Facebook doesn’t “know” when I’ll get dumped. Aggregated data, which happened to be obtained from facebook, revealed that the average person is more likely to get dumped at certain times of the year, but that’s useless when making a prediction for an individual.
Agreed. That is like looking at a correlation between high-fat diets and heart disease and writing the headline "McDonald's Knows When You'll Have a Heart Attack"
Back in the days of mom & pop stores, one of the selling points was that the store would be run by a kindly old man who would form a relationship with the customer. (I'm romanticizing, but please understand the marketing pitch). You go in and buy your groceries ever week, and he gets to know you.
I see Google's role analogous to the shop-keeper. He isn't following you out of the store, and (AFAIK), he isn't selling detailed reports on your shopping habits to some other store. He's just remembering that you were the guy who bought such-and-such last week, and he's offering suggestions for this week.
To me, that is perfectly legitimate. As long as Google is one half the transaction, they have the right to remember that transaction.
I wonder how the contributors feel about this. I'm not too familiar with the times, but here in the U.S., we seem to be in the era of "synergy". Bill O'Reilly hosts a talk show every night. Once he built up a large audience of viewers, he signed a lucrative contract to host a radio show. Now, many of his night-time viewers will also listen, and much of the research that went into his night-time show can also carry over to the daytime show. Then, every year or two, he takes the research and opinions that he has been broadcasting over cable, radio, and the internet, and publishes them into a book. He then uses the book as a springboard to tour the talk show circuit promoting his it, and his show, on everything from Jay Leno, to Jon Stewart.
All this began from an opinion show on Fox News. If, ten years ago, he had lost 87% of his audience, would he be where he is today?
I choose to go to google, knowing that they will use that information to sell me ads. This software is about someone's wife or husband slipping a trojan on another person's phone that will forward all text messages to him/her.
The step after this is for someone to create a page stating, "By reading this, you agree to pay me $100,000," track the IPs, and cut out the symbolic gesture of even trying to make this seem like something other than a court-supported extortion racket.
There is a reason that nearly all EULAs have a "I have read this and agree to it" checkbox, as well as a submit button. IANAL, but I am pretty sure that the customer has to be able to read the EULA and agree to it, before being bound (which is why they never let you use the program until you agree to the EULA).
I disagree with EULA's on the grounds that I feel that they are changing the terms of the transaction after it has been completed, and creating a business model that makes it nearly impossible for a consumer to know his or her legal obligations, but I'm still pretty sure that you have to agree to a EULA to be bound by it.
exactly! I would like to see the industry adapt to the p2p world, but this whole "sell a couple of ads, place them in a place where they can be conveniently discarded, also release ad-free version and make no attempt to prevent people from downloading that, and charge a subscription fee to use the gift shop*" thing is ludicrous.
* ok, I am being unfiar with the gift shop thing, but he still is suggesting that the gift club work on a "Sam's Club" membership model, which cannot be the primary source of revenue for a network.
1. Caprica got canceled because it isn't making enough money. 2. If businesses made more money, they wouldn't have to cancel shows that are less profitable. 3. If businesses took away most of the pirate's incentives, piracy would disappear. His argument is that if you release the best possible version of every show, free of charge, with ads either at the beginning or end of the show, then piracy would disappear. 4. Set up a subscription system in which subscribers get comercial-free versions of the show (but put nothing that could be copied behind a paidwall; contradiction?). Also, give subscribers discounts on merchandise. 5. This would have saved Caprica.
My response: 1. Probably. 2. But they would, anyway. 3 & 4. I agree with 3, but I disagree with the assertion that you would make more money doing it. If the first fifteen minutes of the video are ads, in a drm-free player, people will skip the ads, and ad revenue will be lost. So, you're reducing your ad-driven profits, losing subscription fees that cable companies would have paid, and hanging your hopes on the idea that people will pay a monthly fee for the right to visit your gift shop. 5. NBC doesn't care about Caprica. If they can make more money with Caprica, they will do so. If they can make more money throwing those resources at something else, then Caprica will get canceled.
Sounds like you have... a problem with authority! Why don't you stop being a criminal? After all, the law is always right. This is just how the world works, and since it could, potentially, be worse, you might as well not bother trying to change it.
Should all Negros think like you USA will still have a slavery.
You may want to know that the person making that quote was engaging in sarcasm. American's often will often mock the ideas of other people by pretending to agree with them, with ridiculous or naive statements.
Also, the word "negro" is taboo in the US. We tend to use the phrases "African American" or "black".
So, if global warming turns the arctic into a temperate zone, then they can dig up more oil. If we ever reach that point, can we agree that "more oil" is not the answer to our problems?
I'm surprised progressives aren't picketing Chick-Fil-A for favoring Christians (except for Seventh-Day Adventists and SD Baptists, of course) by choosing Sunday.
This would have made perfect sense before the days of the five day work week and part-time labor. But those days are long gone and a chick-fil-A employee has no reasonable expectation that he or she will work six days per week.
Who said 100%? You said that it is messed up that we need lawyers to understand our laws. I asked if there is a single country on earth that isn't that way. No slippery slope there. Just pointing out that your example of a government out of control is something that applies to every government on earth.
I also said fewer laws means more arbitrary power in the hands of a few. Again, no slippery slope, no assumption that dissent means anarchy. I took your statement to imply that fewer and simpler laws make for better government. Did I misinterpret?
Do you know of any country on earth whose laws are not that way?
I would assume the opposite to be true. The fewer laws in place, the more power exists in the hands of a few individuals, governing bodies, and/or corporations.
You might want to look that up again. There are several definitions involving genocide, one involving animal sacrifices, but none involving a ban on peanut butter.
As for the grow up part, you are whining about the fact that some child cannot eat peanuts in school. It's not that big a deal. comparing something so tiny to an atrocity of historic proportions is not exactly "mature".
That would be interesting, but shouldn't we perform them on Earth first? If we're wrong on Earth, then we're wrong everywhere*. So, why not have a first run here, where it's cheaper?
* Even if the experiment would have gone exactly as they predicted, had it been conducted in space, being wrong on Earth would imply that their model is not entirely accurate.
(DISCLAIMER: If I sound like a lawyer, scientist, or someone important, please note that I am not and do not know what I'm talking about half the time.)
I also think that it would be incredibly easy for some diebold apologist to conflate open source with Wikipedia. I'm being serious.
"How many times have you seen something crazy in Wikipedia? With this open source software, anybody can go in at any time and edit the machine's programming. Do we want to trust our democracy to something that can be reprogrammed the night before a major election? Who knows what may be hidden in all that software?"
Add to that that, to the average person, open source seems less reliable ("just anybody can put anything they want in there"). I'm sure that if this ever became a significant issue, the opponents would have the public thinking that open source is how the Wikipedia editing system works.
If you're going to decry the "reality-distorting nonsense", please do not start the next sentence by comparing the lack of PB&J to the holocaust. My irony allergy is acting up.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew when my ex created an event called "fuck off" and invited me to it.
Facebook doesn’t “know” when I’ll get dumped. Aggregated data, which happened to be obtained from facebook, revealed that the average person is more likely to get dumped at certain times of the year, but that’s useless when making a prediction for an individual.
Agreed. That is like looking at a correlation between high-fat diets and heart disease and writing the headline "McDonald's Knows When You'll Have a Heart Attack"
Obviously it would be high as the user would be a risk taker!
Or because using IE indicates that you don't really shop around.
Back in the days of mom & pop stores, one of the selling points was that the store would be run by a kindly old man who would form a relationship with the customer. (I'm romanticizing, but please understand the marketing pitch). You go in and buy your groceries ever week, and he gets to know you.
I see Google's role analogous to the shop-keeper. He isn't following you out of the store, and (AFAIK), he isn't selling detailed reports on your shopping habits to some other store. He's just remembering that you were the guy who bought such-and-such last week, and he's offering suggestions for this week.
To me, that is perfectly legitimate. As long as Google is one half the transaction, they have the right to remember that transaction.
This is a show where people vote for what they want to see. Why do you think they would need hackers to get porn voted up?
I wonder how the contributors feel about this. I'm not too familiar with the times, but here in the U.S., we seem to be in the era of "synergy". Bill O'Reilly hosts a talk show every night. Once he built up a large audience of viewers, he signed a lucrative contract to host a radio show. Now, many of his night-time viewers will also listen, and much of the research that went into his night-time show can also carry over to the daytime show. Then, every year or two, he takes the research and opinions that he has been broadcasting over cable, radio, and the internet, and publishes them into a book. He then uses the book as a springboard to tour the talk show circuit promoting his it, and his show, on everything from Jay Leno, to Jon Stewart.
All this began from an opinion show on Fox News. If, ten years ago, he had lost 87% of his audience, would he be where he is today?
Correction: it isn't a trojan, so much as spyware.
I choose to go to google, knowing that they will use that information to sell me ads. This software is about someone's wife or husband slipping a trojan on another person's phone that will forward all text messages to him/her.
Do you not see a difference?
How much does a page that reads "Error establishing a database connection" cost?
Half your customer base.
The step after this is for someone to create a page stating, "By reading this, you agree to pay me $100,000," track the IPs, and cut out the symbolic gesture of even trying to make this seem like something other than a court-supported extortion racket.
There is a reason that nearly all EULAs have a "I have read this and agree to it" checkbox, as well as a submit button. IANAL, but I am pretty sure that the customer has to be able to read the EULA and agree to it, before being bound (which is why they never let you use the program until you agree to the EULA).
I disagree with EULA's on the grounds that I feel that they are changing the terms of the transaction after it has been completed, and creating a business model that makes it nearly impossible for a consumer to know his or her legal obligations, but I'm still pretty sure that you have to agree to a EULA to be bound by it.
How is buying gold any better than sticking your money in a mattress? It doesn't put people to work and it devalues the currency we have.
exactly! I would like to see the industry adapt to the p2p world, but this whole "sell a couple of ads, place them in a place where they can be conveniently discarded, also release ad-free version and make no attempt to prevent people from downloading that, and charge a subscription fee to use the gift shop*" thing is ludicrous.
* ok, I am being unfiar with the gift shop thing, but he still is suggesting that the gift club work on a "Sam's Club" membership model, which cannot be the primary source of revenue for a network.
The mantra he is pushing is
1. Caprica got canceled because it isn't making enough money.
2. If businesses made more money, they wouldn't have to cancel shows that are less profitable.
3. If businesses took away most of the pirate's incentives, piracy would disappear. His argument is that if you release the best possible version of every show, free of charge, with ads either at the beginning or end of the show, then piracy would disappear.
4. Set up a subscription system in which subscribers get comercial-free versions of the show (but put nothing that could be copied behind a paidwall; contradiction?). Also, give subscribers discounts on merchandise.
5. This would have saved Caprica.
My response:
1. Probably.
2. But they would, anyway.
3 & 4. I agree with 3, but I disagree with the assertion that you would make more money doing it. If the first fifteen minutes of the video are ads, in a drm-free player, people will skip the ads, and ad revenue will be lost. So, you're reducing your ad-driven profits, losing subscription fees that cable companies would have paid, and hanging your hopes on the idea that people will pay a monthly fee for the right to visit your gift shop.
5. NBC doesn't care about Caprica. If they can make more money with Caprica, they will do so. If they can make more money throwing those resources at something else, then Caprica will get canceled.
Sounds like you have... a problem with authority! Why don't you stop being a criminal? After all, the law is always right. This is just how the world works, and since it could, potentially, be worse, you might as well not bother trying to change it.
Should all Negros think like you USA will still have a slavery.
You may want to know that the person making that quote was engaging in sarcasm. American's often will often mock the ideas of other people by pretending to agree with them, with ridiculous or naive statements.
Also, the word "negro" is taboo in the US. We tend to use the phrases "African American" or "black".
one 50% infected with software that goes and registers you as a sex offender, steals your credit card numbers and posts your porn habits on the web?
Facebook?
Yes, but microsoft.BADSTUFFINSTALLEDONYOURCOMPUTER is too long a domain name.
So, if global warming turns the arctic into a temperate zone, then they can dig up more oil. If we ever reach that point, can we agree that "more oil" is not the answer to our problems?
I'm surprised progressives aren't picketing Chick-Fil-A for favoring Christians (except for Seventh-Day Adventists and SD Baptists, of course) by choosing Sunday.
This would have made perfect sense before the days of the five day work week and part-time labor. But those days are long gone and a chick-fil-A employee has no reasonable expectation that he or she will work six days per week.
Who said 100%? You said that it is messed up that we need lawyers to understand our laws. I asked if there is a single country on earth that isn't that way. No slippery slope there. Just pointing out that your example of a government out of control is something that applies to every government on earth.
I also said fewer laws means more arbitrary power in the hands of a few. Again, no slippery slope, no assumption that dissent means anarchy. I took your statement to imply that fewer and simpler laws make for better government. Did I misinterpret?
Do you know of any country on earth whose laws are not that way?
I would assume the opposite to be true. The fewer laws in place, the more power exists in the hands of a few individuals, governing bodies, and/or corporations.
You might want to look that up again. There are several definitions involving genocide, one involving animal sacrifices, but none involving a ban on peanut butter.
As for the grow up part, you are whining about the fact that some child cannot eat peanuts in school. It's not that big a deal. comparing something so tiny to an atrocity of historic proportions is not exactly "mature".
That would be interesting, but shouldn't we perform them on Earth first? If we're wrong on Earth, then we're wrong everywhere*. So, why not have a first run here, where it's cheaper?
* Even if the experiment would have gone exactly as they predicted, had it been conducted in space, being wrong on Earth would imply that their model is not entirely accurate.
(DISCLAIMER: If I sound like a lawyer, scientist, or someone important, please note that I am not and do not know what I'm talking about half the time.)
I also think that it would be incredibly easy for some diebold apologist to conflate open source with Wikipedia. I'm being serious.
"How many times have you seen something crazy in Wikipedia? With this open source software, anybody can go in at any time and edit the machine's programming. Do we want to trust our democracy to something that can be reprogrammed the night before a major election? Who knows what may be hidden in all that software?"
Add to that that, to the average person, open source seems less reliable ("just anybody can put anything they want in there"). I'm sure that if this ever became a significant issue, the opponents would have the public thinking that open source is how the Wikipedia editing system works.
If you're going to decry the "reality-distorting nonsense", please do not start the next sentence by comparing the lack of PB&J to the holocaust. My irony allergy is acting up.