Well, I think that both companies would do much better if they could convince people like me why I should shell out more money to replace my perfectly usable P II 233. If it runs, it runs. I couldn't care less about how fast my CPU is.
You can say that Unix is under the covers of OSX all you want, but users don't buy OS engines (when was the last time you heard parents in Comp USA discussing which kernel they should buy for their kids?), they buy OS's. Apple HAS delivered. You can go to the store, buy a computer, plug it in, and be working in 2 minutes. That is not possible with Linux. You can buy a Linux box and sit there and scratch your head. You can call OSX what you want, but the fact is that people are buying Apple, have been for years, and last I checked, Linux companies are going under or are in danger of going under right and left. Apple sells a prodcut that the common man wants. Redhat and (who else?) sells a product that a few geeks want. See the difference?
Well, I can assure you that the common man couldn't care less about Unix or Windows or Apple or whatever. The common man is more interested in Budweiser Frogs, the Taco Bell Chihuahua, and Brittney Spears. I suggest you get your head out of your ass.
Those are only as a last resort, if the site being shown breaks out of a frame that lets the user vote. And, if you only want the free pics right on NineNine.com, there are no popups whatsoever.
From what I understood, the MPAA is going apeshit trying to get people to take down real fan sites. Why are they wasting their time doing this, while wasting even more time putting up obviously fake ones that nobody really cares about? Sounds like some stupid ideas dreamed up by some clueless 65 year old executive.
What if I WANT to view porn with my new computer, and can't figure out how to disable the damn filters? What if I buy a computer, and never connect to the Net? Why would I want that crap on there? What if I want to buy a machine and NOT have to pay for the damn filters?
Thanks Texas. I'm too stupid to take care of myself, so I'm glad the government is doing it for me. I'm too stupid to install software, or even know whether or not I want to view porn. I should know better that consenting adults should NEVER, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE want to view porn. I'm also too stupid to make my own investments, so would you please do it for me? While you're at it, would you also tell me what groceries I should buy to keep myself healthy, and tell me which is the best car to buy. I'm really pretty dense. While you're at it, could you please just raise my kids for me? I'm not really sure what's best for them. And, of course, the government is totally impartial and always knows best. Thank you Texas.
Because if enough people use that garbage, sites like Salon will soon go out of business, and you won't have anything to use your stupid junkbuster on.
Well, smart advertisers would never do this. Smart advertisers include their ads server-side (ASP, PHP, etc.), and no amount of sniffing can determine the difference between ads and content.
Well, considering how much the porn industry makes (I'm not sure why you call it 'p0rn'... are you some kind of l33t hax0r?), I wouldn't call it 'silly'. Actually, the porn insdustry's pay sites do an excellent job of tracking users like this.
That's easy. A login + a randonly generated value in a cookie that expires fixes this. One person can login at a time. Besides, do you really think that there are THAT many people who are going to go through the trouble to find a username/password and be an asshole about it and steal the content? Nah. There's some fraud with every business, but it's usually not enough to kill the business.
Well, I also doubt that many people will subscribe to it jsut to avoid ads. What does work is something like Wall Street Journal or Consumer Reports, where the content is known to be of excellent quality, and people will gladly pay to get to it. I read Salon daily, and I know the writing is top-notch. If they were to simply lock it up, I'd pay $30/year for it. I already have subscriptiosn to the WSJ, CR, and Morningstar.
The average reader isn't going to do this. Granted, some slimebuckets will, but the majority will pay the $30, and read Salon ad free. Right now, I gladly pay for info at consumerreports.org, and morningstar.com. True, I could find somebody else with a membership and leach off of the, but A. It's not worth the trouble and B. I'm not one of the aforementioned slimebuckets.
Besides, all they have to do is to combine a user/login with a randomly generated cookie, and you've got a system that's fairly tough to crack.
Well, from what I understood about satellite service, is you have very fast downloads, but you also have to be connected via dialup or some other method for any kind of upload, since there's not enough power for each person to have a dish to beam transmisions to a satellite. That dialup has to be used for every single packet acknowledgement. So, this crazy idea would be good ONLY for people who do nothing but surf and download. Forget trying to send a big file to a friend, forget trying to serve web pages. Talk about useless....
OK, then I guess that proves my point. The Net has more people of varying viewpoints talking than do in real life. I haven't even SEEN a Mac in 6 years, and I don't know of a single person who uses one, and I would have no reason to talk to one otherwise.
As usual, Katz is way off the mark. He's suggesting that people online should discuss rather random things, whether or not they disagree. A purely 'Democratic' conversation as he defines it would consist of:
User1: I like eggs.
User2: Anyone know the current market capitalization of the top 17 S&P 500 companies?
The problem is, is that people in real life, out walking in the crowded streets of NYC, don't randomly meet and discuss randomly. People generally don't talk to people outside of their church (very narrow political/moral spectrum) or their work (similar political/moral spectrum). True, you won't find any Mac zealots on Slashdot, but still, online discussions are MUCH more diverse and ideas are flying around MUCH more than they do in meatspace ('real' life).
Hmmm... could it be, oh, I dunno.... credit card info? I don't use Earthlink, but I'd assume that a user entered in his/her billing information upon installation. If I were an Earthlink user, I'd sure as hell want to make sure that my billing info was PGP encrypted. What do you think they're sending back, the amount of free space on your hard drive?
The problem is, as always, just too damn many stupid people
Well, actually, you need to keep SOME stupid people around. Otherwise, who would do menial tasks for us? As long as they're pacified (that's what TV and religion is for), they're very useful. I'm sure as hell not going to dig the foundation for my house. I'll just have some stupid people do it for me.
The difference is that with industrial equipment, if you have a problem, you can usually call the manufacturer, and they'll have somebody out there to fix it within a day. I don't know of a single software company that will do that.
I think that thinking about distributing movies online is very premature at this point. Considering that most of the world has no Internet connectivity whatsoever, and most of those that do are still connecting over analog modems, movies distrubution online won't be widespread for a long time. Heck, most of us with analog connections still think that 1/2 hour to download a single 3 1/2 minute MP3 is a long damn time. I can't imagine how long a movie would take. Personally, I expect to be buying DVDs for a long time to come. Besides, I don't think that paying $15 for a digital quality movie is too much to ask. I wouldn't bother downloading movies even if I had the massive bandwidth and storage necessary to do it.
No, I don't think so. If this were the case, then anybody who wanted to kill an important politician (and there are a lot of people like that out there) would just have to spend the extra $2.65? No, it's not quite that simple.
You've got your logic a bit confused. Yes, it sounds like his site is failing, but that doesn't mean that all content-based sites are failing. The adult industry is keeping up with the change by offering new, more innovative products, better advertising methods, and creating new ways to generate revenue.
Some are free, some are subscription. Generally, teh subscription sites make enough money to pay the free sites a percentage of sales. More and more adult sites are branching out and advertising different products also. Again, it's the exact same with adult sites, as it is with non-adult sites. Salon advertises for Amazon (income site) and The Discover Card (they get paid for each application). Why is Salon not making money, whereas Persiankitty.com is making a fortune? Simple. Persiankitty.com is run by a minimal staff, without San Francisco offices, without extravagant marketing, without PR, etc., etc. The woman who runs it runs it lean and mean, and in return, she's a millionaire.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think that both companies would do much better if they could convince people like me why I should shell out more money to replace my perfectly usable P II 233. If it runs, it runs. I couldn't care less about how fast my CPU is.
There IS a big difference. That 4% is made up of virtually all 'common' people. That 1% is made up of almost entirely geeks.
You can say that Unix is under the covers of OSX all you want, but users don't buy OS engines (when was the last time you heard parents in Comp USA discussing which kernel they should buy for their kids?), they buy OS's. Apple HAS delivered. You can go to the store, buy a computer, plug it in, and be working in 2 minutes. That is not possible with Linux. You can buy a Linux box and sit there and scratch your head. You can call OSX what you want, but the fact is that people are buying Apple, have been for years, and last I checked, Linux companies are going under or are in danger of going under right and left. Apple sells a prodcut that the common man wants. Redhat and (who else?) sells a product that a few geeks want. See the difference?
Well, I can assure you that the common man couldn't care less about Unix or Windows or Apple or whatever. The common man is more interested in Budweiser Frogs, the Taco Bell Chihuahua, and Brittney Spears. I suggest you get your head out of your ass.
Those are only as a last resort, if the site being shown breaks out of a frame that lets the user vote. And, if you only want the free pics right on NineNine.com, there are no popups whatsoever.
From what I understood, the MPAA is going apeshit trying to get people to take down real fan sites. Why are they wasting their time doing this, while wasting even more time putting up obviously fake ones that nobody really cares about? Sounds like some stupid ideas dreamed up by some clueless 65 year old executive.
What if I WANT to view porn with my new computer, and can't figure out how to disable the damn filters? What if I buy a computer, and never connect to the Net? Why would I want that crap on there? What if I want to buy a machine and NOT have to pay for the damn filters?
Thanks Texas. I'm too stupid to take care of myself, so I'm glad the government is doing it for me. I'm too stupid to install software, or even know whether or not I want to view porn. I should know better that consenting adults should NEVER, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE want to view porn. I'm also too stupid to make my own investments, so would you please do it for me? While you're at it, would you also tell me what groceries I should buy to keep myself healthy, and tell me which is the best car to buy. I'm really pretty dense. While you're at it, could you please just raise my kids for me? I'm not really sure what's best for them. And, of course, the government is totally impartial and always knows best. Thank you Texas.
Simple. Then they do what most other non-porn dot-coms do. They close.
Because if enough people use that garbage, sites like Salon will soon go out of business, and you won't have anything to use your stupid junkbuster on.
Well, smart advertisers would never do this. Smart advertisers include their ads server-side (ASP, PHP, etc.), and no amount of sniffing can determine the difference between ads and content.
Well, considering how much the porn industry makes (I'm not sure why you call it 'p0rn'... are you some kind of l33t hax0r?), I wouldn't call it 'silly'. Actually, the porn insdustry's pay sites do an excellent job of tracking users like this.
That's easy. A login + a randonly generated value in a cookie that expires fixes this. One person can login at a time. Besides, do you really think that there are THAT many people who are going to go through the trouble to find a username/password and be an asshole about it and steal the content? Nah. There's some fraud with every business, but it's usually not enough to kill the business.
Well, I also doubt that many people will subscribe to it jsut to avoid ads. What does work is something like Wall Street Journal or Consumer Reports, where the content is known to be of excellent quality, and people will gladly pay to get to it. I read Salon daily, and I know the writing is top-notch. If they were to simply lock it up, I'd pay $30/year for it. I already have subscriptiosn to the WSJ, CR, and Morningstar.
The average reader isn't going to do this. Granted, some slimebuckets will, but the majority will pay the $30, and read Salon ad free. Right now, I gladly pay for info at consumerreports.org, and morningstar.com. True, I could find somebody else with a membership and leach off of the, but A. It's not worth the trouble and B. I'm not one of the aforementioned slimebuckets.
Besides, all they have to do is to combine a user/login with a randomly generated cookie, and you've got a system that's fairly tough to crack.
Well, from what I understood about satellite service, is you have very fast downloads, but you also have to be connected via dialup or some other method for any kind of upload, since there's not enough power for each person to have a dish to beam transmisions to a satellite. That dialup has to be used for every single packet acknowledgement. So, this crazy idea would be good ONLY for people who do nothing but surf and download. Forget trying to send a big file to a friend, forget trying to serve web pages. Talk about useless....
OK, then I guess that proves my point. The Net has more people of varying viewpoints talking than do in real life. I haven't even SEEN a Mac in 6 years, and I don't know of a single person who uses one, and I would have no reason to talk to one otherwise.
As usual, Katz is way off the mark. He's suggesting that people online should discuss rather random things, whether or not they disagree. A purely 'Democratic' conversation as he defines it would consist of:
User1: I like eggs.
User2: Anyone know the current market capitalization of the top 17 S&P 500 companies?
User1: Xena, Princess Warrior is cool.
User3: Abortionists kill babies. Kill abortionists!
User1: I like babies. They're delicious.
The problem is, is that people in real life, out walking in the crowded streets of NYC, don't randomly meet and discuss randomly. People generally don't talk to people outside of their church (very narrow political/moral spectrum) or their work (similar political/moral spectrum). True, you won't find any Mac zealots on Slashdot, but still, online discussions are MUCH more diverse and ideas are flying around MUCH more than they do in meatspace ('real' life).
Hmmm... could it be, oh, I dunno.... credit card info? I don't use Earthlink, but I'd assume that a user entered in his/her billing information upon installation. If I were an Earthlink user, I'd sure as hell want to make sure that my billing info was PGP encrypted. What do you think they're sending back, the amount of free space on your hard drive?
The problem is, as always, just too damn many stupid people
Well, actually, you need to keep SOME stupid people around. Otherwise, who would do menial tasks for us? As long as they're pacified (that's what TV and religion is for), they're very useful. I'm sure as hell not going to dig the foundation for my house. I'll just have some stupid people do it for me.
The difference is that with industrial equipment, if you have a problem, you can usually call the manufacturer, and they'll have somebody out there to fix it within a day. I don't know of a single software company that will do that.
I think that thinking about distributing movies online is very premature at this point. Considering that most of the world has no Internet connectivity whatsoever, and most of those that do are still connecting over analog modems, movies distrubution online won't be widespread for a long time. Heck, most of us with analog connections still think that 1/2 hour to download a single 3 1/2 minute MP3 is a long damn time. I can't imagine how long a movie would take. Personally, I expect to be buying DVDs for a long time to come. Besides, I don't think that paying $15 for a digital quality movie is too much to ask. I wouldn't bother downloading movies even if I had the massive bandwidth and storage necessary to do it.
No, I don't think so. If this were the case, then anybody who wanted to kill an important politician (and there are a lot of people like that out there) would just have to spend the extra $2.65? No, it's not quite that simple.
You've got your logic a bit confused. Yes, it sounds like his site is failing, but that doesn't mean that all content-based sites are failing. The adult industry is keeping up with the change by offering new, more innovative products, better advertising methods, and creating new ways to generate revenue.
Some are free, some are subscription. Generally, teh subscription sites make enough money to pay the free sites a percentage of sales. More and more adult sites are branching out and advertising different products also. Again, it's the exact same with adult sites, as it is with non-adult sites. Salon advertises for Amazon (income site) and The Discover Card (they get paid for each application). Why is Salon not making money, whereas Persiankitty.com is making a fortune? Simple. Persiankitty.com is run by a minimal staff, without San Francisco offices, without extravagant marketing, without PR, etc., etc. The woman who runs it runs it lean and mean, and in return, she's a millionaire.