (and the USA) getting ahead of itself. Expendables are a much beter solution for all but a few satellites. Hubble is the main one that comes to mind. The trouble is, ig it's not gonna be used to launch big satellites, then why such a heavy vehicle? Well, it was designed with the space station in mind, as a construction ferry.