I watched a couple of episodes with the same friggin ad being spewed over and over again. I couldn't take it. I stopped watching tv on the Internet and that was a couple of years ago.
I quit my local paper because they had crap articles. Articles with blatantly wrong information, contradicting information within the same paper on the same day, and ads that looked like news articles.
I have yet to see any (what I would consider) unbiased news from a regularly reliable source. I'd pay for that.
Yep, very much this. It always puzzles me why ads are so crappy on the Internet. Every website these days has all those Web2.0 features, yet ads are still completely passive, I can't rate them, I can't comment on them, I can't even link them and even when I click them they hardly ever lead me to the information about the product I actually seek.
And while we're tailoring ads, if I want to see ads for porn or my wife and I decide to buy some kinky stuff, I don't want ads for that kind of stuff shown when my church going neighbor and his twelve year old daughter come over and look at something on my computer. It needs to be flexible enough to come around when I want it too.
Before the Internet, stores sent out flyers via snail mail. There was no way to track individual users on a per click basis or a conversion basis. It seemed to work pretty well. Perhaps a return to something like that for the Internet?
1 penny? It would start to matter what a "page" constituted, but still most of the websites, say 95%. At this rate I could owe as much as a dollar or two per day.
Yeah, I can see what a page would constitute. You know those "news" sites that have 20 pages just to get through the entire article and you never see any meat for real news? That'll be 20 cents, thank you. You'll be paying a lot more than a buck or two per day.
As long as ad-based sites have this kind of mentality, then we the readers will shun this kind of stupidty.
Microtransactions should work -- as you indicate. Apparently, it doesn't make the elite few bizillions of dollars.
This. This is the solution that the poster wants: In house ads. If the ads are kept on their servers then they cannot be blocked but they also assume complete responsibility for what they show their customers. Their customers will know it is them who approved such ads. Go and read hairyfeet's responses to this article. There are lots of minefields we the readers are trying to avoid and could easily be brought in with this "new" method.
Make the ads in-house. Make sure the ads are not intrusive. Keep it simple. Simple means text and jpg. Text and jpg means virus free.
It will be interesting to see the evolution of ads and the commercial side of the Internet once this is common place.
One that I don't hear too often is "Why did the big bang happen?" Even if you answer all of the questions you raise, that one is still a big mystery. As you say, there is still a lot for science.
People accuse me of being a luddite from time to time, but I only resist technology when society (or the people I talk with) refuse to confront hard questions like the one you bring up... especially if the talk degrades into an us vs them kind of argument. Yes, you raise very significant ethical questions to a very plausible idea. I wish more people asked these same questions you did before they became a reality.
I told him my whole process of determination and experimentation. He was quite shocked. I knew he didn't believe me at first
You're lucky. A lot of doctors don't even want to give me the time of day. They could care less. I'd like to contribute what I've learned about my body, but what doctor would want to listen to me? I'm not in the medical industry. Did the doctor do any follow up to help others like you? Will your self diagnosis help someone else? If it were only that simple...
Nobody cares about my health more than me. Nobody will investigate my ailments more than me. That's why.
I've lived in three different states (in the U.S.) and in two different countries (U.S. and Germany) in 12 years. That's why.
I've had doctors give diagnosis and "remedies" to me that other doctors said was blatantly wrong and in one case unethical. I can't correct my record so subsequent doctors may be incorrectly influenced. That's why.
Because no one knows who owns my medical record. The doctor? The hospital? The office? Insurance company? Government? Someone needs to own my record to make good decisions. It's my life and my health. It should be me. That's why.
I don't subscribe to the "trust me" philosophy. I like to prove it. If my boss or my customer wants to know why I did something, I'll be happy to explain it to them. After a few rounds of ask-the-programmer, my customers and bosses tend to leave me alone because they trust me. Sometimes, they have legitimate questions. Sometimes it's to make sure the requirements and solutions have been properly communicated before implementation gets underway. I go out of my way to insure they understand what I'm doing and my customers are very happy with the results. If I told them to "politely fuck off", I wouldn't be trusted and rightly so.
Perhaps what's needed here is a two-section medical record. Things that should be shared with the patient, (which should be the default behavior) and things that should NOT be shared with them, for their own benefit. The patient should not be able to determine if the "not to share" section contains information or not.
Having a section that is secret is the same as having medical records withheld. I propose this: If the doctor wants to have a spot that is not part of my official record and are personal notes for him / her, then that's cool. When my record gets transferred to another doctor or another hospital, then that personal note does not.
Joe doesn't know what he's doing and has been collecting a salary for a year. In the office, Joe not knowing what he's doing would be spotted by his co-workers / bosses relatively quickly and people would see Joe everyday and eventually single him out as the weakest link rather than take his word for it that it's going to be done correctly.
[Sniff] Well, if that's how you feel about me. But I'll have you know that I do an excellent job! [Sniffle.] You get all up and arms because I ask you to explain something that is not obvious from time to time... like how to use if-then statements and why functions have those parameter things. That's hard stuff, man! I don't know why you're going to back stab me like this! In a public forum nonetheless!
Taking what you say one step further is where I get knotted up in my line of thinking:
People disagree with Card. People boycott him. They don't have to buy his work. I agree with that. Card's sales may plummet. He may say he's sorry because wants to put food on his table. Ok. Sounds reasonable. What if I put something online (out in public) that people disagree with?
I'm going to take a stance: I think the Republicans and the Democrats suck. What happens next? I get dinged not only from the right, but from the left as well. People do some homework, find what my real name is and now it's all over the Internet. On the right side, it's proclaimed "Common Joe disagrees with all Republicans!" On the left, "Common Joe disagrees with all Democrats!" People boycott me. I can't find a job. No sane company wants to have anything to do with me because my name is all over the Internet when they do a check. I certainly don't have the monetary reserves that Orson Scott Card has. Now, it really is a matter of food not being put on the table. It doesn't matter what kind of logical argument I give. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. I now have trouble eating because I've made a political statement. Is this right?
These days, I tend to keep my beliefs to myself and a select few friends who won't throw my under the bus for what I believe. I'm trying to branch out a bit with Slashdot and say a few things. I'm experimenting, but I'm always fearful that I may say something wrong one day which will get me in a lot of trouble and then I won't be able to find a job. Want an example?
First off, let me say that one of my closest friends is an African American and I've had numerous African American friends. (I don't call a person a friend easily.) Now for the controversial statement: Under certain circumstances, I fear African-Americans. I used to live in southern Louisiana. My group of close friends didn't care about race inside our circle. We were more interested in gaming or watching sci-fi movies. When we went out in public, we watched each others' backs. There were areas I couldn't go because I wasn't black and my race in a black neighborhood would get me killed. There were areas my black friends couldn't go because their race would get them killed. Some of us lived in some very rough neighborhoods. Some of them still do. I've had friends assaulted because they were white, lesbian, atheist, and educated. (Four different friends, four different instances; multiple races including white and black.)
I think it's pretty obvious that I don't fear African Americans. I'd bend over backwards for any of my friends regardless of their race.
Back to the topic at hand. I wonder how to let someone say something controversial in public (and even something I disagree with) without hurting them unfairly. If one of my friends something stupid, would I disown him as a friend? Not at first. I'd tell him he's stupid. If he gets really stupid, I'll even distance myself from him or her. If they go nutso, I'll probably drop them as a friend. It's happened a few times. One of them even came back years later, apologized, and we've been good buds since.
I buy movies made by scientologists. (I own Star Trek II. Kirstie Alley is a scientologist.) I draw the line at Tom Cruise and John Travolta -- I boycott them. I don't have a good way to draw the line.
He's free to say what he wants. I'm free to choose to boycott his work. His publisher is free to choose not to publish his work. His illustrator is free not to work with him. I'm sick and tired of people acting like free speech means speech without consequences. It doesn't. The government can't throw you in jail or treat you differently because of what you say (some exceptions to that rule of course), but everyone else is free to react as they see fit (within standard legal boundaries).
Any opinions on when to boycott someone's work? Any guidance on when people should allow someone to say something stupid without drastic consequences? Or should the sticks just fall as they may?
I just put my mother-in-law on Windows 8. No regrets because I did some of the same stuff you're talking about. It's not right for everyone, but it was right for her (and for me who has to support her). One caution: Windows 8 truly has a split personality. It has metro AND it has the desktop. A person who is going to be using Windows 8 on a laptop / desktop must understand this.
I don't know. I went through this with my mother-in-law recently... as in the past month. I went with Windows 8 and locked her down. I thought about going with another O.S., but in the end I decided to go with something we could both be somewhat reasonably comfortable with. In the end, I actually liked giving her Windows 8 because it limited her so much. That was quite a shock for me. I wouldn't recommend it straight out the box for very many people, but with her, it worked rather well. Another factor is that I just got a laptop with Windows 8 a couple of months before she got her laptop and I was able to familiarize myself with it. I'm not really a Mac or Linux person, although I do use Mint from time to time.
When you run Team Viewer as a stand alone program, you may have problems. Do a full install and as long as the user logged in has admin rights, you should be ok.
Depends on the problem. I just went through what the OP is going through. TeamViewer was a life saver last night. "My computer doesn't talk to the Internet!" She turned on the computer and didn't give it enough time to connect to the modem / router which was also just booting up. I turned on my team viewer and from across the city, Team Viewer told me that she was online. After that, solitaire didn't work. I could see what she was seeing and then I took control to help her out.
Now, granted, I just setup her laptop and I basically made myself admin and made her a typical user. I also limited the number of icons she saw. As much as I hate Windows 8 on a laptop, the limited number of choices (which I got down to about 10 choices) actually helps her. She's not computer literate at all. My mother-in-law got dragged into the Windows 8 world from Windows XP. I explained that the computer has a split personality (desktop vs Metro) and told her where to find email, solitaire, and her pictures. I even got the desktop to rotate through the photos and I have it auto-login to her account and got Team Viewer to auto start when the computer boots up. If there are any problems, she knows how to reboot and it gets her back to her happy place. Anything harder and I remote in.
Unless the computer cannot boot and make it online, I can help her remotely. I can even start up the camera and remote conference if I want. Pretty spiffy program. Wish I had that six years ago when I setup her last desktop. To help finish answering the OP's post, there were a few things I told her that she just had to learn. Get her off AOL. There's no future there. AOL is a portal. You can give her that with icons on a Windows 7 or 8 machine.
I don't disagree with you, but taking what you say straight is a setup an us vs them kind of society. Those who are rich and can afford not to be tracked publicly will have an advantage over those who are helped by the public. Knowledge is power. One person who has knowledge while the other doesn't is a bad setup. Indeed, that is what we see today in a lot of ways. What you propose will further that widen the crack. I think we need to pull back more than what we have today or go further than what you propose.
Slashdot Mirror
I watched a couple of episodes with the same friggin ad being spewed over and over again. I couldn't take it. I stopped watching tv on the Internet and that was a couple of years ago.
I quit my local paper because they had crap articles. Articles with blatantly wrong information, contradicting information within the same paper on the same day, and ads that looked like news articles.
I have yet to see any (what I would consider) unbiased news from a regularly reliable source. I'd pay for that.
Yep, very much this. It always puzzles me why ads are so crappy on the Internet. Every website these days has all those Web2.0 features, yet ads are still completely passive, I can't rate them, I can't comment on them, I can't even link them and even when I click them they hardly ever lead me to the information about the product I actually seek.
And while we're tailoring ads, if I want to see ads for porn or my wife and I decide to buy some kinky stuff, I don't want ads for that kind of stuff shown when my church going neighbor and his twelve year old daughter come over and look at something on my computer. It needs to be flexible enough to come around when I want it too.
Before the Internet, stores sent out flyers via snail mail. There was no way to track individual users on a per click basis or a conversion basis. It seemed to work pretty well. Perhaps a return to something like that for the Internet?
Sorry to reply to myself. One more thing: I don't do gaming, but if the summary is to be believed, Destructoid is independent. That is worth money. See for a model. Of course, if Destructoid is getting money from advertisers, I question their independence.
1 penny? It would start to matter what a "page" constituted, but still most of the websites, say 95%. At this rate I could owe as much as a dollar or two per day.
Yeah, I can see what a page would constitute. You know those "news" sites that have 20 pages just to get through the entire article and you never see any meat for real news? That'll be 20 cents, thank you. You'll be paying a lot more than a buck or two per day.
As long as ad-based sites have this kind of mentality, then we the readers will shun this kind of stupidty.
Microtransactions should work -- as you indicate. Apparently, it doesn't make the elite few bizillions of dollars.
This. This is the solution that the poster wants: In house ads. If the ads are kept on their servers then they cannot be blocked but they also assume complete responsibility for what they show their customers. Their customers will know it is them who approved such ads. Go and read hairyfeet's responses to this article. There are lots of minefields we the readers are trying to avoid and could easily be brought in with this "new" method.
Make the ads in-house. Make sure the ads are not intrusive. Keep it simple. Simple means text and jpg. Text and jpg means virus free.
It will be interesting to see the evolution of ads and the commercial side of the Internet once this is common place.
One that I don't hear too often is "Why did the big bang happen?" Even if you answer all of the questions you raise, that one is still a big mystery. As you say, there is still a lot for science.
I went Windows 8. Now I have no background at all. Problem solved!
"Only a white man would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket and sew it to the bottom of a blanket and have a longer blanket."
-- Old Indian in response to Daylight Savings Time
People accuse me of being a luddite from time to time, but I only resist technology when society (or the people I talk with) refuse to confront hard questions like the one you bring up... especially if the talk degrades into an us vs them kind of argument. Yes, you raise very significant ethical questions to a very plausible idea. I wish more people asked these same questions you did before they became a reality.
I haven't seen Clonus, so I don't know, but there was a lawsuit about this. Check out the second trivia point on IMDB.
I told him my whole process of determination and experimentation. He was quite shocked. I knew he didn't believe me at first
You're lucky. A lot of doctors don't even want to give me the time of day. They could care less. I'd like to contribute what I've learned about my body, but what doctor would want to listen to me? I'm not in the medical industry. Did the doctor do any follow up to help others like you? Will your self diagnosis help someone else? If it were only that simple...
Nobody cares about my health more than me. Nobody will investigate my ailments more than me. That's why.
I've lived in three different states (in the U.S.) and in two different countries (U.S. and Germany) in 12 years. That's why.
I've had doctors give diagnosis and "remedies" to me that other doctors said was blatantly wrong and in one case unethical. I can't correct my record so subsequent doctors may be incorrectly influenced. That's why.
Because no one knows who owns my medical record. The doctor? The hospital? The office? Insurance company? Government? Someone needs to own my record to make good decisions. It's my life and my health. It should be me. That's why.
I don't subscribe to the "trust me" philosophy. I like to prove it. If my boss or my customer wants to know why I did something, I'll be happy to explain it to them. After a few rounds of ask-the-programmer, my customers and bosses tend to leave me alone because they trust me. Sometimes, they have legitimate questions. Sometimes it's to make sure the requirements and solutions have been properly communicated before implementation gets underway. I go out of my way to insure they understand what I'm doing and my customers are very happy with the results. If I told them to "politely fuck off", I wouldn't be trusted and rightly so.
Perhaps what's needed here is a two-section medical record. Things that should be shared with the patient, (which should be the default behavior) and things that should NOT be shared with them, for their own benefit. The patient should not be able to determine if the "not to share" section contains information or not.
Having a section that is secret is the same as having medical records withheld. I propose this: If the doctor wants to have a spot that is not part of my official record and are personal notes for him / her, then that's cool. When my record gets transferred to another doctor or another hospital, then that personal note does not.
If I shouldn't have access to my medical records, then who owns my medical records?
Joe doesn't know what he's doing and has been collecting a salary for a year. In the office, Joe not knowing what he's doing would be spotted by his co-workers / bosses relatively quickly and people would see Joe everyday and eventually single him out as the weakest link rather than take his word for it that it's going to be done correctly.
[Sniff] Well, if that's how you feel about me. But I'll have you know that I do an excellent job! [Sniffle.] You get all up and arms because I ask you to explain something that is not obvious from time to time... like how to use if-then statements and why functions have those parameter things. That's hard stuff, man! I don't know why you're going to back stab me like this! In a public forum nonetheless!
Give them a subscription to MSDN
Taking what you say one step further is where I get knotted up in my line of thinking:
People disagree with Card. People boycott him. They don't have to buy his work. I agree with that. Card's sales may plummet. He may say he's sorry because wants to put food on his table. Ok. Sounds reasonable. What if I put something online (out in public) that people disagree with?
I'm going to take a stance: I think the Republicans and the Democrats suck. What happens next? I get dinged not only from the right, but from the left as well. People do some homework, find what my real name is and now it's all over the Internet. On the right side, it's proclaimed "Common Joe disagrees with all Republicans!" On the left, "Common Joe disagrees with all Democrats!" People boycott me. I can't find a job. No sane company wants to have anything to do with me because my name is all over the Internet when they do a check. I certainly don't have the monetary reserves that Orson Scott Card has. Now, it really is a matter of food not being put on the table. It doesn't matter what kind of logical argument I give. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. I now have trouble eating because I've made a political statement. Is this right?
These days, I tend to keep my beliefs to myself and a select few friends who won't throw my under the bus for what I believe. I'm trying to branch out a bit with Slashdot and say a few things. I'm experimenting, but I'm always fearful that I may say something wrong one day which will get me in a lot of trouble and then I won't be able to find a job. Want an example?
First off, let me say that one of my closest friends is an African American and I've had numerous African American friends. (I don't call a person a friend easily.) Now for the controversial statement: Under certain circumstances, I fear African-Americans. I used to live in southern Louisiana. My group of close friends didn't care about race inside our circle. We were more interested in gaming or watching sci-fi movies. When we went out in public, we watched each others' backs. There were areas I couldn't go because I wasn't black and my race in a black neighborhood would get me killed. There were areas my black friends couldn't go because their race would get them killed. Some of us lived in some very rough neighborhoods. Some of them still do. I've had friends assaulted because they were white, lesbian, atheist, and educated. (Four different friends, four different instances; multiple races including white and black.)
I think it's pretty obvious that I don't fear African Americans. I'd bend over backwards for any of my friends regardless of their race.
Back to the topic at hand. I wonder how to let someone say something controversial in public (and even something I disagree with) without hurting them unfairly. If one of my friends something stupid, would I disown him as a friend? Not at first. I'd tell him he's stupid. If he gets really stupid, I'll even distance myself from him or her. If they go nutso, I'll probably drop them as a friend. It's happened a few times. One of them even came back years later, apologized, and we've been good buds since.
I buy movies made by scientologists. (I own Star Trek II. Kirstie Alley is a scientologist.) I draw the line at Tom Cruise and John Travolta -- I boycott them. I don't have a good way to draw the line.
He's free to say what he wants. I'm free to choose to boycott his work. His publisher is free to choose not to publish his work. His illustrator is free not to work with him. I'm sick and tired of people acting like free speech means speech without consequences. It doesn't. The government can't throw you in jail or treat you differently because of what you say (some exceptions to that rule of course), but everyone else is free to react as they see fit (within standard legal boundaries).
Any opinions on when to boycott someone's work? Any guidance on when people should allow someone to say something stupid without drastic consequences? Or should the sticks just fall as they may?
I just put my mother-in-law on Windows 8. No regrets because I did some of the same stuff you're talking about. It's not right for everyone, but it was right for her (and for me who has to support her). One caution: Windows 8 truly has a split personality. It has metro AND it has the desktop. A person who is going to be using Windows 8 on a laptop / desktop must understand this.
I don't know. I went through this with my mother-in-law recently... as in the past month. I went with Windows 8 and locked her down. I thought about going with another O.S., but in the end I decided to go with something we could both be somewhat reasonably comfortable with. In the end, I actually liked giving her Windows 8 because it limited her so much. That was quite a shock for me. I wouldn't recommend it straight out the box for very many people, but with her, it worked rather well. Another factor is that I just got a laptop with Windows 8 a couple of months before she got her laptop and I was able to familiarize myself with it. I'm not really a Mac or Linux person, although I do use Mint from time to time.
When you run Team Viewer as a stand alone program, you may have problems. Do a full install and as long as the user logged in has admin rights, you should be ok.
Depends on the problem. I just went through what the OP is going through. TeamViewer was a life saver last night. "My computer doesn't talk to the Internet!" She turned on the computer and didn't give it enough time to connect to the modem / router which was also just booting up. I turned on my team viewer and from across the city, Team Viewer told me that she was online. After that, solitaire didn't work. I could see what she was seeing and then I took control to help her out.
Now, granted, I just setup her laptop and I basically made myself admin and made her a typical user. I also limited the number of icons she saw. As much as I hate Windows 8 on a laptop, the limited number of choices (which I got down to about 10 choices) actually helps her. She's not computer literate at all. My mother-in-law got dragged into the Windows 8 world from Windows XP. I explained that the computer has a split personality (desktop vs Metro) and told her where to find email, solitaire, and her pictures. I even got the desktop to rotate through the photos and I have it auto-login to her account and got Team Viewer to auto start when the computer boots up. If there are any problems, she knows how to reboot and it gets her back to her happy place. Anything harder and I remote in.
Unless the computer cannot boot and make it online, I can help her remotely. I can even start up the camera and remote conference if I want. Pretty spiffy program. Wish I had that six years ago when I setup her last desktop. To help finish answering the OP's post, there were a few things I told her that she just had to learn. Get her off AOL. There's no future there. AOL is a portal. You can give her that with icons on a Windows 7 or 8 machine.
I don't disagree with you, but taking what you say straight is a setup an us vs them kind of society. Those who are rich and can afford not to be tracked publicly will have an advantage over those who are helped by the public. Knowledge is power. One person who has knowledge while the other doesn't is a bad setup. Indeed, that is what we see today in a lot of ways. What you propose will further that widen the crack. I think we need to pull back more than what we have today or go further than what you propose.