Actually it's the other way around. Research has shown that pop-unders are more effective then pop-up adds. The reason is this. If you have an ad that is blocking what you want to see, you are more likely to close it then go over to that new site. However, after you are done with reading what you want to see and you close the browser, the pop-under is now visible and you can devote your attention to that.
It's not just about impressions, but the effectiveness of it. and pop-unders are definitely more effective. I mean, personally, I've click on Orbitz's pop-under ad because I may be interested in a cheap flight. But if it was a pop-up on some site that I'm reading, I have 3 choices, minimize it, click it, or close it. Most people assume that when they click it, it will take over their current page. The majority of the people when dealing with pop-ups, automatically close it without reading it.
I hope you are just joking about this. Because this will set a horrible precedence going into the future. I mean, what's going to be next? Patent using tables to layout web sites? Patent the use of 1 pixel gifs to place images?
Ah..I wish I could use this argument for my college tuition.
Yes, I feel that the 34,000 a year is too expensive for my college education. Since I don't want to pay that much, the college should lower the tuition. Since they don't, and I don't want to go to community college, I should get it for free.
Oh please, can you talk to my financial aid committee for me..:-)
But on a serious note, why do we assume that since we can't afford it, we should get it for free. I mean, if I were getting my drivers license, and I don't have a car. And cars are too expensive, should I be allowed to "borrow" one from the dealer because I'm using it for learning purposes?
Back in my.. "younger" days, I was one of those people. I'd burn cdrs just for the sake of having it. I mean, you're right, it's part of the "elite" (not l33t, [stupid kids these days!]) factor. It's also as a way to demonstrate that 1) the system doesn't work 2) you can get around the system...etc...
Probably even before that. What I meant was that it didn't hit the mainstream / mainstream media until the late 80s and early 90s. In addition, the impact during that point (the 70s) wasn't as great as later on. With the BBS, internet, CD burners, etc piracy makes it extremely easier than back in the 70s.
I remember "copying" dos 5.0 from my friend using 5.25" floppies. I had to run 10 blocks to his house with a box of disks than bring it back to install it. This physical distance between people limit their ability to pirate on a wide scale. With bbs's/internet, the "friction" is dramatically reduced. The impact of piracy hits harder. Software/media/music can be spread to millions of people before it even hits the store shelves.
The problem with that is this. At one point or another this "kid" that is learning is going to find out that he can make money doing some flash work or photoshop work. Is he going to say that, Oh, I have the "kids" version, I can't do that, I need to buy the full version? Or is he just going to go ahead an use it.
Secondly, you mention nominal cost (under 100). Do you think people that pirate the software will even pay that much? $100 is still a lot of money for a person that is used to receiving it for free.
I don't feel that price is the main issue/reason that piracy is so rampant. Whether a program is 500 or 50, people will still pirate it. The main issue here is that people that have been growing up with computers in recent years and in the past 20 years or so have become so accustomed to getting things for free or cheap. Most of the necessary apps come pre-installed on computers. Many of us download music (mp3s) for free. On the internet, most of the sites are free. If we are into open-source, the os, apps, and stuff are all free. How do you get it into someones head that they need to buy something if they or their friends can get it for free.
There's nothing new about this "news" article. We all know piracy runs pretty rampant on the net. We all know that many (including us), justify it by saying that
It's too expensive
I'm just using it for educational purposes
I wouldn't have bought it anyways
People have been saying this since the mid-90s where we were downloading "warez" from BBS's.
Not necessarily "more efficient than oil," but Hybrid-electric cars will dramatically increase the miles per gallon for the cars and also reduce pollution. Back in March, the oil companies and car companies lobbied congress to kill a bill that gave rebates for buying a hybrid car.
To some extent that's true. But it's like that in a lot of industries. PhD in math, econ, etc. But a lot of major companies that have been around and know what they are doing (unlike.coms that were in it for the quickest bang for the buck), they have a group of PhDs that have the experience and are able to get things done right (not necessarily fast). For example, Google is the company that has the most PhD employees to total employee ratio. Intel, Sun, IBM, and many others have a huge supply of PhDs.
Let's put it this way, your time and effort put into getting your PhD will be rewarded. Given a choice between a PhD and a fresh college grad, many employers will choose the PhD.
I think this is true in a lot of industries. It seems like engineers inherently have this natural desire to learn more and more about anything that they can (ie "hack"). But it is the management, sales, and the b-school grads that are looking to maximize their investment.
If the world was run by engineers, I'd think we'd be a lot more advanced than where we are now. Just as a single example, OIL! Science has proven that there are more efficient alternative energy that are out there than OIL. But the big oil companies don't want to see this happen.
Ever since the whole deal with Kazaa and spyware and using your computer for distibuted computing, I've uninstalled and left them for good. Come on...think about it. If a company does not have the "consumer's" best interests in mind, it will not be able to succeed. What are they going to do when there is a major security issue that opens up your private data to the world? "Ooops..who cares..not my fault..they aren't paying us"
you make it sound like MS is the only one doing this. As the article suggested, they wanted to price it higher, but had to compete with the lower priced PS2
Actually I think "reduction in cost" was Moore's addendum to the law from the late 80s/early-90s. Sometimes this has been referred to as Moore's 2nd Law.
That's my point. It is easy to make a cartoon look human-like (such as in FF). But you still know it's an animation. That's what I meant when I said that it is difficult to animate a real person (ie non-cartoon character). However, what they did was different. They took the original video and modified it.
Try telling that to all the companies that have received corporate tax credits in the last 10 years. There are some major companies like GE or Ford and oil companies that haven't paid taxes for like years now. You'd think companies should pay more because they make more money..but that's not how it works in this government.
The difference is that they take a video of a human rather than build the image up from wireframe. Basically, they can take a video of say President Bush and have him say stuff that he didn't say. In FF, it's obviously a cartoon image talking. It's easy to build a cartoon of a human but it is difficult to animate a real person that you can compare videos with.
True it is insecure. But the problem is that there is a common belief that it is secure. When this mindset gets into the people, they trust it without checking/verifying the security.
For example, let's say that some scientist said that he invented a calculator that is almost never wrong. Now a common person using this would assume that it is always right. They aren't going to double check the results when they see that 2+2=5. I've simplified it a lot, but I mean, how often do you double check the receipts after you buy stuff at the grocery store? I think Dateline had reported that 3 out of 10 items at grocery stores are usually rung out wrong.
The thing with credit cards and cash is that merchants know what to watch out for. (ie strip of paper inside cash, checking with bank with credit card).. In addition, most of the times, you need access to the credit card number or the CC itself. But for a finger print, if someone steals it, you can't call up a bank and tell them that someone is using your finger print and you want them to cancel it. Also, if everyone assumes it's so secure, are they going to believe you and have the same security features (such as you not being responsible for the charges) when you report it "stolen"
The only way it would work is for your fingerprint to replace your signature...even then, there's still some inherent insecurities..
This happens a lot in a variety of industries. Mainly high end electronics and also for video tapes/cds/dvds. They sell it to the stores for a lot cheaper and tell them that to get it for that price, they have to sell at a certain price. They are not legally bound to do so, but if they sell below a certain price, they will not receive free promotional material and other ramifications. You'll see that video tapes, DVD, and CDs have a set price that they sell out.
Occasionally though, you'll find a resaler that won't care and sell it to you for cheaper..but it's a hush hush type of thing.
Just look at the cell phone market. They give away $50+ cellphones for free to people that sign up. Their business model is working. The console market has been doing this for ages, it's not something that MS decided to do to this market.
GTA3.. coming out next week for the PC! I've also been waiting ages for this. But so that they didn't have to delay anymore [and probably make people pay,] they are making the online multiplayer part an addon feature, not part of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it's the other way around. Research has shown that pop-unders are more effective then pop-up adds. The reason is this. If you have an ad that is blocking what you want to see, you are more likely to close it then go over to that new site. However, after you are done with reading what you want to see and you close the browser, the pop-under is now visible and you can devote your attention to that.
It's not just about impressions, but the effectiveness of it. and pop-unders are definitely more effective. I mean, personally, I've click on Orbitz's pop-under ad because I may be interested in a cheap flight. But if it was a pop-up on some site that I'm reading, I have 3 choices, minimize it, click it, or close it. Most people assume that when they click it, it will take over their current page. The majority of the people when dealing with pop-ups, automatically close it without reading it.
I'm for that too.. I remember back in 1994 when I used the "internet" for the very first time. So empty, so pure...
Remember the days of BBS's and such..ahh...
In addition, skanky semi-nude girls will keep appearing everywhere you go to lure you to the strip club.
I hope you are just joking about this. Because this will set a horrible precedence going into the future. I mean, what's going to be next? Patent using tables to layout web sites? Patent the use of 1 pixel gifs to place images?
Ah..I wish I could use this argument for my college tuition.
:-)
Yes, I feel that the 34,000 a year is too expensive for my college education. Since I don't want to pay that much, the college should lower the tuition. Since they don't, and I don't want to go to community college, I should get it for free.
Oh please, can you talk to my financial aid committee for me..
But on a serious note, why do we assume that since we can't afford it, we should get it for free. I mean, if I were getting my drivers license, and I don't have a car. And cars are too expensive, should I be allowed to "borrow" one from the dealer because I'm using it for learning purposes?
Back in my .. "younger" days, I was one of those people. I'd burn cdrs just for the sake of having it. I mean, you're right, it's part of the "elite" (not l33t, [stupid kids these days!]) factor. It's also as a way to demonstrate that 1) the system doesn't work 2) you can get around the system...etc...
Probably even before that. What I meant was that it didn't hit the mainstream / mainstream media until the late 80s and early 90s. In addition, the impact during that point (the 70s) wasn't as great as later on. With the BBS, internet, CD burners, etc piracy makes it extremely easier than back in the 70s.
I remember "copying" dos 5.0 from my friend using 5.25" floppies. I had to run 10 blocks to his house with a box of disks than bring it back to install it. This physical distance between people limit their ability to pirate on a wide scale. With bbs's/internet, the "friction" is dramatically reduced. The impact of piracy hits harder. Software/media/music can be spread to millions of people before it even hits the store shelves.
The problem with that is this. At one point or another this "kid" that is learning is going to find out that he can make money doing some flash work or photoshop work. Is he going to say that, Oh, I have the "kids" version, I can't do that, I need to buy the full version? Or is he just going to go ahead an use it.
Secondly, you mention nominal cost (under 100). Do you think people that pirate the software will even pay that much? $100 is still a lot of money for a person that is used to receiving it for free.
I don't feel that price is the main issue/reason that piracy is so rampant. Whether a program is 500 or 50, people will still pirate it. The main issue here is that people that have been growing up with computers in recent years and in the past 20 years or so have become so accustomed to getting things for free or cheap. Most of the necessary apps come pre-installed on computers. Many of us download music (mp3s) for free. On the internet, most of the sites are free. If we are into open-source, the os, apps, and stuff are all free. How do you get it into someones head that they need to buy something if they or their friends can get it for free.
People have been saying this since the mid-90s where we were downloading "warez" from BBS's.
Not necessarily "more efficient than oil," but Hybrid-electric cars will dramatically increase the miles per gallon for the cars and also reduce pollution. Back in March, the oil companies and car companies lobbied congress to kill a bill that gave rebates for buying a hybrid car.
To some extent that's true. But it's like that in a lot of industries. PhD in math, econ, etc. But a lot of major companies that have been around and know what they are doing (unlike .coms that were in it for the quickest bang for the buck), they have a group of PhDs that have the experience and are able to get things done right (not necessarily fast). For example, Google is the company that has the most PhD employees to total employee ratio. Intel, Sun, IBM, and many others have a huge supply of PhDs.
Let's put it this way, your time and effort put into getting your PhD will be rewarded. Given a choice between a PhD and a fresh college grad, many employers will choose the PhD.
College + 2 years of pharmacy school. Don't need residence period neither that doctors have to go through after Med school...
I think this is true in a lot of industries. It seems like engineers inherently have this natural desire to learn more and more about anything that they can (ie "hack"). But it is the management, sales, and the b-school grads that are looking to maximize their investment.
If the world was run by engineers, I'd think we'd be a lot more advanced than where we are now. Just as a single example, OIL! Science has proven that there are more efficient alternative energy that are out there than OIL. But the big oil companies don't want to see this happen.
Ever since the whole deal with Kazaa and spyware and using your computer for distibuted computing, I've uninstalled and left them for good. Come on...think about it. If a company does not have the "consumer's" best interests in mind, it will not be able to succeed. What are they going to do when there is a major security issue that opens up your private data to the world? "Ooops..who cares..not my fault..they aren't paying us"
Kazaa has turned into bad news waiting to happen.
you make it sound like MS is the only one doing this. As the article suggested, they wanted to price it higher, but had to compete with the lower priced PS2
Actually I think "reduction in cost" was Moore's addendum to the law from the late 80s/early-90s. Sometimes this has been referred to as Moore's 2nd Law.
yup...but they filmed it at the same time. They are coming out within a couple months of each other...
Isn't that what all movies are about? I mean, suspension of disbelief?
That's my point. It is easy to make a cartoon look human-like (such as in FF). But you still know it's an animation. That's what I meant when I said that it is difficult to animate a real person (ie non-cartoon character). However, what they did was different. They took the original video and modified it.
Try telling that to all the companies that have received corporate tax credits in the last 10 years. There are some major companies like GE or Ford and oil companies that haven't paid taxes for like years now. You'd think companies should pay more because they make more money..but that's not how it works in this government.
The difference is that they take a video of a human rather than build the image up from wireframe. Basically, they can take a video of say President Bush and have him say stuff that he didn't say. In FF, it's obviously a cartoon image talking. It's easy to build a cartoon of a human but it is difficult to animate a real person that you can compare videos with.
True it is insecure. But the problem is that there is a common belief that it is secure. When this mindset gets into the people, they trust it without checking/verifying the security.
For example, let's say that some scientist said that he invented a calculator that is almost never wrong. Now a common person using this would assume that it is always right. They aren't going to double check the results when they see that 2+2=5. I've simplified it a lot, but I mean, how often do you double check the receipts after you buy stuff at the grocery store? I think Dateline had reported that 3 out of 10 items at grocery stores are usually rung out wrong.
The thing with credit cards and cash is that merchants know what to watch out for. (ie strip of paper inside cash, checking with bank with credit card).. In addition, most of the times, you need access to the credit card number or the CC itself. But for a finger print, if someone steals it, you can't call up a bank and tell them that someone is using your finger print and you want them to cancel it. Also, if everyone assumes it's so secure, are they going to believe you and have the same security features (such as you not being responsible for the charges) when you report it "stolen"
The only way it would work is for your fingerprint to replace your signature...even then, there's still some inherent insecurities..
This happens a lot in a variety of industries. Mainly high end electronics and also for video tapes/cds/dvds. They sell it to the stores for a lot cheaper and tell them that to get it for that price, they have to sell at a certain price. They are not legally bound to do so, but if they sell below a certain price, they will not receive free promotional material and other ramifications. You'll see that video tapes, DVD, and CDs have a set price that they sell out.
Occasionally though, you'll find a resaler that won't care and sell it to you for cheaper..but it's a hush hush type of thing.
Just look at the cell phone market. They give away $50+ cellphones for free to people that sign up. Their business model is working. The console market has been doing this for ages, it's not something that MS decided to do to this market.
GTA3 .. coming out next week for the PC! I've also been waiting ages for this. But so that they didn't have to delay anymore [and probably make people pay,] they are making the online multiplayer part an addon feature, not part of the game.