It's laughable that any advertiser on a website thinks those ads are driving sales in brick and mortar shops. They might be driving some internet sales but I don't think most people view advertisement online as a real motivator to shop anywhere but online. I suspect Facebook will drop this soon when they realize there are no good returns on the data.
I've never once "approved" an endorsement and they show up on my profile all the time. I get endorsements from a lot of people who don't know anything about what I do. I have two actual endorsements from people I've worked with, written in their own words and posted on my profile. All the generic "security" "clearance" "integration" bullshit pre-fab endorsements are useless. I refuse to endorse anyone else either, unless I've actually worked with them and then (if I ever do it) I'll write something myself that actually shows what that person's skills are and how I know it.
Google contacted me for an position based upon my LinkedIn profile. Several of my friends who have their own companies use it pretty much exclusively when looking for new candidates.
I'd say there's at least a little validity to what bengoerz has said. I don't know how accurate the numbers are but it's quite clear that LinkedIn has growth potential in the area of recruiting.
Sure it still sucks, but show me something better and that will suck too.
For Science and Math and a lot of facts, it is much better. But for propaganda, it's much worse. The encyclopaedia entry on a given politician did not used to be made by that politician's intern or PR firm.
Encyclopedia entries for politicians didn't used to happen during their tenure. Don't conflate the two situations. If encyclopedia entries of our parent's generation could have been made in a more timely manner the same situation would have occurred. Or people would have been sued for defamation, libel, or some other nonsense.
You think driving ad revenue, which is their business model, is ridiculous? Please. Disingenuous, for certain, but far from ridiculous. You think the "trending" feature on Netflix which ALWAYS shows the Netflix original content is accurate? Why would Facebook be any different? They are a business. They are driving ad revenue with the nonsense "trending" tags. the fact that they use it for anything else shouldn't be that surprising considering how vocal Zuckerberg is about his pet projects.
CEOs are no different than anyone else. Hell, I've been a CEO before. It doesn't mean a damn thing unless it's a very large, publicly traded, company. It looks like this company is gearing up to go public so he should probably shut his yap a bit, but everyone let's go sometimes. Doing it publicly is not ideal, for sure, but was he doing it on a company page or his personal page. Was he really talking about hating the poor or is this all blown out of proportion? Was it really just a publicity stunt since "there's no such thing as bad publicity" (especially when you're about to go public).
Yeah, again, my argument was it wasn't better to be thinner than the ethernet port, regardless of if you have one..
You haven't explained any way of determining if (a) People really want a thin laptop or (b) People really want an Apple laptop, and that meant accomidating Steve Jobs's obsession with thinness.
Macbook Airs have sold in the tens of millions of units. The Sony equivalent has sold a million or two as well. And let's not forget the netbooks from various manufacturers. How many of those sold? I'd say that does, in fact, show that people really want a thin laptop. I can't say for sure they want an Apple laptop, but people are buying them in decent numbers. (Personally I was hoping to find an Apple alternative when I bought mine but no other manufacturer could meet the weight and specs of the Apple for anywhere near the price. Some have gotten much closer since I bought the Air.)
Tablets aren't popular because they are thinner/lighter. They are popular because they can be held in the hand (and manipulated by the other hand.) No laptop form factor allows this.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point because I suspect I am not the "average" but I do this regularly with every laptop I own, from my 11" macbook air to my wife's 17" dell. It is, admittedly, not as comfortable as doing so with a tablet. I don't believe "one handed operation" is the driving force behind the popularity of tablets but I have no research that says so or indicates what is. Tomato, tomahto.
Your whole post proved my point. You are thinking of your own use case(s), not everyone elses. Apple chose their demographic quite deliberately, I assure you. If you happen to fall within that demographic, they have a reasonable set of options that MIGHT work for your needs. Otherwise, they're not making the right tool for you.
They're very aware of that, and aren't likely to change. They're in good position right now whether they change that or not. Their computer line simply isn't their bread and butter these days, and no matter if they come up with something innovative, copy something to make it "cool" or fail utterly, I don't suspect their computer line will ever be their cash cow again.
Again, just because you don't see the benefit doesn't mean other people don't. (I admit it did make me mad when I realized it, but a USB-Ethernet adapter isn't super difficult to plan ahead if it's going to be necessary.) Clearly Apple hasn't had any trouble selling their Macbook Airs. I bought it and still haven't needed to buy an Ethernet adapter after traveling in multiple countries and all over the USA. Where I go there is either WiFi available or I'm not looking to be online anyway. If people weren't still looking for thinner/lighter/faster, tablets simply wouldn't be so popular. For "real" computer work you need at least a laptop, but most people still want the same physical benefits of thinner/lighter/faster, if they can get it.
You do know that TiVo can stream netflix, right. Along with every other set-top DVR, "smart TV", game console and whatever else. It also doesn't have the same exact interface on any of those devices, which to my mind is a negative but if you like the device's default interface it may be a positive.
For the record, I cut cable ~15 years ago and started using netflix sometime around 2006, I think. I went to streaming-only when they upped the price on the DVD+streaming package in 2011. Obviously it depends heavily on what you like to watch (I don't watch sports, for example) but Netflix very much can replace television service for a large number of people. I don't think it will displace traditional cable until they figure out how to do live sports events but for folks that don't watch sports or don't mind going to the local pub/sports bar to watch said events, it's a pretty easy switch.
And where are Rio and Napster now? What made people say Apple is "insanely great" is they gave users (at one time) features they wanted in an easy to use platform. Sadly, those days are slipping farther and farther away from reach as Apple continues to bloat their software while removing features. Some people believe they are doing the same with their hardware.
As is typical here (and everywhere else, honestly) people seem to think their intended use case fits all use cases. It doesn't. Some people really do actually travel and want a thin, lightweight computer and don't worry too much about battery power as long as it lasts through a reasonable flight--less of an issue as more commercial planes get power stations at every row. Some people want something more robust but still reasonable for travel. Still others want something for gaming or serious number crunching "on the go".
Laptops benefit from being available in a huge range of size and capability. And they sell. Like crazy. In pretty much all form factors. If they didn't, people wouldn't keep making them.
Could Apple stand to open up their line a bit? Maybe. Would they actually gain any more market share? I doubt it.
And if anyone had asked the hippies what they though of capitalism in the 60s they would have gotten basically the same answer. Look where all (or at least most of) the hippies are now. Their generation gave us most of the ridiculous corporate welfare we have today. Nothing changes.
When machines do all the plumbing, make all the roads, grow all our food, run all the electrical wiring, do all the welding, and collect all the trash, to list just a handful, I'll believe that. Anyone who says you NEED a college education is clearly missing not one but many job sectors in their search for jobs. There are literally thousands of these types of jobs that drive our economy. People doing these jobs make a decent living. Not likely anyone is going to get rich doing them, but to say those jobs require a college education or we could survive in the world we know it without those jobs is just ridiculous.
That is an interesting assumption on your part. On the other hand, from people I know who work at schools, there is an increasing problem of boys who don't seem to realize that girlfriends don't like being treated like porn starts and girls who think it's normal for sex to be all about the man's sexual gratification and not the woman's.
At the very least, we have a problem with porn being the only sexual education some of these kids are getting.
That isn't a problem with porn. That's a problem with bad (or at least incomplete) parenting.
How the hell did this get modded "interesting"? People deal with getting hit on all the time. Gay people, straight people, men, women, most of the world's population get hit on at some point. Take it as a compliment, tell the person you're not interested (if you aren't) and move on. How is your experience any different than any girl you've tried to chat up in class? What is the slightest bit interesting about being hit on my someone?
Marty McFly went back in time. Sure it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".
Arnold Schwarzenegger had a fistfight while flying a Hawker Harrier (I think), with a person hanging onto the nose of said Harrier. Sure, it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".
Neo was "the one" in a simulated reality where computers controlled the world after an armageddon-like war between computers and humans. Sure, it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".
Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) saved the President and first son from a North Korean take-over of the white house intended to force a nuclear war. Sure, it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".
See the problem with your argument? There's plenty that happens in fiction that simply isn't real and would never (or at least have such astronomical odds as to be comical) happen in real life.
More importantly, is it reasonable to restrict the rights of ANYONE based upon the possibility that less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the population (which is 1/3 of the trans population-- an insanel large percentage of trans people to consider likely to act in such ways) are going to be a problem?
As for non-trans people dressing up in order to cause problems, we already have laws against that behavior that don't restrict the rights of anyone else. Why do we need more?
"confidential" = it would be embarrassing if this information leaked
"secret" = material/stuff might get destroyed or small/insignificant capabilities may be lost if this information leaked
"top secret" = people could die or large/significant capabilities may be lost if this information leaked
you need to control access to/the flow of "sensitive" information and therefore establish policies. Once policies are established they must be enforced. There isn't any allowance for "intent" - was the information "sensitive" were the policies violated. It isn't that complicated...
Correction added in bold. There's an important distinction here between saying "people are going to die" and "we might lose the ability to collect further intelligence". Both are bad. We don't know which applies to the secrets Clinton was emailing back and forth.
It's not just the Democrat party, it's the whole government. I've had a clearance for 25 years and, in many cases, things I was required by law to mark Top Secret with code words could be found in open source information readily. It's almost always about the source of the information when talking "classified" versus "unclassified" not the actual information itself.
The rules haven't changed. The public understanding of the rules needs to change.
Does that mean Clinton doesn't deserve any consequences? No. She most certainly should be held to at least the same standard as every other government employee. Is that going to happen? Not likely.
It definitely was 1000 pounds because I was paying by weight. It was, admittedly, stupid not to pick a better suited vehicle for that particular task but, like I said, I didn't expect it to weigh that much. I was expecting closer to 500 pounds, which I've put in there plenty of times with no problems at all. To answer the question, I put it in the trunk. 1000 pounds of rock really doesn't take up much volume and the trunk in the 02 accord is decent sized. The trunk was barely half full.
More likely he hauls "toys" (four wheelers, dune buggies, whatever) a couple times a month and, maybe, a few kids to and from school and activities. That said, I agree with his assertion that the Model 3 is still too expensive. I don't think a Taurus is a good counter example because they aren't that great, but maybe they are. The model 3 doesn't look that great either.
You are right, overbuying for "I might need to carry something" is a common justification for "mine's bigger than yours" purchases in the US. I've never figured it out but I drive a Honda accord and have carried a thousand pounds of rocks in it. I've also towed a two thousand pound trailer with it. I needed to be careful with braking and I wouldn't carry the rocks again, the suspension definitely didn't like it. It was a short distance and a one-time thing (I wasn't expecting to buy that much rock.) When I'm not doing stupid stuff like that though, I regularly carry several hundred pounds of drywall, lumber, or whatever, on an after-market roof rack without any trouble at all. Trucks for the average office worker are a waste of money. But they are a status symbol, just like any model Tesla is for the foreseeable future.
You and me both. I've actually been waiting for this thing since Tesla was created. To say the least, I'm underwhelmed. I don't particularly like the body design, the features are okay but on the expensive side and they haven't really solved the range issue, to my expectations. Give it a few more years and perhaps another billionaire willing to throw money at a similar, competing company, and you might start to get the costs down a bit. Until then, I'll stick to combustion cars for my regular driving needs and hobbyist EVs for fun.
Slashdot Mirror
It's laughable that any advertiser on a website thinks those ads are driving sales in brick and mortar shops. They might be driving some internet sales but I don't think most people view advertisement online as a real motivator to shop anywhere but online. I suspect Facebook will drop this soon when they realize there are no good returns on the data.
I've never once "approved" an endorsement and they show up on my profile all the time. I get endorsements from a lot of people who don't know anything about what I do. I have two actual endorsements from people I've worked with, written in their own words and posted on my profile. All the generic "security" "clearance" "integration" bullshit pre-fab endorsements are useless. I refuse to endorse anyone else either, unless I've actually worked with them and then (if I ever do it) I'll write something myself that actually shows what that person's skills are and how I know it.
Google contacted me for an position based upon my LinkedIn profile. Several of my friends who have their own companies use it pretty much exclusively when looking for new candidates.
I'd say there's at least a little validity to what bengoerz has said. I don't know how accurate the numbers are but it's quite clear that LinkedIn has growth potential in the area of recruiting.
Sure it still sucks, but show me something better and that will suck too.
For Science and Math and a lot of facts, it is much better. But for propaganda, it's much worse. The encyclopaedia entry on a given politician did not used to be made by that politician's intern or PR firm.
Encyclopedia entries for politicians didn't used to happen during their tenure. Don't conflate the two situations. If encyclopedia entries of our parent's generation could have been made in a more timely manner the same situation would have occurred. Or people would have been sued for defamation, libel, or some other nonsense.
You think driving ad revenue, which is their business model, is ridiculous? Please. Disingenuous, for certain, but far from ridiculous. You think the "trending" feature on Netflix which ALWAYS shows the Netflix original content is accurate? Why would Facebook be any different? They are a business. They are driving ad revenue with the nonsense "trending" tags. the fact that they use it for anything else shouldn't be that surprising considering how vocal Zuckerberg is about his pet projects.
CEOs are no different than anyone else. Hell, I've been a CEO before. It doesn't mean a damn thing unless it's a very large, publicly traded, company. It looks like this company is gearing up to go public so he should probably shut his yap a bit, but everyone let's go sometimes. Doing it publicly is not ideal, for sure, but was he doing it on a company page or his personal page. Was he really talking about hating the poor or is this all blown out of proportion? Was it really just a publicity stunt since "there's no such thing as bad publicity" (especially when you're about to go public).
Yeah, again, my argument was it wasn't better to be thinner than the ethernet port, regardless of if you have one..
You haven't explained any way of determining if (a) People really want a thin laptop or (b) People really want an Apple laptop, and that meant accomidating Steve Jobs's obsession with thinness.
Macbook Airs have sold in the tens of millions of units. The Sony equivalent has sold a million or two as well. And let's not forget the netbooks from various manufacturers. How many of those sold? I'd say that does, in fact, show that people really want a thin laptop. I can't say for sure they want an Apple laptop, but people are buying them in decent numbers. (Personally I was hoping to find an Apple alternative when I bought mine but no other manufacturer could meet the weight and specs of the Apple for anywhere near the price. Some have gotten much closer since I bought the Air.)
Tablets aren't popular because they are thinner/lighter. They are popular because they can be held in the hand (and manipulated by the other hand.) No laptop form factor allows this.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point because I suspect I am not the "average" but I do this regularly with every laptop I own, from my 11" macbook air to my wife's 17" dell. It is, admittedly, not as comfortable as doing so with a tablet. I don't believe "one handed operation" is the driving force behind the popularity of tablets but I have no research that says so or indicates what is. Tomato, tomahto.
Your whole post proved my point. You are thinking of your own use case(s), not everyone elses. Apple chose their demographic quite deliberately, I assure you. If you happen to fall within that demographic, they have a reasonable set of options that MIGHT work for your needs. Otherwise, they're not making the right tool for you.
They're very aware of that, and aren't likely to change. They're in good position right now whether they change that or not. Their computer line simply isn't their bread and butter these days, and no matter if they come up with something innovative, copy something to make it "cool" or fail utterly, I don't suspect their computer line will ever be their cash cow again.
Again, just because you don't see the benefit doesn't mean other people don't. (I admit it did make me mad when I realized it, but a USB-Ethernet adapter isn't super difficult to plan ahead if it's going to be necessary.) Clearly Apple hasn't had any trouble selling their Macbook Airs. I bought it and still haven't needed to buy an Ethernet adapter after traveling in multiple countries and all over the USA. Where I go there is either WiFi available or I'm not looking to be online anyway. If people weren't still looking for thinner/lighter/faster, tablets simply wouldn't be so popular. For "real" computer work you need at least a laptop, but most people still want the same physical benefits of thinner/lighter/faster, if they can get it.
In their cars? On their arms when they exercise? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
You do know that TiVo can stream netflix, right. Along with every other set-top DVR, "smart TV", game console and whatever else. It also doesn't have the same exact interface on any of those devices, which to my mind is a negative but if you like the device's default interface it may be a positive.
For the record, I cut cable ~15 years ago and started using netflix sometime around 2006, I think. I went to streaming-only when they upped the price on the DVD+streaming package in 2011. Obviously it depends heavily on what you like to watch (I don't watch sports, for example) but Netflix very much can replace television service for a large number of people. I don't think it will displace traditional cable until they figure out how to do live sports events but for folks that don't watch sports or don't mind going to the local pub/sports bar to watch said events, it's a pretty easy switch.
And where are Rio and Napster now? What made people say Apple is "insanely great" is they gave users (at one time) features they wanted in an easy to use platform. Sadly, those days are slipping farther and farther away from reach as Apple continues to bloat their software while removing features. Some people believe they are doing the same with their hardware.
Surely they should go with Appbell, rather than Packard Apple.
As is typical here (and everywhere else, honestly) people seem to think their intended use case fits all use cases. It doesn't. Some people really do actually travel and want a thin, lightweight computer and don't worry too much about battery power as long as it lasts through a reasonable flight--less of an issue as more commercial planes get power stations at every row. Some people want something more robust but still reasonable for travel. Still others want something for gaming or serious number crunching "on the go".
Laptops benefit from being available in a huge range of size and capability. And they sell. Like crazy. In pretty much all form factors. If they didn't, people wouldn't keep making them.
Could Apple stand to open up their line a bit? Maybe. Would they actually gain any more market share? I doubt it.
And if anyone had asked the hippies what they though of capitalism in the 60s they would have gotten basically the same answer. Look where all (or at least most of) the hippies are now. Their generation gave us most of the ridiculous corporate welfare we have today. Nothing changes.
When machines do all the plumbing, make all the roads, grow all our food, run all the electrical wiring, do all the welding, and collect all the trash, to list just a handful, I'll believe that. Anyone who says you NEED a college education is clearly missing not one but many job sectors in their search for jobs. There are literally thousands of these types of jobs that drive our economy. People doing these jobs make a decent living. Not likely anyone is going to get rich doing them, but to say those jobs require a college education or we could survive in the world we know it without those jobs is just ridiculous.
That is an interesting assumption on your part. On the other hand, from people I know who work at schools, there is an increasing problem of boys who don't seem to realize that girlfriends don't like being treated like porn starts and girls who think it's normal for sex to be all about the man's sexual gratification and not the woman's.
At the very least, we have a problem with porn being the only sexual education some of these kids are getting.
That isn't a problem with porn. That's a problem with bad (or at least incomplete) parenting.
Falling. With style.
How the hell did this get modded "interesting"? People deal with getting hit on all the time. Gay people, straight people, men, women, most of the world's population get hit on at some point. Take it as a compliment, tell the person you're not interested (if you aren't) and move on. How is your experience any different than any girl you've tried to chat up in class? What is the slightest bit interesting about being hit on my someone?
Marty McFly went back in time. Sure it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".
Arnold Schwarzenegger had a fistfight while flying a Hawker Harrier (I think), with a person hanging onto the nose of said Harrier. Sure, it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".
Neo was "the one" in a simulated reality where computers controlled the world after an armageddon-like war between computers and humans. Sure, it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".
Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) saved the President and first son from a North Korean take-over of the white house intended to force a nuclear war. Sure, it's fiction but "it could happen in real life".
See the problem with your argument? There's plenty that happens in fiction that simply isn't real and would never (or at least have such astronomical odds as to be comical) happen in real life.
More importantly, is it reasonable to restrict the rights of ANYONE based upon the possibility that less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the population (which is 1/3 of the trans population-- an insanel large percentage of trans people to consider likely to act in such ways) are going to be a problem?
As for non-trans people dressing up in order to cause problems, we already have laws against that behavior that don't restrict the rights of anyone else. Why do we need more?
security wonk rule of thumb:
you need to control access to/the flow of "sensitive" information and therefore establish policies. Once policies are established they must be enforced. There isn't any allowance for "intent" - was the information "sensitive" were the policies violated. It isn't that complicated ...
Correction added in bold. There's an important distinction here between saying "people are going to die" and "we might lose the ability to collect further intelligence". Both are bad. We don't know which applies to the secrets Clinton was emailing back and forth.
It's not just the Democrat party, it's the whole government. I've had a clearance for 25 years and, in many cases, things I was required by law to mark Top Secret with code words could be found in open source information readily. It's almost always about the source of the information when talking "classified" versus "unclassified" not the actual information itself.
The rules haven't changed. The public understanding of the rules needs to change.
Does that mean Clinton doesn't deserve any consequences? No. She most certainly should be held to at least the same standard as every other government employee. Is that going to happen? Not likely.
It definitely was 1000 pounds because I was paying by weight. It was, admittedly, stupid not to pick a better suited vehicle for that particular task but, like I said, I didn't expect it to weigh that much. I was expecting closer to 500 pounds, which I've put in there plenty of times with no problems at all. To answer the question, I put it in the trunk. 1000 pounds of rock really doesn't take up much volume and the trunk in the 02 accord is decent sized. The trunk was barely half full.
More likely he hauls "toys" (four wheelers, dune buggies, whatever) a couple times a month and, maybe, a few kids to and from school and activities. That said, I agree with his assertion that the Model 3 is still too expensive. I don't think a Taurus is a good counter example because they aren't that great, but maybe they are. The model 3 doesn't look that great either.
You are right, overbuying for "I might need to carry something" is a common justification for "mine's bigger than yours" purchases in the US. I've never figured it out but I drive a Honda accord and have carried a thousand pounds of rocks in it. I've also towed a two thousand pound trailer with it. I needed to be careful with braking and I wouldn't carry the rocks again, the suspension definitely didn't like it. It was a short distance and a one-time thing (I wasn't expecting to buy that much rock.) When I'm not doing stupid stuff like that though, I regularly carry several hundred pounds of drywall, lumber, or whatever, on an after-market roof rack without any trouble at all. Trucks for the average office worker are a waste of money. But they are a status symbol, just like any model Tesla is for the foreseeable future.
You and me both. I've actually been waiting for this thing since Tesla was created. To say the least, I'm underwhelmed. I don't particularly like the body design, the features are okay but on the expensive side and they haven't really solved the range issue, to my expectations. Give it a few more years and perhaps another billionaire willing to throw money at a similar, competing company, and you might start to get the costs down a bit. Until then, I'll stick to combustion cars for my regular driving needs and hobbyist EVs for fun.