2.1 billion is a lot of books no matter how you slice it.
As for school literacy rates, well the CIA Factbook says 97% literacy in the U.S. Factor in a lot of Eskimos and whatnot... that's not too bad. It's not Australia's 100%, but then, they have their own problems.
I am not saying that Americans are a literature-loving lot. I am saying that glibly denouncing 260 million people (130 million if that's the way you want it) out of hand is an easy way to exhibit the lack of intelligence the original poser condemns.
Ads are only successful when they are annoying/intrusive.
Depends on your definition of "successful." I will never, ever buy anything from those X-10 fuckers, and their ads are about as annoying as you can get. On the other hand, E-Mu/Ensonic has never pitched to me outside of a music store, but I think they are a great company, and I buy lots of their stuff.
If the marketing people would remove their heads from their asses and realize you need to engage the market and not give it the bird, well, the world would be a lot better for it.
Uh, the Web is not TV. Trying to impose TV's economic models on webpages is a large part of the reason so many people are writing magazine articles about the good ol' dot-com days now.
In time, the annoying popups will have to go away, quite simply because they interfere with the process of reading, which is what one does on the Web. TV you just watch. A commercial comes on, you go take a shit or get a beer.
Imagine you are reading a magazine article. Some asshole comes in and slaps an ad down on top of same. Now you are getting the picture.
This is not a sustainable source of income, anymore than if advertisers actually punched you in the stomach and then handed you a flyer. In time, even the marketing people should come to realize that they can't jerk around potential customers like this and expect them to actually buy stuff.
Then the Web will necessarily become a much more pleasant place.
ROTFLMAO... no, they change a few words and then print them as news.
Your cynical notions to the contrary, newspapers that do that lose the respect of the journalistic establishment very quickly. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but journalism is nevertheless built on a code of ethics that the search engine companies wouldn't touch with a remote-controlled robot.
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power." -FDR
I usually try to avoid the phrase "people like you," but if democracy ((is) | (is becoming)) a farce, it's because of... [you finish the sentence].
Newspapers are a business, but you don't (well, you didn't once upon a time) see them printing corporate press releases as news.
Oh no, they're not swayed or biased in any way. They post the truth, no matter how it affects the parent company. No reporter is ever told that a story should be buried..
Just because journalistic integrity is frequently ignored doesn't mean that it simply doesn't exist. The fact is that journalism grew up with such a concept -- a concept which is still dear to many journalists and editors despite the growing influence of money. Don't be such a cynic -- it's boring.
Search engines grew up with principles too -- egalitarianism used to be among them, but money drove that out pretty quickly, didn't it? Am I saying that that should not be the case? Not really. Am I saying it is a drag? Most certainly.
There is no democracy in business. The CEO is god, and you do what s/he says.
Huh. I'm looking at my copy of the Constitution, and I don't see that clause.
A barrier to entry? Do you show up in the search? Yes. Then who cares. You just got FREE ADVERTISIING. A search engine IS ALL ADVERTISING.
If you look at it through the lens of capitalism then yes, it is advertising. My larger point is that it is sad that we don't seem to have any other lenses in the box anymore.
The Internet is NOT airwaves.
Gee, thanks for the insight, but I think I more or less pointed that out already myself.
You can put up any site you want, at any time you want, and have EVERYONE in the world visit your site for a meager $5/mo at a hosting company. No restrictions.
None for the moment anyway, but things may change. Who's preventing it? The CEO is god, remember?
Now you're whining that your advertisting (serch engine = The WORLD's YellowPages) should be free? Hell. Why should I have to pay $5/mo for someone to 'store' my message? That should be free too. And my Internet Access should be free, because I already bought a PC, and I have a radio, and the radio is free, so why not the internet?
Well, my point seems to have whizzed past you like some sort of super hero. The question I posed had nothing to do with not paying for goods and services at all. I simply wonder if anyone else cares that a resource which was once open (open != free necessarily) and largely public is becoming increasingly closed and private.
Beyond that, to address this and most of the responses to my reply to the original post, I say once again, I think it is amazing how many people here respond to issues like this soley in economic terms, as though there are simply no valid viewpoints. It reminds me very much of people's fascination with sports stars' salaries...
1) To those who say, "Hey, AltaVista is a business. Can you blame them?" Yes, we can blame them. Newspapers are a business, but you don't (well, you didn't once upon a time) see them printing corporate press releases as news.
2) It's kinda funny to me how many people respond to this strictly in terms of capitalism. What ever happened to democracy? I realize that the original promise of the 'Net is drying up faster than liquid nitrogen, but still, someone needs to say it.
Let's imagine that Google goes out of business. Poof -- suddenly you can't do a search without having to turn to a paid search engine. Yeah, yeah, search engines suck anyway, but... unless I am running linuxisbitchin.org, they are a good way to get people to come to my site (I run a humor site and do not blanch at appearances of.aol in my logs). However, if $$$ is causing me to be marginalized, that ceases to be a tool for me.
Ultimately, it seems to me the barrier to entry is being raised here. I understand quite well that search engines are not the only way to promote a site, but from a strictly democratic point of view, this leaves one in a situation that's like running for President with nothing but a bunch of bumper stickers, while your competition has access to the airwaves.
3) A philosophical question, really. The airwaves are supposed to be a public resource, according to the FCC charter. Since the airwaves are regularly sold lock, stock, and barrel to companies that couldn't possibly give a shit about the public good despite this, what protects the Internet, given that the infrastructure is owned by a zillion institutions and there is no charter to speak of?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay guy, but not the sharpest tack in the drawer.
You keep your tacks in a drawer? Just loose? I keep mine in a small box.
2.1 billion is a lot of books no matter how you slice it.
As for school literacy rates, well the CIA Factbook says 97% literacy in the U.S. Factor in a lot of Eskimos and whatnot... that's not too bad. It's not Australia's 100%, but then, they have their own problems.
I am not saying that Americans are a literature-loving lot. I am saying that glibly denouncing 260 million people (130 million if that's the way you want it) out of hand is an easy way to exhibit the lack of intelligence the original poser condemns.
2.1 billion books sold in the U.S. in 1995.
It's easy to condemn American anti-intellectualism, especially when you are not in command of the facts.
What's up with the link in this article?
Ads are only successful when they are annoying/intrusive.
Depends on your definition of "successful." I will never, ever buy anything from those X-10 fuckers, and their ads are about as annoying as you can get. On the other hand, E-Mu/Ensonic has never pitched to me outside of a music store, but I think they are a great company, and I buy lots of their stuff.
If the marketing people would remove their heads from their asses and realize you need to engage the market and not give it the bird, well, the world would be a lot better for it.
Uh, the Web is not TV. Trying to impose TV's economic models on webpages is a large part of the reason so many people are writing magazine articles about the good ol' dot-com days now.
In time, the annoying popups will have to go away, quite simply because they interfere with the process of reading, which is what one does on the Web. TV you just watch. A commercial comes on, you go take a shit or get a beer.
Imagine you are reading a magazine article. Some asshole comes in and slaps an ad down on top of same. Now you are getting the picture.
This is not a sustainable source of income, anymore than if advertisers actually punched you in the stomach and then handed you a flyer. In time, even the marketing people should come to realize that they can't jerk around potential customers like this and expect them to actually buy stuff.
Then the Web will necessarily become a much more pleasant place.
G'nite.
ROTFLMAO... no, they change a few words and then print them as news.
Your cynical notions to the contrary, newspapers that do that lose the respect of the journalistic establishment very quickly. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but journalism is nevertheless built on a code of ethics that the search engine companies wouldn't touch with a remote-controlled robot.
p.s. Cynicism is so 1992. Get with it.
Democracy is being voted off the island.
Democracy is a farce. Wake up.
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power." -FDR
I usually try to avoid the phrase "people like you," but if democracy ((is) | (is becoming)) a farce, it's because of ... [you finish the sentence].
Oh no, they're not swayed or biased in any way. They post the truth, no matter how it affects the parent company. No reporter is ever told that a story should be buried..
Just because journalistic integrity is frequently ignored doesn't mean that it simply doesn't exist. The fact is that journalism grew up with such a concept -- a concept which is still dear to many journalists and editors despite the growing influence of money. Don't be such a cynic -- it's boring.
Search engines grew up with principles too -- egalitarianism used to be among them, but money drove that out pretty quickly, didn't it? Am I saying that that should not be the case? Not really. Am I saying it is a drag? Most certainly.
There is no democracy in business. The CEO is god, and you do what s/he says.
Huh. I'm looking at my copy of the Constitution, and I don't see that clause.
A barrier to entry? Do you show up in the search? Yes. Then who cares. You just got FREE ADVERTISIING. A search engine IS ALL ADVERTISING.
If you look at it through the lens of capitalism then yes, it is advertising. My larger point is that it is sad that we don't seem to have any other lenses in the box anymore.
The Internet is NOT airwaves.
Gee, thanks for the insight, but I think I more or less pointed that out already myself.
You can put up any site you want, at any time you want, and have EVERYONE in the world visit your site for a meager $5/mo at a hosting company. No restrictions.
None for the moment anyway, but things may change. Who's preventing it? The CEO is god, remember?
Now you're whining that your advertisting (serch engine = The WORLD's YellowPages) should be free? Hell. Why should I have to pay $5/mo for someone to 'store' my message? That should be free too. And my Internet Access should be free, because I already bought a PC, and I have a radio, and the radio is free, so why not the internet?
Well, my point seems to have whizzed past you like some sort of super hero. The question I posed had nothing to do with not paying for goods and services at all. I simply wonder if anyone else cares that a resource which was once open (open != free necessarily) and largely public is becoming increasingly closed and private.
Beyond that, to address this and most of the responses to my reply to the original post, I say once again, I think it is amazing how many people here respond to issues like this soley in economic terms, as though there are simply no valid viewpoints. It reminds me very much of people's fascination with sports stars' salaries...
A few points:
1) To those who say, "Hey, AltaVista is a business. Can you blame them?" Yes, we can blame them. Newspapers are a business, but you don't (well, you didn't once upon a time) see them printing corporate press releases as news.
2) It's kinda funny to me how many people respond to this strictly in terms of capitalism. What ever happened to democracy? I realize that the original promise of the 'Net is drying up faster than liquid nitrogen, but still, someone needs to say it.
Let's imagine that Google goes out of business. Poof -- suddenly you can't do a search without having to turn to a paid search engine. Yeah, yeah, search engines suck anyway, but... unless I am running linuxisbitchin.org, they are a good way to get people to come to my site (I run a humor site and do not blanch at appearances of .aol in my logs). However, if $$$ is causing me to be marginalized, that ceases to be a tool for me.
Ultimately, it seems to me the barrier to entry is being raised here. I understand quite well that search engines are not the only way to promote a site, but from a strictly democratic point of view, this leaves one in a situation that's like running for President with nothing but a bunch of bumper stickers, while your competition has access to the airwaves.
3) A philosophical question, really. The airwaves are supposed to be a public resource, according to the FCC charter. Since the airwaves are regularly sold lock, stock, and barrel to companies that couldn't possibly give a shit about the public good despite this, what protects the Internet, given that the infrastructure is owned by a zillion institutions and there is no charter to speak of?
G'nite.
The rest of us didn't get sucked in by the marketing sheen and Job's reality distortion field.
Gosh, you must be really smart.
Wow, you used them for years without discovering that fact?
Let's see... was this a special school?