What's your criteria for citing the US as the most successfull social system? Or were you actually talking about the Mayan's or something? Everywhere I look in the states, I see injustice, I see oppression, I see domination by the wealthy... I see lack of freedom. But above all, I see loss of culture, degeneration, and basic alienation from humanity.
With all our injustices, America still provides the most free society in the world. We have the most liberal civil rights. We have the most liberated education system (anyone can go to college). We are one of the youngest countries in the history of the world. We are an experiment, and a successful one at that.
The fact is: Vastly more people want to come here than leave here. If you compare our 4th amendment and its right of privacy to France or England (both very progress, free countries) it is head and shoulders above when it comes to protecting the individual. Go read the laws before you bother argueing. Compare the social system in England, where it still pays to be born with the right blood. Compare to the overly socialistic control of France.
I am tired of false modesty about this: The fact is, liberty works, and America has a better version. Period. There is no moral equivelence here, the fact is if you give people the most freedom, they will be the most prosperous. America needs lots of improvements, but its still the best game in town for equality and liberty. Go argue, sure, ok fine, it doesnt matter because it doesn't change it, no matter how anti-us you are.
But we have to seal our borders OFF because everyone wants to be here. Think about that. There must be a reason. Call it arrogance if you want, but most countries could do better to look at our social and economic system, to serve as a model. The facts back that up.
Would be nice to see competetion like this, where each 'team' used the exact same hardware, all parts out 1 year or more. Something like a dual xeon and/or p3 1.3 with 1 gig of ram. Let some Windows vendor, RedHat, One of BSD's (they are all the same, right:) hehe) and anyone else enter. each team tunes their own system.
This would be nice to see. mulitiple setups over multiple days. A pop3/smtp box. A dns box. A simple HTTPD server. File server, and maybe a 'little of everything' box, and compare them side by side in each role. But that would be too cool, so it won't happen. Oh yea, and the info gathered would be useful, so it wont happen either.
When sending a grip to people, I find it most effective to use the Kung Fu grip! That usually gets their attention
I'm more of a PolyGrip(r) man. Also is handy for keeping a condom on, for those nights you are out of Viagra. (Should have answered those emails I guess)
i have heard several people say that Open Group owns it, even Open Group, but a trademark search puts the trademark as sold to UNIXSYSTEM LABORATORIES. I can't find anything that ties these two groups together. (serial 73537419 at uspto.gov) I assume they would be the same, but couldn't google any relevent info to tie them.
I did find this site that appears to say its unix knockoff is virus proof, and that Linus isn't the owner of Linux, but 'Linux is a registered trademark of Croce, William R. Della, Jr.'
You find the wierdest stuff on that there internet;)
etc... There really is no law which requires companies to act as unethical money grubbing machines.
SCO trying to sell the unix code they have doesn't make them unethical money grubbing machines.
Ok, sueing IBM trying to get them to buy you out, yea, that does.
Its not about 'the law' anyway. Its about corporate accountability. The CEO can legally open the source for SCO, it wouldn't be a violation of law. But then the shareholders would freak out and fire him. It has nothing to do with ANY legal matter in and of itself.
Um, Redhat doesn't own Linux - they can't exactly give it away.
Thank you. I was about to say the same thing to the guy who obviously doesnt understand how Redhat and GNU in general works. I am one of those customers that PAYS Redhat for its "free" software anyway:)
but I would have rather seen a more compelling argument than a "Iraq has them... trust us." The US populace seems to disagree with me, dashing your assertion that the American people require more than FUD to take people seriously. We used FUD to start a war.
I am not convinced that FUD was used to start a war. If they do not find any WMD, then you may be correct. At this point I would be hard pressed to agree, still too early. I DO expect that we will find them, or be asking a lot of questions otherwise.
The MAIN justification for 'deciding' they have WMD is pretty simple but overlooked. Before 98, they said "yes, these are the WMD we have" and they have not accounted for THOSE. Its not conjecture, its based on THEIR words. They now say "we destroyed them". They may have, but they have a HUGE beauracracy that would have documentation. Since they can't produce paperwork, or wont (Abdul destroyed 15 tons of VX by pouring it in the desert at X location, on X date) we HAVE to assume they still have it. I understand that this is not the same as a photograph, but it IS compelling evidence. They ADMITTED having it, they won't say what they did with it. And yes, we did supply them, and others, with lots of armaments. Thats another story/arguement.
We WILL see. I don't think you and I necessarily disagree. It just seems I am more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the US and less so to Saddam. Perhaps it is because I am a military vet, and son of a military vet. Vets do NOT like going to war unless there is a damn good reason. We are also at least as skeptical of our own Govt as anyone else.
It's fairly reasonable to suggest that SCO has no chance against IBM, IBM being a multibillion dollar corporation and SCO being a minor also-ran with a shakey case. So, my question is: Assuming SCO loses, and the costs put SCO out of business, will SCO, as a final act of good will, release the sources of Unix, NetWare, etc, into the public domain, so that whatever misery this company has inflicted on the rest of the world can at least not have been in vain?
They can't do that.
They are a publicly held corporation. As such, they have a duty to their shareholders (could be you and me) to get the maximum value of their assets. They would HAVE to sell the trademark if it would bring $$, and it would. If they did otherwise, their shareholders would sue them into the ground.
It SOUNDS nice that they could, but the reality is that they can't. Now, IBM could BUY the Unix mark and then IBM could release it into the public domain / gpl / bsd license / or leave it proprietary. IBM could justify it since they have invested 1 billion in Linux lately, and the price of the code (current value of sco $35mil) would be a bargain for the code gained, thus justifiable to the stockholders. Also, the goodwill earned would be worth it.
It's worse that Saddams because we're supposed to have a process and a government that prevents this. Bush is not a military dictator, and letting him act like one is our failing as much as his. And I'd take issue with the idea that Ashcroft is a "good man". It would be very difficult to convince me that he honestly has democratic principles and the upholding of the Constitution (something he swore to in his oath of office, btw) at heart.
Your first point is pure FUD. Bush is not acting like a dictator, he has the SIGNATURE of a majority of persons in the Senate and House of Representatives, even the ones who are talking trash of their own now. For you to call him a dictator demonstrates a lack of understanding about what is necessary to go to war. Also, he has NO money. If the congress didn't want the war, they could not fund it. instead they just signed off on 5 billion MORE than they were asked for. Also, 70% of the people agree with the war, with no duress. The congress can take any action they want, as can the courts. And they have. Your analogy is very flawed on that point. Instead, its just a personal attack (see my other posts on this point)
You and he may disagree as to what is free speech and what is inciting a riot (for instance) but you don't back up your concern with a specific instance of an act by him that can be taken outside of simple disagreement. I haven't seen, and you haven't cited, an example that backup up this conclusion.
Its ok to not like him or his policies, but to try to make him out as EVIL because you disagree doesnt hurt him but instead it hurts YOUR arguement, because it is obvious you are biased against him.
this is exactly the fud i am talking about. short little "look at me, im clever" comments that mean nothing. Just karma whoring.
If you want to ACCUSE someone, use a name, name an event, give a source. If not, then you are just spewing the same FUD you are accusing others of. Its just words.
I doubt Ashcroft has "the best of intentions," unless it's "best" that he wants everyone in the U.S. to worship Christ, give up all civil liberties, and basically do whatever he says. His heart may be in the right place (he wants to do good), but what he thinks is "good" curdles my blood.
Do you really think that is what he wants? I am asking in ernest. I am NOT a christian personally (nor muslim or jew, so i dont have a dog in this hunt;) and I do NOT feel that he is trying to shove his religion down my throat. GW is very religious, too, but I don't really have a problem with people who are religious, any brand. Even tho I am not religious, I am not intimidated my persons who are.
I agree that Ashcroft has a distorted view of what is the right thing to do, but i just don't see him trying to force anyone into christianity (no reference at all for that one) or to 'give up all civil liberties'. I see him trying to pare back some liberties and freedoms that are important (a bit fringe in some areas, but important none the less) and yes, that MUST stop. But I see him as simply wrong, not sinister. I don't think he is rubbing his hands about taking away freedom, he is just narrow minded on how it affects others.
This is a pain, granted, but this does NOT make him an evil guy. It just makes him INCORRECT. I personally believe that in order to influence, you have to understand and give credit where its due. I just don't buy that he is sinister in any way, this is NOT the MO for sinister acts. Its a bit paranoid, over reactive and maybe a bit self righteous. Not I just don't see the evil, even tho I disagree with him on most everything. I do see alot of people (not you in particular) over reacting to him, calling him names, etc. Rule 1: once you start calling names, you lose. its no longer about the issues. This is part of what bugs me. Its hard to effect change if everyone on your side sounds like a paranoid nut.
I don't really give a damn. This is my freaking country, and I'm going to oppose this sort of junior dictator garbage, DESPITE the fact that someone somewhere else is doing worse. Good grief, since when is "well they're doing it worse than me" an excuse?
Its the fact that you consider this a "junior dictator" demonstrates my point. Completely out of preportion to what is going on. Its the proverbial Chicken Little. Its as if you are ready to move to Montana and start a movement.
I don't agree with what they are doing either. But I get tired of reminding people that IF you insist on personal attacks, then no one is going to take you serious. Sorry, but it makes you look like an idiot. Argue your point (which I happen to agree with) but to keep calling GW and crew evil is just stupid. They are wrong about alot of this, but if you don't even consider the fact that they are acting of conscience, and NOT out of some desire to take over the world, then don't bother telling anyone of any consequence, because they are not going to listen.
Once again: when you use terms like "junior dictator" it doesnt make you cool. It makes you look like a paranoid idiot, and it TAKES AWAY from our ability to get the govt. to stop this shit. Let me repeat this: If you act like a paranoid freak in how you protest, you will not create change. If your goals is to create change (rather than look important) then learn to not act like a kook.
They are wrong about plenty, and right about more. But GW and the administration is not trying to take over the world, they are trying to make it a safer place. Sometimes they do it the wrong way, but that is the motivation. Not everyone in the administation has the best intentions, but on the whole, it appears obvious that is the motivation.
If you DO think GW and crew simply want to 'take over the world' then you ARE a nut, or a liar with a different agenda.
I certainly agree that this doesn't make President Bush the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein, but it isn't right all the same. Locking people up without charging them with a crime is wrong, and if they do charge Mike with a crime he should have the right to a speedy trial by his peers.
This is not the same as what has been done by other tyrants around the world, but it is still tyranny.
I agree. And you seem to be able to put it in intellegent words, and you will get listened to. Keep in mind our history in America is riddled with the suspension of Civil Rights during War time. This war has seen LESS suspension than other. Still a problem, but 1) it IS getting better and 2) we can fix it.
You gotta remember, a large minority (if not a small majority) of American's HAVE NO PROBLEM with these people being locked up. Does NOT make it right, but right isn't enough. You have to be reasonable and address their conserns as well, or they won't care what you think (and thus, it stays as is or gets worse). This is just the practical reality of where we live. Yes yes yes, we can all get on our soapboxes, but that alone does NOTHING except make YOU feel better. I am more concerned with actual results instead of this political masturbation where everyone pats themselves on the back for "standing up for freedom". Takes a lot of guts.
Yes, it is tyranny in many ways. But its the LEAST amount of tyranny the world has ever experienced during war time, and its getting better. Put it in PERSPECTIVE. The light at the end of the tunnel is not always a train.
Whatever you want to call it, I personally have a REAL FEAR of something like this happening to me or someone I know. On purpose, or by mistake. I DON'T KNOW what the criteria are for this. Do you have to be of foreign descent and have a beard? That's me. Do you have to have non-mainstream views? I do. What's the cutoff? I know generally if I don't break any laws (even the stupid ones that are hard to avoid), I should be okay. But this guy seems to have NOT broken any laws.
Like I said, its wrong, we should speak out against it. My problem is a matter of perspective. As wrong as it is, it is still not like what is going on elsewhere. These are problems that can be dealt with. He is not going to die in prison, be beaten, etc. He does need representation, we do need to complain, however, if you 'overreact', then no one will pay you any attention. You will be seen as a kook. For good reason.
Welcome to America: if you want us to take you serious, you have to present your arguement reasonably, backed up with facts. If you dish out FUD, we assume you are full of shit, and anything you say is meaningless.
My point: By overreacting and exaggerating these types of stories, you end up screwing the guys in jail because no one will take you serious. Its not enough to be right, you also have to be fair.
All bad things have small beginnings.. and even though it may be somewhat reactionary it is the duty of the people to point out the wrongs and just as importantly *what they can lead to*.. and sometimes the only way to show that is an end result...
Like I said, I agree its a problem. I agree people should speak out. But if you act as if this problem is as bad as Saddam's treatment of his citizens, no one will take it serious. You have to put it in perspective. I mean, the author lost my respect by OVERREACTING in the description. It tells me he has another agenda, so I am not as likely to listen to him.
As to other posters: You can NOT just run and scream, calling John Ashcroft a nazi and expect to get taken serious. I think Ashcroft is very wrong on MOST issues regarding liberties. I also believe he is a good man with the best of intentions, but the wrong ideas.
Anyone who just goes into a name calling frenzy HAS OTHER MOTIVES. They obviously don't care about the truth, they care about pushing an agenda, and LIKE IT when something like this happens, because it appears to substanciate their narrow view of the world. Just like the fools who WANT American casualties so they can say "told you so". Thats a pretty fucking expensive told you so, and frankly, you would have to be a sick person to want that. Same here.
Its about trying to convince everyone that Conservatives\Bush Team are bad, so they dig up any story that appears to support their theory, with no regard to fact or perspective as to the real problem. These efforts are entirely too transpearant.
There are a few hundred people being held without charges right now, many for over a year, and this guys has been held a short time, and NOW you give a damn? Im guessing only since hes in the tech industry.
Total propeganda by the editors here. You can present the story, but to make the Govt. sound like the gestapo over a 14 hold says more about YOUR attitude about the Govt. than it does the Govt. attitude toward its citizens. I agree that its wrong to be held like this, but no one "disappeared" anywhere. Total FUD by the editors. FUD FUD FUD.
When you use terms like "disappeared" to describe it, though, not only do you sound like a wacky radical, but you also insult the people in oppressive countries who actually have been killed/locked away for life without trials or explainations.
It is sad that people say "yea, but its almost the same" with some self rightous attitude.
Ask the Human Shields that are coming out of Iraq. They are freaked out at how the people were abused. They learned they don't know shit about Iraq, and that their own misconceptions were 100% wrong. They SAW what was going on, and it blew their mind that some leaders really DO oppress people that way. Some people just don't understand what "evil" means. The civil liberties violations in the US do not even compare, except by idiots.
People who equate this matter with the brutal oppression that occurs regularly in the Middle East are completely ignorant of what is going on. This IS unconstitutional, but he hasn't had his teeth bashed out, his wife raped or his children killed. It should be fought here in US, but to say he "disappeared" is insulting. Not to the US, but to those in Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia among others, that know what the hell "disappeared" really means.
More FUD about our "nasty govt" from editors whose real goal is to protest a man, not a war.
I really don't see the problem. He gave a huge amount of money to a terrorist organization. Am I the only one that still remembers 9/11, or have the whiny liberals washed it of everyone's heads already?
Part of the problem is most of the people that agree with you will only say so as AC.
At the same time, I'm disappointed that he, and anyone involved in new media advertising, still looks at conversions as an indicator of how effective an ad is. Few people ever click-through on an ad they see and make an immediate purchase. Expectations for web ads ought to be no greater than any other kind of print or broadcast ad; it's not an opportunity to make a quick sale, just an opportunity to spread the word about what you're selling. Impressions are what matter.
Conversion is only one consideration. We get only 10% or less of our sales from direct conversion. Its a guide. I can compare one place to another using conversion, but it also has to be tempered with:
1) demographics of the engine 2) the particular ad (if different on the sites) 3) type of ad (banner, word ad, horz. banner) 4) particular keyword
So, since AOL gets me about the same number of HITS as MSN, but MSN converts about 12% and AOL converts about 0%, I can figure that I get more "tire kickers" from AOL and more serious buyers from MSN. I still sell stuff from the AOL ads, but it takes 10x the ads to sell one unit on AOL, vs MSN. This means I am willing to pay 10x on MSN, because my net result (selling one unit) has the same net cost.
Whether someone converts instantly depends on many things: the items costs, the demo's of the product (age/race/gender), the complexity of the item (stand alone or other item dependant like a scanner) and whether the item is durable (made to last 5+ years) or disposable (5 years). But on the same item, same demos, etc. you CAN compare coversion rates and get a ROUGH idea of how effective a search engine is at reaching YOUR demos. Click through rate, well thats a different coversation........
I didn't even know what you were talking about until I tried a quick search. I don't even notice those links; my brain must instantly recognize them as ads and ignore them completely. The colored background makes that particularly easy.
You are very correct in this. Many people do exactly this. I can even tell you a fairly accurate % of how many do, but I won't;)
A certain % ignore top ads, another % ignore right ads, etc. This is why someone worth their salt in marketing and advertising knows how to shotgun their ads, and work on placement as well. There is no "one" perfect ad. This is also why all the portals/engines are switching to multiple ad spaces: top, bottom, sides, word ads, banners, etc. On a few engines, we own all the real estate for our keywords, and can trace clickthrus:)
Other search engines selling placement have intermixed search results with sponsored content with the sponsored bits coming up earlier in the listing and no labeling or seperation.
who actually mixes them them the actual search results? NO ONE. no search engine of any size does this period. just because you say "they" do, and don't say who "they" are, doesnt make it true.
Believe me, if someone does, please tell me. I would love to buy the product. But as an advertiser who spends a lot of $$$ on online ads, i can tell you no one has offered me this mysterious mixing of ads with search results you speak of.
Sorry for you and the moderators who modded this up. You are wrong. Don't take my word for it, quoted from Google:
Reach new customers through highly targeted advertising on the most used search engine on the Web. Google Premium Sponsorships advertising delivers your ad whenever someone searches on the keywords you know are relevant to your product. It is a CPM-priced, full-service premium program that guarantees fixed placement for your ads in one of two enhanced text links appearing at the top of the Google results page....
later on they state
Fixed placement and fixed budget allocation with CPM pricing give you control and consistent results.
Read that "guaranteed placement" again. Like I said, we are USING the program, not just talking about it on/.
The point is that Google clearly marks ads as such. Other search engines will boost ranking for money, and not denote the boosted ranking as an ad. That's the important difference.
No major engine does that. None. Some minor wannabe places like ah-ha.com, but NO real portal does that. If they did, I would buy it up. In a second. Yes, its a bad thing for searches, but if yahoo let me buy the actual placement in the results, i would send them a blank check. Really. Im already spending tens of thousands per month on ads, and a couple grand a month to make sure we are highly ranked, i would probably save money this way.
But yes, you are right that if they did this, it would be shitty for the searcher. but great for me.
hehehehe, you guys crack me. all self rightous about ads. "i dont click on ads" " i look down on ads".
we spend $40,000 a month on ads, obviously someone is buying something. ads are ads. by themselves, they are not good or bad.
that said, we do NOT do popups, or other forms of heavily annoying ads. Not because we give a damn about it pissing you off, but because it makes people not buy because they are annoyed. If it annoyed them but made them buy, we would use them.
As much as you guys bitch about ads, the fact is, most sites would not exist without schmucks like us paying to put an ad up. Its just funny how some people (not you in particular) just rag and rag about ads, but without them, the web would look more like what Gopher looked like. No content, but no ads.
Are you talking about the paid links that appear to the side of the main results???
I was referring to pay-for-placement being not obvious from algorythmic results.
They have placement ads on the right and at the top. The ones at the top are barely differentiated from the search results, on purpose(The sponsored links). Believe me, this is part of why I use it.
Quoting Google: With Google AdWords you create your own ads, choose keywords to tell us where to show your ads and pay only when someone clicks on them.
Like I said, we spend thousand a month with just Google. I like google too, but they are just as "for sale" as the rest. Great. Im glad, because I am buying and I like what they are selling.
Slashdot Mirror
What's your criteria for citing the US as the most successfull social system? Or were you actually talking about the Mayan's or something? Everywhere I look in the states, I see injustice, I see oppression, I see domination by the wealthy... I see lack of freedom. But above all, I see loss of culture, degeneration, and basic alienation from humanity.
With all our injustices, America still provides the most free society in the world. We have the most liberal civil rights. We have the most liberated education system (anyone can go to college). We are one of the youngest countries in the history of the world. We are an experiment, and a successful one at that.
The fact is: Vastly more people want to come here than leave here. If you compare our 4th amendment and its right of privacy to France or England (both very progress, free countries) it is head and shoulders above when it comes to protecting the individual. Go read the laws before you bother argueing. Compare the social system in England, where it still pays to be born with the right blood. Compare to the overly socialistic control of France.
I am tired of false modesty about this: The fact is, liberty works, and America has a better version. Period. There is no moral equivelence here, the fact is if you give people the most freedom, they will be the most prosperous. America needs lots of improvements, but its still the best game in town for equality and liberty. Go argue, sure, ok fine, it doesnt matter because it doesn't change it, no matter how anti-us you are.
But we have to seal our borders OFF because everyone wants to be here. Think about that. There must be a reason. Call it arrogance if you want, but most countries could do better to look at our social and economic system, to serve as a model. The facts back that up.
Would be nice to see competetion like this, where each 'team' used the exact same hardware, all parts out 1 year or more. Something like a dual xeon and/or p3 1.3 with 1 gig of ram. Let some Windows vendor, RedHat, One of BSD's (they are all the same, right :) hehe) and anyone else enter. each team tunes their own system.
This would be nice to see. mulitiple setups over multiple days. A pop3/smtp box. A dns box. A simple HTTPD server. File server, and maybe a 'little of everything' box, and compare them side by side in each role. But that would be too cool, so it won't happen. Oh yea, and the info gathered would be useful, so it wont happen either.
When sending a grip to people, I find it most effective to use the Kung Fu grip! That usually gets their attention
I'm more of a PolyGrip(r) man. Also is handy for keeping a condom on, for those nights you are out of Viagra. (Should have answered those emails I guess)
i have heard several people say that Open Group owns it, even Open Group, but a trademark search puts the trademark as sold to UNIXSYSTEM LABORATORIES. I can't find anything that ties these two groups together. (serial 73537419 at uspto.gov) I assume they would be the same, but couldn't google any relevent info to tie them.
;)
I did find this site that appears to say its unix knockoff is virus proof, and that Linus isn't the owner of Linux, but 'Linux is a registered trademark of Croce, William R. Della, Jr.'
You find the wierdest stuff on that there internet
etc... There really is no law which requires companies to act as unethical money grubbing machines.
SCO trying to sell the unix code they have doesn't make them unethical money grubbing machines.
Ok, sueing IBM trying to get them to buy you out, yea, that does.
Its not about 'the law' anyway. Its about corporate accountability. The CEO can legally open the source for SCO, it wouldn't be a violation of law. But then the shareholders would freak out and fire him. It has nothing to do with ANY legal matter in and of itself.
Um, Redhat doesn't own Linux - they can't exactly give it away.
:)
Thank you. I was about to say the same thing to the guy who obviously doesnt understand how Redhat and GNU in general works. I am one of those customers that PAYS Redhat for its "free" software anyway
but I would have rather seen a more compelling argument than a "Iraq has them... trust us." The US populace seems to disagree with me, dashing your assertion that the American people require more than FUD to take people seriously. We used FUD to start a war.
I am not convinced that FUD was used to start a war. If they do not find any WMD, then you may be correct. At this point I would be hard pressed to agree, still too early. I DO expect that we will find them, or be asking a lot of questions otherwise.
The MAIN justification for 'deciding' they have WMD is pretty simple but overlooked. Before 98, they said "yes, these are the WMD we have" and they have not accounted for THOSE. Its not conjecture, its based on THEIR words. They now say "we destroyed them". They may have, but they have a HUGE beauracracy that would have documentation. Since they can't produce paperwork, or wont (Abdul destroyed 15 tons of VX by pouring it in the desert at X location, on X date) we HAVE to assume they still have it. I understand that this is not the same as a photograph, but it IS compelling evidence. They ADMITTED having it, they won't say what they did with it. And yes, we did supply them, and others, with lots of armaments. Thats another story/arguement.
We WILL see. I don't think you and I necessarily disagree. It just seems I am more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the US and less so to Saddam. Perhaps it is because I am a military vet, and son of a military vet. Vets do NOT like going to war unless there is a damn good reason. We are also at least as skeptical of our own Govt as anyone else.
It's fairly reasonable to suggest that SCO has no chance against IBM, IBM being a multibillion dollar corporation and SCO being a minor also-ran with a shakey case. So, my question is: Assuming SCO loses, and the costs put SCO out of business, will SCO, as a final act of good will, release the sources of Unix, NetWare, etc, into the public domain, so that whatever misery this company has inflicted on the rest of the world can at least not have been in vain?
They can't do that.
They are a publicly held corporation. As such, they have a duty to their shareholders (could be you and me) to get the maximum value of their assets. They would HAVE to sell the trademark if it would bring $$, and it would. If they did otherwise, their shareholders would sue them into the ground.
It SOUNDS nice that they could, but the reality is that they can't. Now, IBM could BUY the Unix mark and then IBM could release it into the public domain / gpl / bsd license / or leave it proprietary. IBM could justify it since they have invested 1 billion in Linux lately, and the price of the code (current value of sco $35mil) would be a bargain for the code gained, thus justifiable to the stockholders. Also, the goodwill earned would be worth it.
It's worse that Saddams because we're supposed to have a process and a government that prevents this. Bush is not a military dictator, and letting him act like one is our failing as much as his.
And I'd take issue with the idea that Ashcroft is a "good man". It would be very difficult to convince me that he honestly has democratic principles and the upholding of the Constitution (something he swore to in his oath of office, btw) at heart.
Your first point is pure FUD. Bush is not acting like a dictator, he has the SIGNATURE of a majority of persons in the Senate and House of Representatives, even the ones who are talking trash of their own now. For you to call him a dictator demonstrates a lack of understanding about what is necessary to go to war. Also, he has NO money. If the congress didn't want the war, they could not fund it. instead they just signed off on 5 billion MORE than they were asked for. Also, 70% of the people agree with the war, with no duress. The congress can take any action they want, as can the courts. And they have. Your analogy is very flawed on that point. Instead, its just a personal attack (see my other posts on this point)
You and he may disagree as to what is free speech and what is inciting a riot (for instance) but you don't back up your concern with a specific instance of an act by him that can be taken outside of simple disagreement. I haven't seen, and you haven't cited, an example that backup up this conclusion.
Its ok to not like him or his policies, but to try to make him out as EVIL because you disagree doesnt hurt him but instead it hurts YOUR arguement, because it is obvious you are biased against him.
this is exactly the fud i am talking about. short little "look at me, im clever" comments that mean nothing. Just karma whoring.
If you want to ACCUSE someone, use a name, name an event, give a source. If not, then you are just spewing the same FUD you are accusing others of. Its just words.
I doubt Ashcroft has "the best of intentions," unless it's "best" that he wants everyone in the U.S. to worship Christ, give up all civil liberties, and basically do whatever he says. His heart may be in the right place (he wants to do good), but what he thinks is "good" curdles my blood.
;) and I do NOT feel that he is trying to shove his religion down my throat. GW is very religious, too, but I don't really have a problem with people who are religious, any brand. Even tho I am not religious, I am not intimidated my persons who are.
Do you really think that is what he wants? I am asking in ernest. I am NOT a christian personally (nor muslim or jew, so i dont have a dog in this hunt
I agree that Ashcroft has a distorted view of what is the right thing to do, but i just don't see him trying to force anyone into christianity (no reference at all for that one) or to 'give up all civil liberties'. I see him trying to pare back some liberties and freedoms that are important (a bit fringe in some areas, but important none the less) and yes, that MUST stop. But I see him as simply wrong, not sinister. I don't think he is rubbing his hands about taking away freedom, he is just narrow minded on how it affects others.
This is a pain, granted, but this does NOT make him an evil guy. It just makes him INCORRECT. I personally believe that in order to influence, you have to understand and give credit where its due. I just don't buy that he is sinister in any way, this is NOT the MO for sinister acts. Its a bit paranoid, over reactive and maybe a bit self righteous. Not I just don't see the evil, even tho I disagree with him on most everything. I do see alot of people (not you in particular) over reacting to him, calling him names, etc. Rule 1: once you start calling names, you lose. its no longer about the issues. This is part of what bugs me. Its hard to effect change if everyone on your side sounds like a paranoid nut.
I don't really give a damn. This is my freaking country, and I'm going to oppose this sort of junior dictator garbage, DESPITE the fact that someone somewhere else is doing worse. Good grief, since when is "well they're doing it worse than me" an excuse?
Its the fact that you consider this a "junior dictator" demonstrates my point. Completely out of preportion to what is going on. Its the proverbial Chicken Little. Its as if you are ready to move to Montana and start a movement.
I don't agree with what they are doing either. But I get tired of reminding people that IF you insist on personal attacks, then no one is going to take you serious. Sorry, but it makes you look like an idiot. Argue your point (which I happen to agree with) but to keep calling GW and crew evil is just stupid. They are wrong about alot of this, but if you don't even consider the fact that they are acting of conscience, and NOT out of some desire to take over the world, then don't bother telling anyone of any consequence, because they are not going to listen.
Once again: when you use terms like "junior dictator" it doesnt make you cool. It makes you look like a paranoid idiot, and it TAKES AWAY from our ability to get the govt. to stop this shit. Let me repeat this: If you act like a paranoid freak in how you protest, you will not create change. If your goals is to create change (rather than look important) then learn to not act like a kook.
They are wrong about plenty, and right about more. But GW and the administration is not trying to take over the world, they are trying to make it a safer place. Sometimes they do it the wrong way, but that is the motivation. Not everyone in the administation has the best intentions, but on the whole, it appears obvious that is the motivation.
If you DO think GW and crew simply want to 'take over the world' then you ARE a nut, or a liar with a different agenda.
I certainly agree that this doesn't make President Bush the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein, but it isn't right all the same. Locking people up without charging them with a crime is wrong, and if they do charge Mike with a crime he should have the right to a speedy trial by his peers.
This is not the same as what has been done by other tyrants around the world, but it is still tyranny.
I agree. And you seem to be able to put it in intellegent words, and you will get listened to. Keep in mind our history in America is riddled with the suspension of Civil Rights during War time. This war has seen LESS suspension than other. Still a problem, but 1) it IS getting better and 2) we can fix it.
You gotta remember, a large minority (if not a small majority) of American's HAVE NO PROBLEM with these people being locked up. Does NOT make it right, but right isn't enough. You have to be reasonable and address their conserns as well, or they won't care what you think (and thus, it stays as is or gets worse). This is just the practical reality of where we live. Yes yes yes, we can all get on our soapboxes, but that alone does NOTHING except make YOU feel better. I am more concerned with actual results instead of this political masturbation where everyone pats themselves on the back for "standing up for freedom". Takes a lot of guts.
Yes, it is tyranny in many ways. But its the LEAST amount of tyranny the world has ever experienced during war time, and its getting better. Put it in PERSPECTIVE. The light at the end of the tunnel is not always a train.
Whatever you want to call it, I personally have a REAL FEAR of something like this happening to me or someone I know. On purpose, or by mistake. I DON'T KNOW what the criteria are for this. Do you have to be of foreign descent and have a beard? That's me. Do you have to have non-mainstream views? I do. What's the cutoff? I know generally if I don't break any laws (even the stupid ones that are hard to avoid), I should be okay. But this guy seems to have NOT broken any laws.
Like I said, its wrong, we should speak out against it. My problem is a matter of perspective. As wrong as it is, it is still not like what is going on elsewhere. These are problems that can be dealt with. He is not going to die in prison, be beaten, etc. He does need representation, we do need to complain, however, if you 'overreact', then no one will pay you any attention. You will be seen as a kook. For good reason.
Welcome to America: if you want us to take you serious, you have to present your arguement reasonably, backed up with facts. If you dish out FUD, we assume you are full of shit, and anything you say is meaningless.
My point: By overreacting and exaggerating these types of stories, you end up screwing the guys in jail because no one will take you serious. Its not enough to be right, you also have to be fair.
All bad things have small beginnings.. and even though it may be somewhat reactionary it is the duty of the people to point out the wrongs and just as importantly *what they can lead to* .. and sometimes the only way to show that is an end result...
Like I said, I agree its a problem. I agree people should speak out. But if you act as if this problem is as bad as Saddam's treatment of his citizens, no one will take it serious. You have to put it in perspective. I mean, the author lost my respect by OVERREACTING in the description. It tells me he has another agenda, so I am not as likely to listen to him.
As to other posters: You can NOT just run and scream, calling John Ashcroft a nazi and expect to get taken serious. I think Ashcroft is very wrong on MOST issues regarding liberties. I also believe he is a good man with the best of intentions, but the wrong ideas.
Anyone who just goes into a name calling frenzy HAS OTHER MOTIVES. They obviously don't care about the truth, they care about pushing an agenda, and LIKE IT when something like this happens, because it appears to substanciate their narrow view of the world. Just like the fools who WANT American casualties so they can say "told you so". Thats a pretty fucking expensive told you so, and frankly, you would have to be a sick person to want that. Same here.
Its about trying to convince everyone that Conservatives\Bush Team are bad, so they dig up any story that appears to support their theory, with no regard to fact or perspective as to the real problem. These efforts are entirely too transpearant.
Jesus, the whole premise of this is FUD.
There are a few hundred people being held without charges right now, many for over a year, and this guys has been held a short time, and NOW you give a damn? Im guessing only since hes in the tech industry.
Total propeganda by the editors here. You can present the story, but to make the Govt. sound like the gestapo over a 14 hold says more about YOUR attitude about the Govt. than it does the Govt. attitude toward its citizens. I agree that its wrong to be held like this, but no one "disappeared" anywhere. Total FUD by the editors. FUD FUD FUD.
When you use terms like "disappeared" to describe it, though, not only do you sound like a wacky radical, but you also insult the people in oppressive countries who actually have been killed/locked away for life without trials or explainations.
It is sad that people say "yea, but its almost the same" with some self rightous attitude.
Ask the Human Shields that are coming out of Iraq. They are freaked out at how the people were abused. They learned they don't know shit about Iraq, and that their own misconceptions were 100% wrong. They SAW what was going on, and it blew their mind that some leaders really DO oppress people that way. Some people just don't understand what "evil" means. The civil liberties violations in the US do not even compare, except by idiots.
People who equate this matter with the brutal oppression that occurs regularly in the Middle East are completely ignorant of what is going on. This IS unconstitutional, but he hasn't had his teeth bashed out, his wife raped or his children killed. It should be fought here in US, but to say he "disappeared" is insulting. Not to the US, but to those in Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia among others, that know what the hell "disappeared" really means.
More FUD about our "nasty govt" from editors whose real goal is to protest a man, not a war.
I really don't see the problem. He gave a huge amount of money to a terrorist organization. Am I the only one that still remembers 9/11, or have the whiny liberals washed it of everyone's heads already?
Part of the problem is most of the people that agree with you will only say so as AC.
At the same time, I'm disappointed that he, and anyone involved in new media advertising, still looks at conversions as an indicator of how effective an ad is. Few people ever click-through on an ad they see and make an immediate purchase. Expectations for web ads ought to be no greater than any other kind of print or broadcast ad; it's not an opportunity to make a quick sale, just an opportunity to spread the word about what you're selling. Impressions are what matter.
Conversion is only one consideration. We get only 10% or less of our sales from direct conversion. Its a guide. I can compare one place to another using conversion, but it also has to be tempered with:
1) demographics of the engine
2) the particular ad (if different on the sites)
3) type of ad (banner, word ad, horz. banner)
4) particular keyword
So, since AOL gets me about the same number of HITS as MSN, but MSN converts about 12% and AOL converts about 0%, I can figure that I get more "tire kickers" from AOL and more serious buyers from MSN. I still sell stuff from the AOL ads, but it takes 10x the ads to sell one unit on AOL, vs MSN. This means I am willing to pay 10x on MSN, because my net result (selling one unit) has the same net cost.
Whether someone converts instantly depends on many things: the items costs, the demo's of the product (age/race/gender), the complexity of the item (stand alone or other item dependant like a scanner) and whether the item is durable (made to last 5+ years) or disposable (5 years). But on the same item, same demos, etc. you CAN compare coversion rates and get a ROUGH idea of how effective a search engine is at reaching YOUR demos. Click through rate, well thats a different coversation........
I didn't even know what you were talking about until I tried a quick search. I don't even notice those links; my brain must instantly recognize them as ads and ignore them completely. The colored background makes that particularly easy.
;)
:)
You are very correct in this. Many people do exactly this. I can even tell you a fairly accurate % of how many do, but I won't
A certain % ignore top ads, another % ignore right ads, etc. This is why someone worth their salt in marketing and advertising knows how to shotgun their ads, and work on placement as well. There is no "one" perfect ad. This is also why all the portals/engines are switching to multiple ad spaces: top, bottom, sides, word ads, banners, etc. On a few engines, we own all the real estate for our keywords, and can trace clickthrus
once again, over modded, under supported.
Other search engines selling placement have intermixed search results with sponsored content with the sponsored bits coming up earlier in the listing and no labeling or seperation.
who actually mixes them them the actual search results? NO ONE. no search engine of any size does this period. just because you say "they" do, and don't say who "they" are, doesnt make it true.
Believe me, if someone does, please tell me. I would love to buy the product. But as an advertiser who spends a lot of $$$ on online ads, i can tell you no one has offered me this mysterious mixing of ads with search results you speak of.
Sorry for you and the moderators who modded this up. You are wrong. Don't take my word for it, quoted from Google:
/.
Reach new customers through highly targeted advertising on the most used search engine on the Web. Google Premium Sponsorships advertising delivers your ad whenever someone searches on the keywords you know are relevant to your product. It is a CPM-priced, full-service premium program that guarantees fixed placement for your ads in one of two enhanced text links appearing at the top of the Google results page....
later on they state
Fixed placement and fixed budget allocation with CPM pricing give you control and consistent results.
Read that "guaranteed placement" again. Like I said, we are USING the program, not just talking about it on
The point is that Google clearly marks ads as such. Other search engines will boost ranking for money, and not denote the boosted ranking as an ad. That's the important difference.
No major engine does that. None. Some minor wannabe places like ah-ha.com, but NO real portal does that. If they did, I would buy it up. In a second. Yes, its a bad thing for searches, but if yahoo let me buy the actual placement in the results, i would send them a blank check. Really. Im already spending tens of thousands per month on ads, and a couple grand a month to make sure we are highly ranked, i would probably save money this way.
But yes, you are right that if they did this, it would be shitty for the searcher. but great for me.
hehehehe, you guys crack me. all self rightous about ads. "i dont click on ads" " i look down on ads".
we spend $40,000 a month on ads, obviously someone is buying something. ads are ads. by themselves, they are not good or bad.
that said, we do NOT do popups, or other forms of heavily annoying ads. Not because we give a damn about it pissing you off, but because it makes people not buy because they are annoyed. If it annoyed them but made them buy, we would use them.
As much as you guys bitch about ads, the fact is, most sites would not exist without schmucks like us paying to put an ad up. Its just funny how some people (not you in particular) just rag and rag about ads, but without them, the web would look more like what Gopher looked like. No content, but no ads.
Are you talking about the paid links that appear to the side of the main results???
I was referring to pay-for-placement being not obvious from algorythmic results.
They have placement ads on the right and at the top. The ones at the top are barely differentiated from the search results, on purpose(The sponsored links). Believe me, this is part of why I use it.
Quoting Google: With Google AdWords you create your own ads, choose keywords to tell us where to show your ads and pay only when someone clicks on them.
Like I said, we spend thousand a month with just Google. I like google too, but they are just as "for sale" as the rest. Great. Im glad, because I am buying and I like what they are selling.