When you lose it, drop it, or otherwise break it, you're screwed. Look at how many people lose their cell phones | drop them in the toilet | can't remember where they left them...
If I somehow lose or destroy a $5 paperback, I'm out $5. How many would I have to lose before I reach the cost of 1 kindle?
Plus books look good on a shelf. I can find the exact book I'm looking for in seconds, and most of the time, with reference manuals, the exact page quickly enough - most reference books come with something called an "index" They even come with a meta-index - though they call it a "table of contents", so the whole "I can search it" is moot. Now, does it blend?
The segway didn't change transportation. Neither will the kindle change my reading habits. And it's a stupid name, to boot. "Kindle" - you can't even burn it
I've been telling my clients this for a long time. Of course, I am now working FT for another company, so see how well being honest has worked for me.;)
traceroute shows they're currently hosted on servers-etx.hgn.ca, which are located in Ontario, Canada.
Just move the server to another country, and tell the Ontario Transport Ministry to "Go Fuck Yourself", same as businesses in Quebec host their sites outside of Quebec and tell the Office de la langue francais "Mange la merde." The OLF always backs down when push comes to shove over the question of regulating internet content, since they don't have jurisdiction - the internet is regulated exclusively by the feds via the CRTC.
While they're at it, they should cite the CRTC regulations that make the internet solely federal jurisdiction, and again tell them to "Go Fuck Yourself - Twice."
Do you think it is possible that the Mom and Pops are not up on the latest technology (which would explain why they are looking to outsource their SEO) and possibly not aware that many SEO firms are basically scammers?
They already have a web site, so they have someone they can ask, rather than just take a strangers' word for it. Or they can just search for "SEO scam" or "search engine optimization scam". When I hear of something that I'm not sure of, I search for the terms + "fraud" or "scam" or "bogus".
Now if we could nuke all the keyword-stuffed "doorway pages"...
So basically they hired someone, and paid some tens of thousands of dollars... but they don't know what that person will do, nor what they'll get for their money?:P I mean, how stupid is that?
Chiropractors
Investment advisors
Fortune tellers
Rating agencies
Lawyers
Incomprehensible EULAs and closed source software upgrades that aren't really upgrades
419 scams
P3n15 3n14rg3m3nt pills
"sure thing" stock tips
"make money working at home - small investment required"
I'll join you. Let the SEO scumbuckets waste their mod points - they're ALL scum.
They lie. They mislead. They con. If Vlad the Impaler were around and there was any justice in the world, they'd be "Shit on a Stick".
You don't "build your brand" by being at the top of a search engine, but by giving customers what they want, in a convenient, cost-effective and timely manner. BTW, SEO "experts" are failures at building their own "brand", because we sure as shit don't think anything of them - or their pitiful phone pitches after trolling the whois database for contact info - "What - you don't want your customers to have more traffic?" Or their equally lame spam.
While you're right in all the points you make, it doesn't mean that the suckers are entirely blameless. They fall prey to their own greed, in wanting to believe that there's a "magic formula" to success, that rather than building up their business via good customer service and word of mouth, that throwing a few grand at some "web expert" will make them rich.
The business next to the office I work at told me they were going to use such a scumbag. I told him he was wasting his money. Sure enough, a couple of months later, he was complaining that he couldn't get hold of the guy any more. He's SOL because TTMAR (Take The Money And Run) is SOP for SEO "experts".
Word of mouth is still the best advertising that money can't buy.
As drives get bigger, the probability of a second failure gets larger as well. And we all know the rule - it's not a question of "if", but "when" a drive will fail.
Then there's the environmental cost of disposing of those hard drives, which isn't ever mentioned in those "green" calculations - and the environmental cost of producing more drives to take into account the higher failure rates.
Drives fail a lot more often than they used to, and its only when you try to recover files that you haven't touched in months that you realize that you have more than one bad drive, unless you have a process in the background constantly checking all those old files. Since terabyte and larger drives are now cheap commodity items, that background process is going to have to be scaled up over time.
12 years ago, you had to spend more for a 2 gig drive than you do today for a 1.5 terabyte drive. That 2 gig drive was managed by a cpu at 200 mhz. Todays' terabyte drive would need a cpu running at 100 ghz to have the same storage/cpu ratio. Now extrapolate to a future where your storage medium has a petabyte of data. You'll need to devote a chunk of cores just for constantly ensuring that your data is still readable.
This is slashdot - if you use TANSTAAFL, the grammar nazis will come after you about the double negative. If you don't recognize the Heinlein reference, and can't even google, it's time to turn in your geek card.
The cost of the hard drives is irrelevant. It's the data that's on them that counts. The bigger the drive in a raid, the more likely that the raid will fail during restoration, meaning you don't want to make it even less likely to be restorable because you're running the drives way too hot. But since you're running the drives way too hot, you need to build out extra redundancy, which also costs, both in capital costs, and in energy. TINSTAAFL.
With the prices on HDDs and the ease of use and availability of any sort of RAID configuration you can think of, the actual costs for replacing these parts when they fail, could very well be a fraction of the costs that would be required to make them function 'properly'.
Even if the hard disks were FREE, the cost of replacing them, both in downtime, and in labor, and in higher risk of cascading failures (second drive fails when restoring a raid5, requiring a full restore from backups), are more than the cost of proper cooling.
I have a better experiment. Prove to all of us that you are not an Internet addict: never post again.
That wouldn't prove anything, since the internet is more than just slashdot - but then again, since I don't believe in "internet addiction" any more than I believe in "sex addiction", I wouldn't have anything to prove anyway. By the way - "physician, heal thyself" - if you feel that's a good way to prove it, why not try to prove me wrong by taking your own advice. It would be one data point in your favour.
So, you can't argue against what I say, so you would rather kill the messenger... that's really lame. Even trollish.
Not all trolling is done with the sole intent of making people look stupid - some of it is designed to get people to think through their illogical positions. This whole "internet addiction" bullshit is one example.
Try this thought experiment: Lock an "internet addict" in a room with a pc and a connection to the world. Tell them that they have 2 choices - they can eat, or they can forfeit today's calorie for unlimited surfing for the day. Repeat. Tell them that if they eat, then surf, they lose both choices the next day - they will go hungry AND have no internet. Watch how quickly they lose their "addiction" and learn to HATE the internet.
If you're smelling my lungs, you might be a bit close in, eh?
Some of us are hypersensitive and/or allergic to tobacco smoke. I can't stand it - it out and out stinks. Ditto for weed. At one place I worked, a coworker came in, and from 10 feet away, I said "You've been having a little 'fun time'." "That was hours ago. You should work for the RCMP as a sniffer dog."
It stinks. It reeks, even at very low levels. When I walk my dogs, I notice it outdoors. Last night is a good example - I smelled the stink of a cigarette, turned the corner, and sure enough, there was someone sitting outside, several hundred feet away, smoking.
Next we can expect companies will begin to use cancer sniffing dogs at job interviews, and at quarterly employee reviews so that they will be able to avoid hiring someone... or be able to dismiss an employee for some trumped up reason (sorry, we just downsized your position)... so that they can avoid the financial impact on their group health insurance policy.
No problem - just have your "service dog" that accompanies you be a bitch in heat:-) Heck, just petting a dog in heat for a minute of two, you'll be good for an hour.
Dogs sense of smell is about what, 1,000 times or more acute than humans? I had one who could find a piece of frozen bread thrown out for the birds the night before, under a foot of freshly fallen snow. Picking out someone who's smoked in the last DAY would be a lot easier.
I'm still having real trouble seeing why you have such vitriolic, holier-than-thou rants, written at great length, reserved for the overweight. Did a fat guy kill your dog last week, or what?
Tis isn't a weight problem... it's a stupidity problem. And btw, lard-arsed parents telling their kids to diet is hypocritical. They should be setting the example.
The same goes for smoking, or any other "lifestyle disease." Parents telling their kids not to smoke because it's unhealthy, but they keep right on lighting up - that's a formula for failure.
Plenty of people can go into their kitchen without eating everything in sight. Heck, since you brought up dogs, even my dogs don't empty their food bowls. They eat when they're hungry, not just because there's food available.
Maybe because dogs can also be trained to detect cancer earlier by the smell. Kill 2 birds with one stone: "The dog says you're still smoking, and btw, you probably have cancer. You might want to get that checked."
Slashdot Mirror
Riiiight .... nobody uses a laptop to surf the web and, you know, read stuff ...
When you lose it, drop it, or otherwise break it, you're screwed. Look at how many people lose their cell phones | drop them in the toilet | can't remember where they left them ...
If I somehow lose or destroy a $5 paperback, I'm out $5. How many would I have to lose before I reach the cost of 1 kindle?
Plus books look good on a shelf. I can find the exact book I'm looking for in seconds, and most of the time, with reference manuals, the exact page quickly enough - most reference books come with something called an "index" They even come with a meta-index - though they call it a "table of contents", so the whole "I can search it" is moot. Now, does it blend?
The segway didn't change transportation. Neither will the kindle change my reading habits. And it's a stupid name, to boot. "Kindle" - you can't even burn it
There - fixed it to reflect the reality of cracked cellphones being available all over the place.
No good deed goes unpunished.
They've got a sure-fire plan - "We'll kill off humanity to save it."
traceroute shows they're currently hosted on servers-etx.hgn.ca, which are located in Ontario, Canada.
Just move the server to another country, and tell the Ontario Transport Ministry to "Go Fuck Yourself", same as businesses in Quebec host their sites outside of Quebec and tell the Office de la langue francais "Mange la merde." The OLF always backs down when push comes to shove over the question of regulating internet content, since they don't have jurisdiction - the internet is regulated exclusively by the feds via the CRTC.
While they're at it, they should cite the CRTC regulations that make the internet solely federal jurisdiction, and again tell them to "Go Fuck Yourself - Twice."
They already have a web site, so they have someone they can ask, rather than just take a strangers' word for it. Or they can just search for "SEO scam" or "search engine optimization scam". When I hear of something that I'm not sure of, I search for the terms + "fraud" or "scam" or "bogus".
Now if we could nuke all the keyword-stuffed "doorway pages" ...
If Ballmer *didn't* know that Vista was crap, then he is incompetent. If he *did*, then he's a crook. Pick one.
On second thought, pick both - incompetent crook is SO reminiscent of the "Old Microsoft".
Just look at what Microsoft's biggest selling point for Windows 7 boils down to - "It isn't Vista."
I'm sure you can add more ...
That's why, between every interleave, you do a few over-the-hand shuffles.
I'll join you. Let the SEO scumbuckets waste their mod points - they're ALL scum.
They lie. They mislead. They con. If Vlad the Impaler were around and there was any justice in the world, they'd be "Shit on a Stick".
You don't "build your brand" by being at the top of a search engine, but by giving customers what they want, in a convenient, cost-effective and timely manner. BTW, SEO "experts" are failures at building their own "brand", because we sure as shit don't think anything of them - or their pitiful phone pitches after trolling the whois database for contact info - "What - you don't want your customers to have more traffic?" Or their equally lame spam.
Die, SEO, die!
While you're right in all the points you make, it doesn't mean that the suckers are entirely blameless. They fall prey to their own greed, in wanting to believe that there's a "magic formula" to success, that rather than building up their business via good customer service and word of mouth, that throwing a few grand at some "web expert" will make them rich.
The business next to the office I work at told me they were going to use such a scumbag. I told him he was wasting his money. Sure enough, a couple of months later, he was complaining that he couldn't get hold of the guy any more. He's SOL because TTMAR (Take The Money And Run) is SOP for SEO "experts".
Word of mouth is still the best advertising that money can't buy.
As drives get bigger, the probability of a second failure gets larger as well. And we all know the rule - it's not a question of "if", but "when" a drive will fail.
Then there's the environmental cost of disposing of those hard drives, which isn't ever mentioned in those "green" calculations - and the environmental cost of producing more drives to take into account the higher failure rates.
Drives fail a lot more often than they used to, and its only when you try to recover files that you haven't touched in months that you realize that you have more than one bad drive, unless you have a process in the background constantly checking all those old files. Since terabyte and larger drives are now cheap commodity items, that background process is going to have to be scaled up over time.
12 years ago, you had to spend more for a 2 gig drive than you do today for a 1.5 terabyte drive. That 2 gig drive was managed by a cpu at 200 mhz. Todays' terabyte drive would need a cpu running at 100 ghz to have the same storage/cpu ratio. Now extrapolate to a future where your storage medium has a petabyte of data. You'll need to devote a chunk of cores just for constantly ensuring that your data is still readable.
This is slashdot - if you use TANSTAAFL, the grammar nazis will come after you about the double negative. If you don't recognize the Heinlein reference, and can't even google, it's time to turn in your geek card.
... or you might be stuck with those Chinese "Maxtorgates" that have a worse than 50% DOA, which solves the problem ...
The cost of the hard drives is irrelevant. It's the data that's on them that counts. The bigger the drive in a raid, the more likely that the raid will fail during restoration, meaning you don't want to make it even less likely to be restorable because you're running the drives way too hot. But since you're running the drives way too hot, you need to build out extra redundancy, which also costs, both in capital costs, and in energy. TINSTAAFL.
Even if the hard disks were FREE, the cost of replacing them, both in downtime, and in labor, and in higher risk of cascading failures (second drive fails when restoring a raid5, requiring a full restore from backups), are more than the cost of proper cooling.
... and convert a Green Data Center into a Nuke Site.
THAT would be news.
That wouldn't prove anything, since the internet is more than just slashdot - but then again, since I don't believe in "internet addiction" any more than I believe in "sex addiction", I wouldn't have anything to prove anyway. By the way - "physician, heal thyself" - if you feel that's a good way to prove it, why not try to prove me wrong by taking your own advice. It would be one data point in your favour.
So, you can't argue against what I say, so you would rather kill the messenger ... that's really lame. Even trollish.
Not all trolling is done with the sole intent of making people look stupid - some of it is designed to get people to think through their illogical positions. This whole "internet addiction" bullshit is one example.
Try this thought experiment: Lock an "internet addict" in a room with a pc and a connection to the world. Tell them that they have 2 choices - they can eat, or they can forfeit today's calorie for unlimited surfing for the day. Repeat. Tell them that if they eat, then surf, they lose both choices the next day - they will go hungry AND have no internet. Watch how quickly they lose their "addiction" and learn to HATE the internet.
Some of us are hypersensitive and/or allergic to tobacco smoke. I can't stand it - it out and out stinks. Ditto for weed. At one place I worked, a coworker came in, and from 10 feet away, I said "You've been having a little 'fun time'." "That was hours ago. You should work for the RCMP as a sniffer dog."
It stinks. It reeks, even at very low levels. When I walk my dogs, I notice it outdoors. Last night is a good example - I smelled the stink of a cigarette, turned the corner, and sure enough, there was someone sitting outside, several hundred feet away, smoking.
No problem - just have your "service dog" that accompanies you be a bitch in heat :-) Heck, just petting a dog in heat for a minute of two, you'll be good for an hour.
Dogs sense of smell is about what, 1,000 times or more acute than humans? I had one who could find a piece of frozen bread thrown out for the birds the night before, under a foot of freshly fallen snow. Picking out someone who's smoked in the last DAY would be a lot easier.
No, but I think that parents who let their kids eat crap because they don't want to take the time to actually BE parents, should be taken out to the woodshed and given a good whipping. Or a kick in the head. Or any other form of physical punishment that it takes to make them get off their own fat asses and start supervising their kids rather than watching TV. This applies to both parents, btw.
How frakking stupid do you have to be to say you didn't realize that a 7-year-old weighting 420 pounds is a problem? Or this? This?
Tis isn't a weight problem ... it's a stupidity problem. And btw, lard-arsed parents telling their kids to diet is hypocritical. They should be setting the example.
The same goes for smoking, or any other "lifestyle disease." Parents telling their kids not to smoke because it's unhealthy, but they keep right on lighting up - that's a formula for failure.
Plenty of people can go into their kitchen without eating everything in sight. Heck, since you brought up dogs, even my dogs don't empty their food bowls. They eat when they're hungry, not just because there's food available.
Maybe because dogs can also be trained to detect cancer earlier by the smell. Kill 2 birds with one stone: "The dog says you're still smoking, and btw, you probably have cancer. You might want to get that checked."