Your comment makes no sense. If they had correlated impressions with brand awareness then my comment would be useless. The fact that they didn't (and can't) correlate impressions with brand awareness is precisely why my comment is worthwhile.
The "conversion rate" is an even less fair metric than click-through.
As has been said, unless a business is a whack-the-monkey type of endeavor that is based on an impulse purchase, the biggest benefit to advertising (online and off) is in brand-building and product consciousness. If I see a commercial for Coke on TV, I'm rarely going to run out and buy a Coke right then. If they measured "conversion" by somehow counting the exact number of Cokes that were sold in the 30 minutes following that TV commercial, they could (erroneously) conclude that the commercial failed. However, I might very well pick up a 6-pack the next time I go to the store. Or, over time, I might be subconsciously convinced to try Coke instead of Pepsi.
Again, if what you're selling is something that does not benefit from brand recognition and which only benefits from an immediate sale, sure, conversion rates and click-throughs might be valuable. Your market is probably that "less than $40k" demographic cited in the article. But if, like most major advertising spenders, you are seeking to change buying habits over the long term, click-throughs are irrelevant... much less conversion rate.
I'd rather spend $100 on advertising that produces no immediately tangible results but then starts netting me $10/month forever, than spending $100 on advertising that produces a single $200 sale and then nothing. If your target market is the former, click-through and conversion rate is meaningless. If your target is the latter, it is.
I much prefer to pay the agency $10 per sale that gets made through their ads.
Whooosh... I'm sure you'd like that, as an ad buyer. But that'd be entirely unfair to the person providing content that is providing the eyeballs to you. As others have been saying here--including this article--except for a few rares cases that depend on impulse buying, the biggest ROI for advertisement is influencing long-term buying decisions rather than trying to provoke an immediate one.
If Ford does some banner advertising for their vehicles, it's unlikely that someone is going to click on a link, whip out their credit card, and buy a truck. They might not even click the link. But the picture of the truck and "Ford" were seen and that'll be archived in their mind, probably unconsciously. It's the ultimate form of subliminal advertising. And you can't make any link as to whether or not that banner ad lead to any single truck purchase--but it becomes a part of the campaign to increase overall sales.
I run a technical website that receives north of a million hits per month. I've come up with rates that are per/month but which have some basis on CPM (impressions). While I track the click-thru (and so do my advertisers), I don't bill on that basis and never will. They're getting a million impressions per month whether or not anyone clicks on their ads. So even if not a single click-thru leads to an immediate sale, you better believe they've gotten a good deal getting that ad in front of so many people.
I've had my website on cruise control for over 8 years and my ad rates are still at 2000 levels even though my traffic has gone from 200,000 to a million per month in that time. I was just re-evaluating my rates the other day and realized that since I haven't adjusted my rates and hits have gone up, I'm only charging something like $0.80/CPM. Apparently you can get $5/CPM for bottom-feeding hit-the-money type nonsense and targeted niche markets (like the one I operate in) can be $35/CPM. I definitely need to start adjusting my rates. I don't need to earn $35,000/month (which is what one million hits @ $35/CPM would gross), but I think it's time I started earning more than $800/month.:)
Maybe I am just evil, but I would not have posted this if I worked for a site that generated a lot of revenue through banner ads.
Why not? The summary was, as usual, quite inaccurate: "This is bad news for ad-supported Web sites and businesses, as rates should drop if the Net economy begins to take these findings seriously." That's not what the article says.
The article says "While the click can continue to be a relevant metric for direct response advertising campaigns, this study demonstrates that click performance is the wrong measure for the effectiveness of brand-building campaigns." This is actually good news for sites like Slashdot and other technical sites that cater to a higher-end/less-clicky audience. It's essentially saying, "Don't assume the campaign isn't working just because you don't get click-throughs."
As such, I'd expect it to raise rates since it's basically eliminating the only "reliable" way of concluding that an ad is or isn't working. They're saying that that one metric that people thought they had is actually a poor indicator of success.
To me, this looks like something that will drive the industry back to pay-per-impression rather than pay-per-click--at least for branding campaigns. Which are really the most important for bigger advertising spenders anyway. If you put a banner up for a vacation to Hawaii, sure, a few people will already be planning a vacation to Hawaii and might click. And maybe a few will say "Hey, Hawaii, great idea, let's go." But for the vast majority, that's just one more thing that gets in their mind so when they do think of a vacation--perhaps months after the banner ad--well, they might just be a little more likely to go to Hawaii than some other destination.
The value of advertising is usually in targeting long-term spending habits, not getting a one-time sale. You think that when someone advertises for millions during the Superbowl that they actually get a million dollars of immediate business as a direct result of that ad? Nah... but over time it gets in their consciousness and leads to changes in long-term spending habits that do more than pay for themselves.
If you don't want to pay the bill, don't make use of the services. If you don't agree to pay taxes, go live somewhere else...
So rather than accepting a free market and that perhaps Washington isn't raiding Microsoft for as much as they could, in theory, you'd prefer that Microsoft pick up shop and move everything to Nevada? Come on... Microsoft doesn't much use the roads or infrastructure--it's employees do, and they are citizens of Washington who are already paying taxes. Believe me, this mud-raking aside, Washington is much better off WITH Microsoft even if they avoid some sales tax by taking competitive advantage of Nevada.
... you have no right to live here.
Actually, that's not true. As Americans we have the right to live in any state of the country we wish. Or is it now the People's Republic of Washington?
This is what happens when the sheeple are being led by corporate hacks calling for small government: no checks on the corporations, while people are starving on the streets.
Huh? No, actually, your comment is what happens when people (and, worse, government) believe that this is money that belongs to the government that Microsoft has evaded paying instead of recognizing that it's Microsoft's money and the government (and people of Washington) should be thankful that they have such a large employer employing so many people in their state.
This is what happens when government provides incentive to take business elsewhere. Taxes are cheaper in Nevada so it's no surprise Microsoft is going to take advantage of that.
The money belongs to Microsoft, not to Washington.
Following-up on the my previous message, I almost can imagine this as a "proof of concept" cyber-attack. Someone is cutting cables to see what is affected, how badly, and how quickly it is repaired. And they're showing they can do it. So it could be a probing attack to see what kind of damage they can do in a physical cyber-attack. Or maybe someone's thinking they can do this and try to hold the Internet hostage--"A billion in my account by tomorrow or we shut down the international Internet... we already showed you we can do it."
Nah... if bombs were about to start falling, their internal communications would be the targets--not their international connections. What are they doing to do, send an email to call for help to repel an attack? Plus the communications would be attacked pretty much simultaneously to an attack--not days ahead of the attack.
I'd agree that someone is deliberately doing this, but I don't think it's the U.S. and I don't think it's a precursor to an attack on Iran. There's just very little military value in doing so--especially days ahead of an attack which, if anything, would tip the enemy off and allow them to prepare.
No, something interesting is afoot. And as much as people want to blame everything on Bush, I don't think he's responsible for this. Someone is, though.
The only reason to pay for digital music is to pay royalties to musicians. But should they even receive royalties over the long-term?
If an accountant goes to work for a year and earns $50,000 and then they stop working, they stop getting paid. Is there some reason why an artist, who might spend a few days, weeks, or maybe even a few months, recording some music should have an income stream for years or decades? Is there some reason why if someone records a song in a week and it's popular and a million people download it that he should earn $1 million for one week's of work?
I don't think so. Most people are skilled at something and we make a reasonable living off of what we do. A musician has a skill, too, and I'm all in favor of him making a living off of that. But I don't think a "living" means he should record some songs and then just kick back on the beach earning royalties. If he wants to make money, he should be touring and doing concerts--working on a daily basis like everyone else.
Music is an advertisement for a musician's concerts. In days gone by, you could get away with charging for that advertisement. Not any more. Tough. Welcome to the real world.
I haven't had much reason to buy U2 music lately anyway, but until now I've been OK with their politics.
It's a band, not a political party. What on earth does their politics have to do with anything? I actually avoided a U2 concert that I probably would have otherwise gone to because I go to concerts to enjoy music, not to be preached to.
Like I said, I used to think that way. But since it motivates you to work faster, it also motivates you to do only what is minimally required by the specification so you can work faster.
With a fixed price scenario your product probably won't look as good as if you knew that you have some flexibility to spend a few hours making something look awesome rather than just acceptable. And if your estimate is already a little high (which I still do because I prefer to prepare the customer for the worst case scenario so he's happy when we come in under the estimate) then you have the freedom to spend a little extra time making it look downright awesome... but you're still getting paid for that extra effort. And the client is still happy because you still bill less than what you estimated.
Put it this way: I want a fair wage for a fair day's work. If we look at a project and agree on $40,000 because I think it's going to take 320 hours but then it only ends up taking 160 hours, is that fair to the client? Like I said, I'm a happy camper because I just made twice my normal rate. But that just means I over-billed the client which I don't think is ethical.
On the other hand, if we agree on $40,000 because we think it'll take 320 hours but then it ends up taking 640 hours, I just ended up making half my normal rate. The client is happy because he got an awesome deal. But that just means he paid me less than we really thought he was going to pay me for my time. I don't think that's ethical either.
As long as both sides are honest, hourly billing is the fairest approach for both the client and the consultant. The client needs to trust that the consultant is not milking the clock, and the consultant needs to be honest and not milk the clock.
If either the client or the consultant is dishonest then the relationship is going to fail eventually anyway.
If you're working on an hourly consulting basis, sure, if you can get the job done in 20 hours when a slow person gets it done in 40 hours, the slow guy is actually going to get paid more for you to get the same job done slower. But once a company realizes you are reliable and efficient, you're going to get the jobs in the future--not the slow guy.
I used to think like you. Even as a consultant I'd try to spec a project and come up with a fixed-price bid. That way both the client and I could focus on getting the work done rather than stressing about counting hours. But last year I got burned by two projects that, through no fault of my own, ended up being significantly more complex than could be known in the quoting process--but since the complexity wasn't known, it wasn't specifically limited in the contract. So it wasn't specification creep (which would definitely be billable), it was just more complex to get the things done than either the client or I recognized. So I had a tough year.
Having learned from that, I have to protect my own rear end. I've come to the conclusion that billing on a strict hourly basis is in everyone's interest because:
I am never working for free. And with a good client, they don't want you to work free. They're looking for quality work, not slave labor. If you have a client that actively tries to get you to work for free, ditch that client. There's a difference between them looking for a good deal and them trying to exploit you.
There is no motivation whatsoever to do anything less than an excellent job. Not that I ever did a bad job. But if you have a fixed bid, you're going to make sure you meet the specs but there's no reason to go above and beyond. You're going to get it done ASAP. It'll work, but it might not be pretty. Whereas if you're paid by the hour there's a little more leeway for you to give the client not just something that meets the spec, but does so with style. Sure, that might cost the client a little more than doing the bare minimum, but most clients would rather have it exceed expectations and look good than save a few dollars. You can't go overboard, of course, it's not a matter of milking the clock. But you do have the ability to spend the extra time necessary to make a better product.
It's the best financial deal for the client. If you do a fixed-price bid, you have to plan for the worst case scenario to avoid being burned (and even then you can underestimate, like what happened to me). But the worst case scenario usually doesn't happen. Which means you've actually charged the client more than he would have paid because you were planning for the worst but the project didn't actually end up as a worst-case. So you, as a consultant, have a windfall... but is that any more ethical than the client expecting you to work for free? It's just a matter of who's getting ripped off.
Essentially the customer is paying you for all your time but isn't paying you for time you don't spend on their project (which is the case in a fixed price bid where you've bidded based on the worst case scenario).
So now I give clients a good-faith estimate of how long certain things will take, but the actual billing amount is based on the actual amount of time I spend on them. The estimate is just that: An estimate so they can have a reasonably accurate idea of what they're getting into. If it takes less time, they pay less. If it takes more time, they pay more. And they know that up front. And if, as I proceed, it's becoming clear that my estimate was low, I immediately let the client know why and how much more I think it will end up costing. Then they make the decision. Of course, I virtually always come in at or below the estimate so the client is actually pleased to pay less.
The only reason a per-hour arrangement might not be ideal is if 1)You are not honest about the hours you work--in which case you shouldn't be billing by the hour or, 2) The client is suspicio
I mean, in todays world of "at will" employment, and the lack of loyalty from either employer or employee, why not just get the formalities of W2 employment out of the way, and call the workforce of today, what it is, and pay for it that way.
You got that right. I get quite a few calls from companies that want to hire me on a W2/full-time basis. The only thing they can really offer me is paycheck security--twice a month I'd get a reliable paycheck. But that word "reliable" should definitely be in quotes because there is no loyalty from companies to employees which is why there is no loyalty from employees to companies. So why would I take a pay cut and give up my freedom (being able to work at 2am if I want, deciding when I'll take vacations, etc.) for a "reliable" paycheck that isn't really reliable? It just doesn't make sense.
It'd have to be an awfully juicy offer to get me to go back to W-2. I don't think anyone could afford what I'd have to ask for to accept a W-2 position.
I don't see what the big deal about removing DRM is, either way the music industry needs to revise their business model, and removing DRM is the first step.
Saying that the industry needs to "revise their business model" is a nice way of saying, "The industry is toast." There's no two ways about it. The recording industry is spiraling down the drain and nothing they can do will stop it. They tried stopping it through lawsuits and laws and it's clear that's not working. So they're trying it the other way with no DRM. That won't work either.
As annoying as DRM is to consumers, DRM is not the real problem. The recording industry is the problem and they're going the way of the horse-drawn carriage and there is nothing they can do to stop it. Nothing.
The good news is that once the recording industry dies, we can start focusing on the music industry which will do fine with or without the recording industry and, honestly, with or without DRM--though I think we'll find that it'll be without.
Thunderbird is fine for my use. My only complaint is I hate the editor.
I used to do in-line quoting when responding to emails. I think it's the best way to address individual points in a message. But with Thunderbird, I've given up. I want the original message quoted, a blank line, then I type my response and then a blank line and then I continue quoting the original message. With Thunderbird, I can't. The quoting almost always go on an additional line, and then the blank line between the quoted material and my response is sometimes eaten. So you get something that looks like this:
> This is the original quoted message > that i want to respond to. This is my response. I actually inserted a blank line between the previous quoted paragraph and this, but it got eaten. I then inserted one blank line below this response but it got converted into two.
> This is another quote from the original message.
Here it worked. There's one blank line like I'd like.
This absolutely drives me crazy. Eudora worked beautifully in this respect back in the day but then I moved to Linux and ended up using Evolution. Then I moved to Opera. And when I finally was forced to move back to Windows, I went to Thunderbird (because Eudora was ad-sponsored at that point). And I like Firefox, but the above just drives me crazy. Eudora had this working a decade ago, why can't Thunderbird?
Is there a fix for this? I've tried with and without HTML formatting and without some end-of-line encoding that I can't remember what it's called right now, but I had to try disabling it in the manual configuration of Thunderbird. Didn't make a difference though.
I'm so close to ditching Thunderbird over this. But what would I use if I ditch Thunderbird? I believe Outlook works in this regards but I'm not keen to using Outlook if I can avoid it.
So despite the safety precautions, it is still theoretically possible that some command sent to them triggered the exact same bug in both, assuming an actual software or specification problem.
My guess is that the probability of both engines getting the same command is small. Sure, it's possible. But in a complicated system like the 777, I'd be surprised if the system isn't constantly optimizing the thrusts/fuel of both engines independently. Just because the plane wanted more thrust from both engines doesn't mean it wanted the same amount of additional thrust from both. The exact amount of thrust requested of each engine could differ based on a plethora of variables. In short, I don't think it's so simple as to assume "Both engines shut down because they received the same command." Sure, it's possible... but I'd say that at any given time it's far more probable that each engine is receiving different commands. If one assumes that each engine is generally receiving different commands, the simultaneous failure of both looks less like a software problem.
It's all very suspicious and it seems very easy to blame software. And maybe that was the problem. But I, too, am reserving my judgment and am not ready to give the hardware--or even the pilots--a pass yet.
If I were a taxpayer in your district, I would appreciate the savings on the school's electric bill.
If you were a taxpayer in his district, I can assure you you wouldn't even be aware of the savings on the school's electric bill and you'd still be asked to approve a school-related property tax increase in the next election.
No kidding. That isn't even funny. Since I've been using Vista, I sometimes come in in the morning to a clean desktop and an icon saying "Your computer was rebooted to install updates." I've never lost any data since I always save before I walk away and certainly before I call it a day; but it's all very surprising since I've supposedly configured Windows Update to ask me before it installs anything. Yet on numerous occasions it has gone ahead and installed stuff overnight and rebooted my computer. All without asking.
A proper way to do that would make me reconsider my current opinion on the Bible, so I would appreciate some more information on how to find the difference between literal and metaphorical bits.
This is not a 1+1=2 scientific endeavor. We're talking about dozens of individual books written by dozens of authors over the course of over a thousand years. People spend lifetimes reading and analyzing the Bible, usually doing so in the context of the cultural, political, and religious environment in which they were each written. To expect me to give you some magical answer in a few posts on Slashdot when people spend lifetimes in the endeavor is simply not realistic.
Now I don't believe you have to spend a lifetime of investigation to discern which parts may be metaphorical and which are literal. But you do have to make an honest effort to investigate it for yourself, and that's going to require reading the entire Bible with an open mind and an open heart and an honest desire to learn. If you investigate it determined to find faults, you're going to misinterpret every verse and only confirm your own preconceptions and misconceptions. If that's your attitude going in, I guess I wouldn't even recommend you spend the time on it.
On the other hand, if you're really interested in understanding the topic, you'll find the investigation very enlightening. Even if you don't ultimately find that you agree with Christianity, at least you'll have educated yourself enough on the topic to have meaningful conversations about it.
And before you come with vaguenesses, it would have to provide an explanation for quite some things in a way that only leaves one interpretation open for things like the differences in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew (or Mark) and Chronicles, God's total change of character between OT and NT, the Bible being the infallible word of God and apparent contradictions within the Bible, a way to read Job as one complete story, and much more.
I'm sorry, but those things simply illustrate that you know far too little about the Bible to make an educated critique of the Bible or of Christian beliefs. They are also completely off-topic to the discussion of how evolution may or may not be compatible with Christianity. Even so, I would be happy to have that discussion but I've had this type of discussion many times before and have long-since learned that the most useless discussion is with one who is determined to not learn. I don't mind a difference of opinion and agreeing to disagree, but I find that when it comes to topics like this, the person that is challenging Christianity really isn't interested in learning why their understanding of Christianity is incorrect. Inevitably people who make these kinds of challenges suffer from incorrect perceptions of Christianity; or think that Christians (at least the vast majority) believe things that aren't stipulated by the Bible. Most attacks on Christianity and the Bible are strawmen--sometimes erected intentionally and sometimes simply erected out of ignorance of the topic.
Like I said earlier, people that insist on a contradiction between science and Christianity virtually always suffer a lack of knowledge of science, Christianity, or both. The frustrating part is that these people are usually the most extreme and not interested in actually learning about the topic on which they lack knowledge.
I said that if we accept evolution, then the account of creation--and therefore original sin--in Genesis is false.
Not necessarily. The Bible's account of creation is one chapter long--about a page. It's not a science text and its purpose wasn't to dwell on how it all happened. Whether it took God six literal days to do it or if some of it happened through mechanisms we can understand such as evolution is not the point of the Bible and is why the story is makes up an extremely small percentage of the Bible.
The Bible's account of creation does not necessarily preclude evolution.
And if you're right about Christianity and evolution happily coexisting in the same cosmology, where does that leave the foundation of Christian faith? If Christ did not die to give us a chance at forgiveness for original sin, what did He die for?
Whether or not one subscribes to the concept of original sin from Adam and Eve, we are all imperfect and sinful. Especially by the standards given to us by Christ. He died not just for the sins we inherited (if you subscribe to that concept) but especially for the sins we commit all by ourselves. Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins doesn't require us to inherit sin from Adam. We are entirely capable of generating our own sins on a daily basis. We have plenty to be forgiven for even without Adam and Even.
And if people misunderstand what the Bible says, please explain what the methodology is by which we should determine which sections of the Bible are literal and which are metaphorical.
Thoughtful studying of the text by a reasoned and educated mind that is interested in finding the truth rather than creating false conflicts between science and Christianity.
But if we accept evolution, then there was no Adam and Eve, no Eden, no original sin, and therefore, no need for Christianity.
Huh? Evolution does not preclude a "first human." In fact, it pretty much demands it. Your logic is rather weak.
I'm Christian and I don't have a problem with evolution if I can believe it on scientific grounds. I have some reservations about macro-evolution, but none of those reservations are religious-based. If my scientific reservations about evolution could be resolved, I have no problem with that evolution and Christianity co-existing. Those that seem to have a problem with Christianity and evolution co-existing are fundamentalist extremists: Both religious and scientific extremists. These people usually misunderstand what the Bible says, what science says... or both.
Nothing in the universe (or our observations of it) is quite as certain as the conclusions drawn here on/.
Except for global warming. We may have doubts about everything else, but not global warming. 'Cause Al Gore says so, and he invented the Internet and was a vice president and therefore is well qualified to know everything there is to know about the climate.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment makes no sense. If they had correlated impressions with brand awareness then my comment would be useless. The fact that they didn't (and can't) correlate impressions with brand awareness is precisely why my comment is worthwhile.
The "conversion rate" is an even less fair metric than click-through.
As has been said, unless a business is a whack-the-monkey type of endeavor that is based on an impulse purchase, the biggest benefit to advertising (online and off) is in brand-building and product consciousness. If I see a commercial for Coke on TV, I'm rarely going to run out and buy a Coke right then. If they measured "conversion" by somehow counting the exact number of Cokes that were sold in the 30 minutes following that TV commercial, they could (erroneously) conclude that the commercial failed. However, I might very well pick up a 6-pack the next time I go to the store. Or, over time, I might be subconsciously convinced to try Coke instead of Pepsi.
Again, if what you're selling is something that does not benefit from brand recognition and which only benefits from an immediate sale, sure, conversion rates and click-throughs might be valuable. Your market is probably that "less than $40k" demographic cited in the article. But if, like most major advertising spenders, you are seeking to change buying habits over the long term, click-throughs are irrelevant... much less conversion rate.
I'd rather spend $100 on advertising that produces no immediately tangible results but then starts netting me $10/month forever, than spending $100 on advertising that produces a single $200 sale and then nothing. If your target market is the former, click-through and conversion rate is meaningless. If your target is the latter, it is.
Whooosh... I'm sure you'd like that, as an ad buyer. But that'd be entirely unfair to the person providing content that is providing the eyeballs to you. As others have been saying here--including this article--except for a few rares cases that depend on impulse buying, the biggest ROI for advertisement is influencing long-term buying decisions rather than trying to provoke an immediate one.
If Ford does some banner advertising for their vehicles, it's unlikely that someone is going to click on a link, whip out their credit card, and buy a truck. They might not even click the link. But the picture of the truck and "Ford" were seen and that'll be archived in their mind, probably unconsciously. It's the ultimate form of subliminal advertising. And you can't make any link as to whether or not that banner ad lead to any single truck purchase--but it becomes a part of the campaign to increase overall sales.
I run a technical website that receives north of a million hits per month. I've come up with rates that are per/month but which have some basis on CPM (impressions). While I track the click-thru (and so do my advertisers), I don't bill on that basis and never will. They're getting a million impressions per month whether or not anyone clicks on their ads. So even if not a single click-thru leads to an immediate sale, you better believe they've gotten a good deal getting that ad in front of so many people.
I've had my website on cruise control for over 8 years and my ad rates are still at 2000 levels even though my traffic has gone from 200,000 to a million per month in that time. I was just re-evaluating my rates the other day and realized that since I haven't adjusted my rates and hits have gone up, I'm only charging something like $0.80/CPM. Apparently you can get $5/CPM for bottom-feeding hit-the-money type nonsense and targeted niche markets (like the one I operate in) can be $35/CPM. I definitely need to start adjusting my rates. I don't need to earn $35,000/month (which is what one million hits @ $35/CPM would gross), but I think it's time I started earning more than $800/month. :)
Why not? The summary was, as usual, quite inaccurate: "This is bad news for ad-supported Web sites and businesses, as rates should drop if the Net economy begins to take these findings seriously." That's not what the article says.
The article says "While the click can continue to be a relevant metric for direct response advertising campaigns, this study demonstrates that click performance is the wrong measure for the effectiveness of brand-building campaigns." This is actually good news for sites like Slashdot and other technical sites that cater to a higher-end/less-clicky audience. It's essentially saying, "Don't assume the campaign isn't working just because you don't get click-throughs."
As such, I'd expect it to raise rates since it's basically eliminating the only "reliable" way of concluding that an ad is or isn't working. They're saying that that one metric that people thought they had is actually a poor indicator of success.
To me, this looks like something that will drive the industry back to pay-per-impression rather than pay-per-click--at least for branding campaigns. Which are really the most important for bigger advertising spenders anyway. If you put a banner up for a vacation to Hawaii, sure, a few people will already be planning a vacation to Hawaii and might click. And maybe a few will say "Hey, Hawaii, great idea, let's go." But for the vast majority, that's just one more thing that gets in their mind so when they do think of a vacation--perhaps months after the banner ad--well, they might just be a little more likely to go to Hawaii than some other destination.
The value of advertising is usually in targeting long-term spending habits, not getting a one-time sale. You think that when someone advertises for millions during the Superbowl that they actually get a million dollars of immediate business as a direct result of that ad? Nah... but over time it gets in their consciousness and leads to changes in long-term spending habits that do more than pay for themselves.
So rather than accepting a free market and that perhaps Washington isn't raiding Microsoft for as much as they could, in theory, you'd prefer that Microsoft pick up shop and move everything to Nevada? Come on... Microsoft doesn't much use the roads or infrastructure--it's employees do, and they are citizens of Washington who are already paying taxes. Believe me, this mud-raking aside, Washington is much better off WITH Microsoft even if they avoid some sales tax by taking competitive advantage of Nevada.
Actually, that's not true. As Americans we have the right to live in any state of the country we wish. Or is it now the People's Republic of Washington?
Huh? No, actually, your comment is what happens when people (and, worse, government) believe that this is money that belongs to the government that Microsoft has evaded paying instead of recognizing that it's Microsoft's money and the government (and people of Washington) should be thankful that they have such a large employer employing so many people in their state.
This is what happens when government provides incentive to take business elsewhere. Taxes are cheaper in Nevada so it's no surprise Microsoft is going to take advantage of that.
The money belongs to Microsoft, not to Washington.
Wasn't there just an article that EEs have a terrorist mindset? Well, there ya go! :)
Following-up on the my previous message, I almost can imagine this as a "proof of concept" cyber-attack. Someone is cutting cables to see what is affected, how badly, and how quickly it is repaired. And they're showing they can do it. So it could be a probing attack to see what kind of damage they can do in a physical cyber-attack. Or maybe someone's thinking they can do this and try to hold the Internet hostage--"A billion in my account by tomorrow or we shut down the international Internet... we already showed you we can do it."
Nah... if bombs were about to start falling, their internal communications would be the targets--not their international connections. What are they doing to do, send an email to call for help to repel an attack? Plus the communications would be attacked pretty much simultaneously to an attack--not days ahead of the attack.
I'd agree that someone is deliberately doing this, but I don't think it's the U.S. and I don't think it's a precursor to an attack on Iran. There's just very little military value in doing so--especially days ahead of an attack which, if anything, would tip the enemy off and allow them to prepare.
No, something interesting is afoot. And as much as people want to blame everything on Bush, I don't think he's responsible for this. Someone is, though.
The only reason to pay for digital music is to pay royalties to musicians. But should they even receive royalties over the long-term?
If an accountant goes to work for a year and earns $50,000 and then they stop working, they stop getting paid. Is there some reason why an artist, who might spend a few days, weeks, or maybe even a few months, recording some music should have an income stream for years or decades? Is there some reason why if someone records a song in a week and it's popular and a million people download it that he should earn $1 million for one week's of work?
I don't think so. Most people are skilled at something and we make a reasonable living off of what we do. A musician has a skill, too, and I'm all in favor of him making a living off of that. But I don't think a "living" means he should record some songs and then just kick back on the beach earning royalties. If he wants to make money, he should be touring and doing concerts--working on a daily basis like everyone else.
Music is an advertisement for a musician's concerts. In days gone by, you could get away with charging for that advertisement. Not any more. Tough. Welcome to the real world.
It's a band, not a political party. What on earth does their politics have to do with anything? I actually avoided a U2 concert that I probably would have otherwise gone to because I go to concerts to enjoy music, not to be preached to.
Why not? Anyone that says that oil isn't worth fighting for is either lying or naive.
Like I said, I used to think that way. But since it motivates you to work faster, it also motivates you to do only what is minimally required by the specification so you can work faster.
With a fixed price scenario your product probably won't look as good as if you knew that you have some flexibility to spend a few hours making something look awesome rather than just acceptable. And if your estimate is already a little high (which I still do because I prefer to prepare the customer for the worst case scenario so he's happy when we come in under the estimate) then you have the freedom to spend a little extra time making it look downright awesome... but you're still getting paid for that extra effort. And the client is still happy because you still bill less than what you estimated.
Put it this way: I want a fair wage for a fair day's work. If we look at a project and agree on $40,000 because I think it's going to take 320 hours but then it only ends up taking 160 hours, is that fair to the client? Like I said, I'm a happy camper because I just made twice my normal rate. But that just means I over-billed the client which I don't think is ethical.
On the other hand, if we agree on $40,000 because we think it'll take 320 hours but then it ends up taking 640 hours, I just ended up making half my normal rate. The client is happy because he got an awesome deal. But that just means he paid me less than we really thought he was going to pay me for my time. I don't think that's ethical either.
As long as both sides are honest, hourly billing is the fairest approach for both the client and the consultant. The client needs to trust that the consultant is not milking the clock, and the consultant needs to be honest and not milk the clock.
If either the client or the consultant is dishonest then the relationship is going to fail eventually anyway.
If you're working on an hourly consulting basis, sure, if you can get the job done in 20 hours when a slow person gets it done in 40 hours, the slow guy is actually going to get paid more for you to get the same job done slower. But once a company realizes you are reliable and efficient, you're going to get the jobs in the future--not the slow guy.
I used to think like you. Even as a consultant I'd try to spec a project and come up with a fixed-price bid. That way both the client and I could focus on getting the work done rather than stressing about counting hours. But last year I got burned by two projects that, through no fault of my own, ended up being significantly more complex than could be known in the quoting process--but since the complexity wasn't known, it wasn't specifically limited in the contract. So it wasn't specification creep (which would definitely be billable), it was just more complex to get the things done than either the client or I recognized. So I had a tough year.
Having learned from that, I have to protect my own rear end. I've come to the conclusion that billing on a strict hourly basis is in everyone's interest because:
So now I give clients a good-faith estimate of how long certain things will take, but the actual billing amount is based on the actual amount of time I spend on them. The estimate is just that: An estimate so they can have a reasonably accurate idea of what they're getting into. If it takes less time, they pay less. If it takes more time, they pay more. And they know that up front. And if, as I proceed, it's becoming clear that my estimate was low, I immediately let the client know why and how much more I think it will end up costing. Then they make the decision. Of course, I virtually always come in at or below the estimate so the client is actually pleased to pay less.
The only reason a per-hour arrangement might not be ideal is if 1)You are not honest about the hours you work--in which case you shouldn't be billing by the hour or, 2) The client is suspicio
You got that right. I get quite a few calls from companies that want to hire me on a W2/full-time basis. The only thing they can really offer me is paycheck security--twice a month I'd get a reliable paycheck. But that word "reliable" should definitely be in quotes because there is no loyalty from companies to employees which is why there is no loyalty from employees to companies. So why would I take a pay cut and give up my freedom (being able to work at 2am if I want, deciding when I'll take vacations, etc.) for a "reliable" paycheck that isn't really reliable? It just doesn't make sense.
It'd have to be an awfully juicy offer to get me to go back to W-2. I don't think anyone could afford what I'd have to ask for to accept a W-2 position.
Saying that the industry needs to "revise their business model" is a nice way of saying, "The industry is toast." There's no two ways about it. The recording industry is spiraling down the drain and nothing they can do will stop it. They tried stopping it through lawsuits and laws and it's clear that's not working. So they're trying it the other way with no DRM. That won't work either.
As annoying as DRM is to consumers, DRM is not the real problem. The recording industry is the problem and they're going the way of the horse-drawn carriage and there is nothing they can do to stop it. Nothing.
The good news is that once the recording industry dies, we can start focusing on the music industry which will do fine with or without the recording industry and, honestly, with or without DRM--though I think we'll find that it'll be without.
Thunderbird is fine for my use. My only complaint is I hate the editor.
I used to do in-line quoting when responding to emails. I think it's the best way to address individual points in a message. But with Thunderbird, I've given up. I want the original message quoted, a blank line, then I type my response and then a blank line and then I continue quoting the original message. With Thunderbird, I can't. The quoting almost always go on an additional line, and then the blank line between the quoted material and my response is sometimes eaten. So you get something that looks like this:
This absolutely drives me crazy. Eudora worked beautifully in this respect back in the day but then I moved to Linux and ended up using Evolution. Then I moved to Opera. And when I finally was forced to move back to Windows, I went to Thunderbird (because Eudora was ad-sponsored at that point). And I like Firefox, but the above just drives me crazy. Eudora had this working a decade ago, why can't Thunderbird?
Is there a fix for this? I've tried with and without HTML formatting and without some end-of-line encoding that I can't remember what it's called right now, but I had to try disabling it in the manual configuration of Thunderbird. Didn't make a difference though.
I'm so close to ditching Thunderbird over this. But what would I use if I ditch Thunderbird? I believe Outlook works in this regards but I'm not keen to using Outlook if I can avoid it.
Exactly. Unfortunately there is very little incentive for the government to ever save money.
My guess is that the probability of both engines getting the same command is small. Sure, it's possible. But in a complicated system like the 777, I'd be surprised if the system isn't constantly optimizing the thrusts/fuel of both engines independently. Just because the plane wanted more thrust from both engines doesn't mean it wanted the same amount of additional thrust from both. The exact amount of thrust requested of each engine could differ based on a plethora of variables. In short, I don't think it's so simple as to assume "Both engines shut down because they received the same command." Sure, it's possible... but I'd say that at any given time it's far more probable that each engine is receiving different commands. If one assumes that each engine is generally receiving different commands, the simultaneous failure of both looks less like a software problem.
It's all very suspicious and it seems very easy to blame software. And maybe that was the problem. But I, too, am reserving my judgment and am not ready to give the hardware--or even the pilots--a pass yet.
If you were a taxpayer in his district, I can assure you you wouldn't even be aware of the savings on the school's electric bill and you'd still be asked to approve a school-related property tax increase in the next election.
No kidding. That isn't even funny. Since I've been using Vista, I sometimes come in in the morning to a clean desktop and an icon saying "Your computer was rebooted to install updates." I've never lost any data since I always save before I walk away and certainly before I call it a day; but it's all very surprising since I've supposedly configured Windows Update to ask me before it installs anything. Yet on numerous occasions it has gone ahead and installed stuff overnight and rebooted my computer. All without asking.
This is not a 1+1=2 scientific endeavor. We're talking about dozens of individual books written by dozens of authors over the course of over a thousand years. People spend lifetimes reading and analyzing the Bible, usually doing so in the context of the cultural, political, and religious environment in which they were each written. To expect me to give you some magical answer in a few posts on Slashdot when people spend lifetimes in the endeavor is simply not realistic.
Now I don't believe you have to spend a lifetime of investigation to discern which parts may be metaphorical and which are literal. But you do have to make an honest effort to investigate it for yourself, and that's going to require reading the entire Bible with an open mind and an open heart and an honest desire to learn. If you investigate it determined to find faults, you're going to misinterpret every verse and only confirm your own preconceptions and misconceptions. If that's your attitude going in, I guess I wouldn't even recommend you spend the time on it.
On the other hand, if you're really interested in understanding the topic, you'll find the investigation very enlightening. Even if you don't ultimately find that you agree with Christianity, at least you'll have educated yourself enough on the topic to have meaningful conversations about it.
I'm sorry, but those things simply illustrate that you know far too little about the Bible to make an educated critique of the Bible or of Christian beliefs. They are also completely off-topic to the discussion of how evolution may or may not be compatible with Christianity. Even so, I would be happy to have that discussion but I've had this type of discussion many times before and have long-since learned that the most useless discussion is with one who is determined to not learn. I don't mind a difference of opinion and agreeing to disagree, but I find that when it comes to topics like this, the person that is challenging Christianity really isn't interested in learning why their understanding of Christianity is incorrect. Inevitably people who make these kinds of challenges suffer from incorrect perceptions of Christianity; or think that Christians (at least the vast majority) believe things that aren't stipulated by the Bible. Most attacks on Christianity and the Bible are strawmen--sometimes erected intentionally and sometimes simply erected out of ignorance of the topic.
Like I said earlier, people that insist on a contradiction between science and Christianity virtually always suffer a lack of knowledge of science, Christianity, or both. The frustrating part is that these people are usually the most extreme and not interested in actually learning about the topic on which they lack knowledge.
Not necessarily. The Bible's account of creation is one chapter long--about a page. It's not a science text and its purpose wasn't to dwell on how it all happened. Whether it took God six literal days to do it or if some of it happened through mechanisms we can understand such as evolution is not the point of the Bible and is why the story is makes up an extremely small percentage of the Bible.
The Bible's account of creation does not necessarily preclude evolution.
Whether or not one subscribes to the concept of original sin from Adam and Eve, we are all imperfect and sinful. Especially by the standards given to us by Christ. He died not just for the sins we inherited (if you subscribe to that concept) but especially for the sins we commit all by ourselves. Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins doesn't require us to inherit sin from Adam. We are entirely capable of generating our own sins on a daily basis. We have plenty to be forgiven for even without Adam and Even.
Thoughtful studying of the text by a reasoned and educated mind that is interested in finding the truth rather than creating false conflicts between science and Christianity.
Huh? Evolution does not preclude a "first human." In fact, it pretty much demands it. Your logic is rather weak.
I'm Christian and I don't have a problem with evolution if I can believe it on scientific grounds. I have some reservations about macro-evolution, but none of those reservations are religious-based. If my scientific reservations about evolution could be resolved, I have no problem with that evolution and Christianity co-existing. Those that seem to have a problem with Christianity and evolution co-existing are fundamentalist extremists: Both religious and scientific extremists. These people usually misunderstand what the Bible says, what science says... or both.
Except for global warming. We may have doubts about everything else, but not global warming. 'Cause Al Gore says so, and he invented the Internet and was a vice president and therefore is well qualified to know everything there is to know about the climate. :)