That's bizarre logic. You are suggesting that the only reason people in smaller vehicles are safer is because they are actually in more danger, and therefore they compensate (through their behavior) more than the actual danger?
Why would they compensate more than the amount of increased danger?
Can you back up the statement that size does not correllate with safety? True, big vehicles are dangerous to *others*, but we're talking your own safety.
In my opinion, it's a bit of an arms race. People are less safe in small cars because of all the large cars.
(and btw, don't think I'm defending SUV drivers. I drive an old Vespa as well as a bicycle here in San Francisco, so I'm no fan of SUVs )
I use html mail all the time. It's a lot easier for both me and the recipient than attaching a word processing document (i tend to compose most documents in either gmail or google documents, and paste between them). I like having word wrap behave correctly. I like having bold and italic and bulleted lists and numbered lists and pretty links and being able to quote things with a nice indent (without a bunch of ugly >'s to screw up cut-and-pasting). I occasionally color or highlight text, for instance to show changes from a previous version.
And yes, I send images a lot too.
That said, I am aware of my audience. I tend to know what mail client they are using, and know it won't be a problem for them. No one has ever complained.
Now, I would be happy with a rule that disallows images in emails IF they aren't from people I regularly correspond with. But if avoding spam means disabling a feature that is useful to me, that would qualify as "letting the terrorists win" in my book.
...that 100% of Toyota cars is not the same as 100% of all cars?
If for whatever reason someone knows that they will use the car almost always on the highway, and that hybrids aren't as efficient for that use, they don't HAVE to buy a toyota, you know.
You've suggested that they'll `change their model`. To what, exactly? My suggestion above was that, the more people find ways to skip commercials, the more they will start doing things like superimposing the commercials on the actual show, which they are actually already doing by putting obnoxious ads on the bottom of the screen during the show.
Other than that, I was disputing the notion of someone above ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234667&cid=191 14503 ) that there was some sort of perfect world where tv was financially supported by ads, but less and less people were actually watching the ads. It's just not economically stable.
So, I guess in that sense, "changing the model" would include making money off of paid content, i.e. the iTunes model.
You seemed to be suggesting that the companies paying for ads would have no way of knowing whether the ads were effective or not, and to that, I simply suggest you learn a bit about marketing. They may not know right away whether a particular ad is effective, but if advertising in general (on a certain media) is ineffective, I guarantee you, they will figure that out, and the price of ads will decline accordingly. (especially if the advertising is on the internet, since that is far more easily trackable than TV ads)
They'd sell no products at all, despite formats such as radio, magazines, cinema commercials etc? Really? Not all things are advertised everywhere. The point is, if TV ads are not making them money, those paying for it will figure this out. If nothing else, the executives will notice that their friends and family don't watch commercials, and say "gee, lets do a test and drop our advertising in one region while keeping it in another, and see how the sales go".
Your suggestion, that the whole TV advertising economy can be based on an assumption that people are actually watching commercials, when they really aren't, is simply absurd.
How will they know I'm not watching the commercials? Because they aren't selling any products?
We're talking long term. Eventually they will notice that their business model is not working, so they will change their model.
If a product is advertised on different tv stations, magazines, hoardings, radio etc, how will they be able to determine which one is more effective? Ummm, people actually work very hard on this problem. Are you suggesting that in this multibillion dollar field, no one has a clue what works and what doesnt?
Except that if you can "tab to another web site" during commercials, and everyone else can (enough people to justify the point you are making), then they won't make enough money off the commercials. So they will make the commercials longer, superimpose them on the show so you can't miss them, etc.
The Church of Scientology has made it difficult to criticize them, because they tend to send the lawyers after anyone who does (generally on grounds of copyright infringement). Most people here would consider it a right to criticize, as a subset of the right to freedom of expression.
I guess this is sort of peripheral to that, but still...
Wine is not ideal, but it is one thing that helps in allowing people to move more freely between operating systems, so that they can select their operating system based upon its merits, not based on which (or how many) applications it runs.
Someday people will be able to do this, just like they can today (mostly*) choose between Opera, IE, Firefox, and Safari based on their relative merits, rather than on which web pages work in one or the other.
* The 2% of web pages that only work in one or two browsers is nothing compared to the 98% of applications that only run on only one or two OS's.
And you think the price should go down, why? Do you disagree with the general concept of a free market?
I dunno, I'm happy with Jobs' moving this direction, even if he has to use price as a bargaining chip. But I'm sure those out there with a sense of entitlement will always complain.
Sure you can. If you write a book that is similar enough to, say, Harry Potter or Da Vinci Code or whatever, you will get sued for copyright infringement, even if the words are not identical. It's the idea that is protected. Same as a patent. There are plenty of technical differences between patents and copyrights, but conceptually they are identical. "I thought this up, so I get to be the only one to make money on it"
That is why I would suggest consensus building tools. It is true that not everyone has the same goals. But some would be willing to cede one thing they slightly care about if they could get something they cared a lot more about. When looked at that way, I'd be willing to bet it is a lot more cohesive than you may think.
Slashdot Mirror
That's bizarre logic. You are suggesting that the only reason people in smaller vehicles are safer is because they are actually in more danger , and therefore they compensate (through their behavior) more than the actual danger?
Why would they compensate more than the amount of increased danger?
Can you back up the statement that size does not correllate with safety? True, big vehicles are dangerous to *others*, but we're talking your own safety.
In my opinion, it's a bit of an arms race. People are less safe in small cars because of all the large cars.
(and btw, don't think I'm defending SUV drivers. I drive an old Vespa as well as a bicycle here in San Francisco, so I'm no fan of SUVs )
Most Mac owners do not actually work for Apple Inc, so therefore Microsoft is not "the competition".
....I assure you, I'll be alright.
I use html mail all the time. It's a lot easier for both me and the recipient than attaching a word processing document (i tend to compose most documents in either gmail or google documents, and paste between them). I like having word wrap behave correctly. I like having bold and italic and bulleted lists and numbered lists and pretty links and being able to quote things with a nice indent (without a bunch of ugly >'s to screw up cut-and-pasting). I occasionally color or highlight text, for instance to show changes from a previous version.
And yes, I send images a lot too.
That said, I am aware of my audience. I tend to know what mail client they are using, and know it won't be a problem for them. No one has ever complained.
Now, I would be happy with a rule that disallows images in emails IF they aren't from people I regularly correspond with. But if avoding spam means disabling a feature that is useful to me, that would qualify as "letting the terrorists win" in my book.
...that 100% of Toyota cars is not the same as 100% of all cars?
If for whatever reason someone knows that they will use the car almost always on the highway, and that hybrids aren't as efficient for that use, they don't HAVE to buy a toyota, you know.
Well if what you say is true, no one should really complain if no one but Amazon can do it. After all, its a bad idea.
Just sayin'.
Thank you.
Other than that, I was disputing the notion of someone above ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234667&cid=19
So, I guess in that sense, "changing the model" would include making money off of paid content, i.e. the iTunes model.
You seemed to be suggesting that the companies paying for ads would have no way of knowing whether the ads were effective or not, and to that, I simply suggest you learn a bit about marketing. They may not know right away whether a particular ad is effective, but if advertising in general (on a certain media) is ineffective, I guarantee you, they will figure that out, and the price of ads will decline accordingly. (especially if the advertising is on the internet, since that is far more easily trackable than TV ads)
Your suggestion, that the whole TV advertising economy can be based on an assumption that people are actually watching commercials, when they really aren't, is simply absurd.
We're talking long term. Eventually they will notice that their business model is not working, so they will change their model. If a product is advertised on different tv stations, magazines, hoardings, radio etc, how will they be able to determine which one is more effective? Ummm, people actually work very hard on this problem. Are you suggesting that in this multibillion dollar field, no one has a clue what works and what doesnt?
I don't think the author implied that the various solutions would force you to sit at your computer and watch them rather than watching on your tv.
Except that if you can "tab to another web site" during commercials, and everyone else can (enough people to justify the point you are making), then they won't make enough money off the commercials. So they will make the commercials longer, superimpose them on the show so you can't miss them, etc.
The Church of Scientology has made it difficult to criticize them, because they tend to send the lawyers after anyone who does (generally on grounds of copyright infringement). Most people here would consider it a right to criticize, as a subset of the right to freedom of expression.
I guess this is sort of peripheral to that, but still...
True. Personally, I think I'd prefer slashdot if we had to write our posts long hand, and send them in by postal service.
I think the question was directed at those spending the money.
Religion is not a hoax. Most of the people who spread religion actually believe it. I think it is crap, but not a hoax. Very, very different thing.
I wish I had mod points for you.
Wine is not ideal, but it is one thing that helps in allowing people to move more freely between operating systems, so that they can select their operating system based upon its merits, not based on which (or how many) applications it runs.
Someday people will be able to do this, just like they can today (mostly*) choose between Opera, IE, Firefox, and Safari based on their relative merits, rather than on which web pages work in one or the other.
* The 2% of web pages that only work in one or two browsers is nothing compared to the 98% of applications that only run on only one or two OS's.
Who is the hoaxer?
Seems like there are an awful lot of people in on this conspiracy you suggest.
And you think the price should go down, why? Do you disagree with the general concept of a free market?
I dunno, I'm happy with Jobs' moving this direction, even if he has to use price as a bargaining chip. But I'm sure those out there with a sense of entitlement will always complain.
Well, they aren't blaming ALL lawyers, obviously.
Maybe a better thing to blame is "lawyer-like approaches" to this sort of problem.
Sure you can. If you write a book that is similar enough to, say, Harry Potter or Da Vinci Code or whatever, you will get sued for copyright infringement, even if the words are not identical. It's the idea that is protected. Same as a patent. There are plenty of technical differences between patents and copyrights, but conceptually they are identical. "I thought this up, so I get to be the only one to make money on it"
Seems to me the whole issue of intellectual property revolves around people wanting to draw sharp lines on things that are inherently blurry.
You're right. I suggest we just go back to dictatorship and be done with it.
That is why I would suggest consensus building tools. It is true that not everyone has the same goals. But some would be willing to cede one thing they slightly care about if they could get something they cared a lot more about. When looked at that way, I'd be willing to bet it is a lot more cohesive than you may think.