That's interesting. Your site is getting quite about four times as many impressions as the "hypothetical" website I mentioned, which shifts the economics of it quite a bit. I also did not take into account online classifieds, but have reservations about whether they can be depended upon to remain competitive with sites like craigslist.
That may work for/., and I'm not saying the paid wall will work for anybody else, but the problem is that/. has a much lower overhead than traditional media, because they do not pay reporters to do investigative journalism. If every story linked on the site had to be written by a slashdot employee, then their accounting would look a little different. Then there's the fact that, when people think about news media, they seem to think only of the major players in large markets. Small towns, consisting of 100,000 people or less need news as well, but it is nearly impossible to support local reporters, editors, and managers when you're getting paid 2 dollars for every 1,000 banners delivered.
If we assumed 50,000 hits per day, that's $100 per day for every banner shown on a typical page. If we assumed three reporters and an editor, getting paid $30,000 per year, one IT guy and a manger, getting paid $40,000 per year, then the website would have to display six banners per page, and maintain a paper interesting enough to keep the 50,000 impressions per day they're currently getting. ($200,000 in salary, divided by 365 is $547 per day). This isn't taking into account other expenses, like paying rent, benefits,taxes, hardware costs, or anything else. The point is that the banner-driven business model is not going to work for small papers, unless some significant changes take place.
And that is why newspapers want to kill the internet and go back to the 80's/early 90's.
I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think paid walls are the answer either, but local newspapers will have to do something differently if they wish to survive. The problem is that the only people willing to pay for content are advertisers, and what that's just a pittance.
Conspiracy theories and scientific hypes aside, is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth?
Or, in other words, can we stop this even if we want to? Earth will continue changing as it will continue rotating, and we might as well take our minds off what we cannot change and work a little bit more on what we can, i.e. the misery of mankind.
Can we change something as big as the misery of mankind? Misery will continue to exist, and we might as well take our minds off what we cannot change and work a little bit more on what we can, i.e. the next season of American Idol.
I've always thought it was more hubris. It takes quite a bit of arrogance to believe that humanity can change the Earth's climate that much, that fast.
If you take a large application and swap out random bits of data, with gibberish, it can no longer be expected to perform as expected. The complexity of it is the very reason why it is susceptible to change. So, why should we assume that we can randomly change variables within the earth's ecosystem, and not expect any change?
Arrogant cunts, huh? The next time you criticize someone for not being transparent enough; the next time you claim that scientists should be prepared to submit every detail of the last 25 years of their lives, in a neat and orderly report, and mail out a copy to every jack-ass-with-an-agenda who ever lived, please do not do so anonymously.
You expect them to place their entire lives under a microscope, but you won't even state your position under a pseudonym, let alone your real name?
There was a very good reason to withhold data. Most of the FOA requests were specifically designed to put unnecessary bureaucracy in place and draw resources away from the actual research the CRU was performing.
IANAL, but wouldn't there be a due diligence requirement there? If not, then I could hire someone to take a stack of envelopes and stuff them as fast as possible, while arguing "My 'lawyer' didn't know that I didn't write 'freebird', now make this jackass pay court costs and I'll drop my case".
They would have to do something similar to this, to get around the problem of unsupported hardware. If I buy the newest graphics card on the market, I will be pretty annoyed if it means I can no longer play my favorite game from a couple of years ago.
I heard part of a radio show, a few days ago, there someone called in stating that he had a sex-offender record from when he was 18, and dating a 16 year old. Apparently, in his state, that is enough to get you tarred for life. He was about to date a woman with children, but is worried that, if he does, that child services will take her children away. The host said
that's a tough one, I'm gonna throw it out to our audience. If you think he should break up with his girlfriend, text "break up" to XXXXXX. If you think they should stay together, text "stay" to XXXXXX
I was shocked that the host would take something so serious, (even if the caller lacked the good judgment to not trust call-in radio shows for advice), and leave it up to a simple poll. Not just because his listeners are young and inexperienced, but also because there are more options than a simple "yes" or "no". He could have called an advocate, or a lawyer, to find out information that this syndicated call-in host didn't have. He could have spoken with a representative of child protective services, and gotten a better feel for how the outcome would have turned out. I'm sure there are dozens of options, that I never considered.
My point is that a politician doesn't just show up for work and say
this is hard. If you think we should repeal social security, text "repeal" to 123456. If you think we should keep it going, exactly as it is, text "keep it" to 123456.
. He needs to understand the issues more than the average person, to negotiate compromises, if that is what it takes to get things accomplished, and to find those other options that may not have appeared on the polls, but would make for a better system.
Not only that, but you have to ask who controls the polls. Statisticians have known for a long time that you can easily introduce bias into a poll by framing it in favor of your agenda. Are they literally going to just sit back and do nothing until a bill comes up for a vote, place the entire thing online and give everyone a yay or nay vote, or will they participate in the writing of that bill?
The individual companies do exist only to survive (meaning that they will turn a profit, however they can). But, I think you are buying in to the teabagger rhetoric that anything less than an unregulated laissez faire marketplace is socialism. This is simply untrue. The government should exist to maintain a capitalistic system, even if that means using regulations to ensure fair competition in the marketplace.
As for democracy vs capitalism, capitalism is the purest form of democracy. It is mob rule, with no regard to fairness, constitutional rights, or anything more than the consent of the majority. It is only regulations and the occasional PR concern that keep businesses from being as honest as they are now (and most companies have discovered that PR is not an issue, as long as you keep your dirty work confined to distant countries). In the US government, the bill of rights, the court system, the senate, and the general notion of a democratic republic were designed to offset the problems inherent in a purely democratic system.
We may be suggesting similar things, but I would say that the market is a democracy without any checks and balances to keep it functional.
You have been tagged with the unique id 3352, as well as a social security number, and a name given to you by your parents. And I promise you, that if you were to try to buy or sell a house, you would have to provide two of those tags.
Of course, they arrived at that figure by assuming that the 2005 congress was "centrist", and comparing everything between 1995 and 2005 to them. Anything to the right of the Republican controlled congress was considered "liberal". I am curious how that exact same study would work if the 1995-2005 coverage were compared to the current congress, or, for that matter, if the 2000-2010 coverage were compared to the current congress.
Thank you for setting the record straight. I have been trying to come up with a non-troll response to this "lower taxes and we ain't doing shit for nobody! It's in the Constitution" rhetoric, but sometimes you just have to bring the facts.
The problem with this is the fact that it would greatly affect businesses who rely on mail services. No mail on Thursday means no bills going out, no checks coming in, etc. Also, that means people who get newspapers delivered via mail route (yes, they do that - I'm systems manager at a small locally focused paper that is doing quite well) will have to skip a day.
Of course, if we lose Saturday, we lose a day, too.
As far as receiving packages go, I always have mine shipped to work, anyway, so I don't have to worry about being there to sign for it.
Two comments: 1. So, why not ship two papers on Friday? 2. So, if you had to miss out on delivery, would you rather lose Thursday sales or Saturday sales?
To begin with, it'll be one add every 3 hours. Once we get used to that, it'll be one an hour, one every ten minutes, then before we know it, there'll be so many ads bombarding us in-game that we might as well go outside into the real world and start shooting actual cops in the face.
Is that what you want, APB? Because that's what's going to happen!
APB is going to lead to people shooting cops in the face? Jack Thompson, is that you?
Don't you mean "APB's *awesome* payment plans"? Being able to "pay as you go" means this might be the first MMO I ever play as I've always opposed paying a monthly fee for a game I may or may not play depending on my free time in any given month.
I agree. You can either pay for it like you would a traditional MMORPG, or you can get some pay-as-you-go scheme. If you don't like the second option, use the first.
Google's ranking algorithm now includes a penalty for sites that load too slowly.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. My initial response was a happy one, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to be unnecessarily discriminating against those who are too far away from the bleeding edge. Do we really live in a world where 'Speed=Good' so completely that we need to penalize those who don't run fast enough? And where are we drawing the line between 'fast' and 'slow'?
I disagree. Please sign my petition to have all first post comments modded "+5 insightful":)
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting. Your site is getting quite about four times as many impressions as the "hypothetical" website I mentioned, which shifts the economics of it quite a bit. I also did not take into account online classifieds, but have reservations about whether they can be depended upon to remain competitive with sites like craigslist.
That may work for /., and I'm not saying the paid wall will work for anybody else, but the problem is that /. has a much lower overhead than traditional media, because they do not pay reporters to do investigative journalism. If every story linked on the site had to be written by a slashdot employee, then their accounting would look a little different. Then there's the fact that, when people think about news media, they seem to think only of the major players in large markets. Small towns, consisting of 100,000 people or less need news as well, but it is nearly impossible to support local reporters, editors, and managers when you're getting paid 2 dollars for every 1,000 banners delivered.
If we assumed 50,000 hits per day, that's $100 per day for every banner shown on a typical page. If we assumed three reporters and an editor, getting paid $30,000 per year, one IT guy and a manger, getting paid $40,000 per year, then the website would have to display six banners per page, and maintain a paper interesting enough to keep the 50,000 impressions per day they're currently getting. ($200,000 in salary, divided by 365 is $547 per day). This isn't taking into account other expenses, like paying rent, benefits,taxes, hardware costs, or anything else. The point is that the banner-driven business model is not going to work for small papers, unless some significant changes take place.
And that is why newspapers want to kill the internet and go back to the 80's/early 90's.
I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think paid walls are the answer either, but local newspapers will have to do something differently if they wish to survive. The problem is that the only people willing to pay for content are advertisers, and what that's just a pittance.
Conspiracy theories and scientific hypes aside, is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth?
Or, in other words, can we stop this even if we want to? Earth will continue changing as it will continue rotating, and we might as well take our minds off what we cannot change and work a little bit more on what we can, i.e. the misery of mankind.
Can we change something as big as the misery of mankind? Misery will continue to exist, and we might as well take our minds off what we cannot change and work a little bit more on what we can, i.e. the next season of American Idol.
it's agenda is run by hypocrites.
I've always thought it was more hubris. It takes quite a bit of arrogance to believe that humanity can change the Earth's climate that much, that fast.
If you take a large application and swap out random bits of data, with gibberish, it can no longer be expected to perform as expected. The complexity of it is the very reason why it is susceptible to change. So, why should we assume that we can randomly change variables within the earth's ecosystem, and not expect any change?
Arrogant cunts, huh? The next time you criticize someone for not being transparent enough; the next time you claim that scientists should be prepared to submit every detail of the last 25 years of their lives, in a neat and orderly report, and mail out a copy to every jack-ass-with-an-agenda who ever lived, please do not do so anonymously.
You expect them to place their entire lives under a microscope, but you won't even state your position under a pseudonym, let alone your real name?
Mod parent up! These people have no interest in performing science. They only want to find something wrong with it!
There was a very good reason to withhold data. Most of the FOA requests were specifically designed to put unnecessary bureaucracy in place and draw resources away from the actual research the CRU was performing.
IANAL, but wouldn't there be a due diligence requirement there? If not, then I could hire someone to take a stack of envelopes and stuff them as fast as possible, while arguing "My 'lawyer' didn't know that I didn't write 'freebird', now make this jackass pay court costs and I'll drop my case".
They would have to do something similar to this, to get around the problem of unsupported hardware. If I buy the newest graphics card on the market, I will be pretty annoyed if it means I can no longer play my favorite game from a couple of years ago.
I heard part of a radio show, a few days ago, there someone called in stating that he had a sex-offender record from when he was 18, and dating a 16 year old. Apparently, in his state, that is enough to get you tarred for life. He was about to date a woman with children, but is worried that, if he does, that child services will take her children away. The host said
that's a tough one, I'm gonna throw it out to our audience. If you think he should break up with his girlfriend, text "break up" to XXXXXX. If you think they should stay together, text "stay" to XXXXXX
I was shocked that the host would take something so serious, (even if the caller lacked the good judgment to not trust call-in radio shows for advice), and leave it up to a simple poll. Not just because his listeners are young and inexperienced, but also because there are more options than a simple "yes" or "no". He could have called an advocate, or a lawyer, to find out information that this syndicated call-in host didn't have. He could have spoken with a representative of child protective services, and gotten a better feel for how the outcome would have turned out. I'm sure there are dozens of options, that I never considered.
My point is that a politician doesn't just show up for work and say
this is hard. If you think we should repeal social security, text "repeal" to 123456. If you think we should keep it going, exactly as it is, text "keep it" to 123456.
. He needs to understand the issues more than the average person, to negotiate compromises, if that is what it takes to get things accomplished, and to find those other options that may not have appeared on the polls, but would make for a better system.
Not only that, but you have to ask who controls the polls. Statisticians have known for a long time that you can easily introduce bias into a poll by framing it in favor of your agenda. Are they literally going to just sit back and do nothing until a bill comes up for a vote, place the entire thing online and give everyone a yay or nay vote, or will they participate in the writing of that bill?
Doesn't that seem like circular logic to you? Con artists are good because they teach us not to trust con artists?
Do you really want to mess with a guy who owns ass-less pants and who invented the bat-dance? I say just nod politely and walk away.
The individual companies do exist only to survive (meaning that they will turn a profit, however they can). But, I think you are buying in to the teabagger rhetoric that anything less than an unregulated laissez faire marketplace is socialism. This is simply untrue. The government should exist to maintain a capitalistic system, even if that means using regulations to ensure fair competition in the marketplace.
As for democracy vs capitalism, capitalism is the purest form of democracy. It is mob rule, with no regard to fairness, constitutional rights, or anything more than the consent of the majority. It is only regulations and the occasional PR concern that keep businesses from being as honest as they are now (and most companies have discovered that PR is not an issue, as long as you keep your dirty work confined to distant countries). In the US government, the bill of rights, the court system, the senate, and the general notion of a democratic republic were designed to offset the problems inherent in a purely democratic system.
We may be suggesting similar things, but I would say that the market is a democracy without any checks and balances to keep it functional.
You have been tagged with the unique id 3352, as well as a social security number, and a name given to you by your parents. And I promise you, that if you were to try to buy or sell a house, you would have to provide two of those tags.
Moo!
We just need to use the good old CSI zoom and enhance! We'll find many more!
But won't they all be covered in semen and blood stains?
Of course, they arrived at that figure by assuming that the 2005 congress was "centrist", and comparing everything between 1995 and 2005 to them. Anything to the right of the Republican controlled congress was considered "liberal". I am curious how that exact same study would work if the 1995-2005 coverage were compared to the current congress, or, for that matter, if the 2000-2010 coverage were compared to the current congress.
So they're just a tool of big hardware? Somewhere, Nathan Lane's ears just perked up.
So the Olympics will turn into pro-wrestling?
Thank you for setting the record straight. I have been trying to come up with a non-troll response to this "lower taxes and we ain't doing shit for nobody! It's in the Constitution" rhetoric, but sometimes you just have to bring the facts.
The problem with this is the fact that it would greatly affect businesses who rely on mail services. No mail on Thursday means no bills going out, no checks coming in, etc. Also, that means people who get newspapers delivered via mail route (yes, they do that - I'm systems manager at a small locally focused paper that is doing quite well) will have to skip a day.
Of course, if we lose Saturday, we lose a day, too.
As far as receiving packages go, I always have mine shipped to work, anyway, so I don't have to worry about being there to sign for it.
Two comments:
1. So, why not ship two papers on Friday?
2. So, if you had to miss out on delivery, would you rather lose Thursday sales or Saturday sales?
To begin with, it'll be one add every 3 hours. Once we get used to that, it'll be one an hour, one every ten minutes, then before we know it, there'll be so many ads bombarding us in-game that we might as well go outside into the real world and start shooting actual cops in the face.
Is that what you want, APB? Because that's what's going to happen!
APB is going to lead to people shooting cops in the face? Jack Thompson, is that you?
"APB's already unusual payment plans"
Don't you mean "APB's *awesome* payment plans"? Being able to "pay as you go" means this might be the first MMO I ever play as I've always opposed paying a monthly fee for a game I may or may not play depending on my free time in any given month.
I agree. You can either pay for it like you would a traditional MMORPG, or you can get some pay-as-you-go scheme. If you don't like the second option, use the first.
Google's ranking algorithm now includes a penalty for sites that load too slowly.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. My initial response was a happy one, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to be unnecessarily discriminating against those who are too far away from the bleeding edge. Do we really live in a world where 'Speed=Good' so completely that we need to penalize those who don't run fast enough? And where are we drawing the line between 'fast' and 'slow'?
I disagree. Please sign my petition to have all first post comments modded "+5 insightful" :)
Trust them about what ? And who the hell is Zogby ?
It's a place that sells chicken.