What's the difference between a computer using a lookup table to determine an emotional response, and you doing it? You're just a sack of chemicals. Get over yourself.
I consider spam any advertisement that enters my email, regardless of all considerations.
Let's equate this to murder since people nowadays only understand harsh things.
1) I am killed for no apparent reason (duh)
2) I am killed by someone who does not me, nor I him
3) I am killed by someone who I might know, or might know me, however no relationship existed.
4) I am killed by someone from whom I am currently buying things.
5) I am killed by someone from whom I have told I might buy future products.
So as you can see, I'm still winding up dead. Now change that to "annoyed" if you so must.
Sorry I misread. I thought you meant you used your competitor's name as a keyword for your actual search result, not for a paid advertisement.
However I think the google stance still makes since from their point of view. The there are two ways they can stop people from using competitors as keywords. 1) filter before hand 2) yell a complaint is filed. If they do #2, which is the easy way, they might still get sued for allowing it in the first place, unless the courts say it's legit. Even if the courts say it's legit, google can say it's against their rules so will comply when someone complains.
I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I think it makes sense from Google's prespective.
Both are bad for consumers, except when the industry is in so much trouble it will otherwise no longer exist. The problem with vertical monopolies is that the competition cannot compete on any level and is forced to quit. For instance if company A makes a product which company B, C and D uses, and either B, C or D buys A, the other two companies will usually die. On the other hand if any of B, C and D buys another, the other one will usually die, except the have a bit more of a fighting chance. To continue to use this example of B buys C, then BC can now buy the products from A cheaper than D can, so BC can charge less for its products or put more into research to end D.
On this note I'd like to give a shout out of Sid Meier for very obvious reasons. I also agree with Carmack. Frankly, I don't think the list is long enough. We're missing the big names from 100 years ago.
Well anyway the response on slashdot has all been like this so these people obviously haven't been forgotten.
Have you ever just had fun playing with your brain? Rest your arm on something, and think really hard about lifting it. I mean, really really hard. Soon it feels as if you don't actually move the arm it'll be paralyzed forever. If you do it right you can trick your brain into thinking you have another limb or two. This effect will wear off quickly since it isn't getting any sensory from it. Maybe it's just me but I'd love to see what I can do with one of these things.
BTW, if Dell doesn't like RedHat, why don't they use something else? People vote with their dollars.
Overhead of changing their support (ie training staff)? Loss of respect from previous buyers (If they bought Dells with Red Hat in the past, it'll be easiest to upgrade to Dells with Red Hat in the future). Whatever they've worked for with Red Hat would also be gone. No, you can only "vote with dollars" if you ignore all sense.
On the small scale remember that if I buy Intel and later AMD is cheaper, not only do I need to buy AMD but also a different mobo and possibly a different power supply to make the switch. No, price of a single product is not enough. Dollars don't vote (except in elections).
I feel that if you choose to work for a place such as AOL or any company involved with illicit bussiness, you are responsible for the situation you find yourself in. Consider the construction crews on the Death Star....
(Oh, if you're out of work for two years and finally a company offers, you're just as guilty as if hundreds of jobs are flying your way)
Speculation on reasons for the difference in click rates range from Firefox's integrated pop-up blocking
What are they looking at for views? How many times the owning page is viewed, or the image (or popup) is viewed? It should be very easy for them to answer this question by comparing the views. They don't say much about banners either (which can also be blocked).
I saw a presentation on MRAM less than a month ago. Anyway I forgot it already. Right now it's slower than DRAM, however not much slower. The idea is it's very new so refinement could easily push it past DRAM in terms of speed and density. There was some aspect of it which did take a lot more power (writing I believe?), but I think it was offset by the rest of the operations (read and idle) being lower power.
They're looking into it for "instant-on" technology (say, store a few megs of bootup code you'll be sitting pretty). I believe the difficulty right now is they cannot mass produce it well enough (low yield = high cost, as you suggested), however there are a few samples out from the companies playing with the tech.
I was under the impression that even though SRAM doesn't require refreshing, it takes more power. If you're designing for speed (and low noise) you'll have 6 transistors in your SRAM cell (as oppose to 1 for DRAM). Granted, these are all tiny transistors (with a set of very large transistors for amplification), but so are the DRAM transistors.
The slowest part of ram is the row (column?) select. (I forgot which-- one is around an order of magnitude slower I believe) I don't know much about the bleeding edge research, but I'm pretty sure control logic is the gate on the speed by far. If you need proof of this (not speaking to who I am replying to, they know) just compare RAM burst speed to typical. Make the RAM cell as simple as you want-- it won't mean diddly squat until you can decode the address faster and get it set to read/write (er, not that decoding the address is necessarily the slow part-- if it is I need to go hit some people)
Oh we're in agreement then-- I meant take a billion from the military budget (leaving $399B from my nice rounded figure). Hell take off a bit more and pay off a bunch of other things such as, gee, education?
And now you know! Give out a bunch of helium-filled balloons to little kids in the big city. Get atop the highest building in the area. You'll need to use ogygen tanks for air up there and the warm clothes will come in handy. Now shoot the little kids' ballons from the top of the building. Use the radio to tell when the police are coming. Wear a flight helmet so the police can't identify you. Once they are almost on you, jump off the building utilizing a hybrid paraglider/parachute device (duct tape required). Try to drift into a heavily wooded area. Finally, use the GPS device to find your way home.
I really don't mean this to be a troll but we're spending $400 billion in what is essentially special interest which happens to go by the name "military". I simply wish to suggest that a single billion would be more than enough to fund this (except of course if the prize is a billion dollars).
Fine, I'll go with #1, with patents expiring in two months time. Being two months ahead of a competitor is more than enough to make an astonishing amount of money. After that, every piece of code is officially unowned, except of course for the legal responsibilities (liabilities) to the creator.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm.. I failed that test.. Is that bad?
What's the difference between a computer using a lookup table to determine an emotional response, and you doing it? You're just a sack of chemicals. Get over yourself.
I consider spam any advertisement that enters my email, regardless of all considerations.
Let's equate this to murder since people nowadays only understand harsh things.
1) I am killed for no apparent reason (duh)
2) I am killed by someone who does not me, nor I him
3) I am killed by someone who I might know, or might know me, however no relationship existed.
4) I am killed by someone from whom I am currently buying things.
5) I am killed by someone from whom I have told I might buy future products.
So as you can see, I'm still winding up dead. Now change that to "annoyed" if you so must.
Sorry I misread. I thought you meant you used your competitor's name as a keyword for your actual search result, not for a paid advertisement.
However I think the google stance still makes since from their point of view. The there are two ways they can stop people from using competitors as keywords. 1) filter before hand 2) yell a complaint is filed. If they do #2, which is the easy way, they might still get sued for allowing it in the first place, unless the courts say it's legit. Even if the courts say it's legit, google can say it's against their rules so will comply when someone complains.
I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I think it makes sense from Google's prespective.
Isn't that the difference between paying for an ad and.. well.. fraud?
42
Both are bad for consumers, except when the industry is in so much trouble it will otherwise no longer exist. The problem with vertical monopolies is that the competition cannot compete on any level and is forced to quit. For instance if company A makes a product which company B, C and D uses, and either B, C or D buys A, the other two companies will usually die. On the other hand if any of B, C and D buys another, the other one will usually die, except the have a bit more of a fighting chance. To continue to use this example of B buys C, then BC can now buy the products from A cheaper than D can, so BC can charge less for its products or put more into research to end D.
Ok, now implement the more efficient code in hardware ;)
(Seriously-- I don't like my devices passively using processor time)
However as much as I like electronic media you can't beat a real news paper sitting in the sunshine or in front of the fire
Well, seeing how I don't have a fireplace, I'd much prefer the electronic one.
On this note I'd like to give a shout out of Sid Meier for very obvious reasons. I also agree with Carmack. Frankly, I don't think the list is long enough. We're missing the big names from 100 years ago.
Well anyway the response on slashdot has all been like this so these people obviously haven't been forgotten.
sigh... Once again people need to look "redundant" up in the dictionary.
Farked! Wait no... slash.. uhh which thingy am I on?
Have you ever just had fun playing with your brain? Rest your arm on something, and think really hard about lifting it. I mean, really really hard. Soon it feels as if you don't actually move the arm it'll be paralyzed forever. If you do it right you can trick your brain into thinking you have another limb or two. This effect will wear off quickly since it isn't getting any sensory from it. Maybe it's just me but I'd love to see what I can do with one of these things.
Well, most cats are house broken...
BTW, if Dell doesn't like RedHat, why don't they use something else? People vote with their dollars.
Overhead of changing their support (ie training staff)? Loss of respect from previous buyers (If they bought Dells with Red Hat in the past, it'll be easiest to upgrade to Dells with Red Hat in the future). Whatever they've worked for with Red Hat would also be gone. No, you can only "vote with dollars" if you ignore all sense.
On the small scale remember that if I buy Intel and later AMD is cheaper, not only do I need to buy AMD but also a different mobo and possibly a different power supply to make the switch. No, price of a single product is not enough. Dollars don't vote (except in elections).
I feel that if you choose to work for a place such as AOL or any company involved with illicit bussiness, you are responsible for the situation you find yourself in. Consider the construction crews on the Death Star....
(Oh, if you're out of work for two years and finally a company offers, you're just as guilty as if hundreds of jobs are flying your way)
Speculation on reasons for the difference in click rates range from Firefox's integrated pop-up blocking
What are they looking at for views? How many times the owning page is viewed, or the image (or popup) is viewed? It should be very easy for them to answer this question by comparing the views. They don't say much about banners either (which can also be blocked).
I saw a presentation on MRAM less than a month ago. Anyway I forgot it already. Right now it's slower than DRAM, however not much slower. The idea is it's very new so refinement could easily push it past DRAM in terms of speed and density. There was some aspect of it which did take a lot more power (writing I believe?), but I think it was offset by the rest of the operations (read and idle) being lower power.
They're looking into it for "instant-on" technology (say, store a few megs of bootup code you'll be sitting pretty). I believe the difficulty right now is they cannot mass produce it well enough (low yield = high cost, as you suggested), however there are a few samples out from the companies playing with the tech.
Do you think a single slashdotter clicked on an ad on that page? Seriously.
I was under the impression that even though SRAM doesn't require refreshing, it takes more power. If you're designing for speed (and low noise) you'll have 6 transistors in your SRAM cell (as oppose to 1 for DRAM). Granted, these are all tiny transistors (with a set of very large transistors for amplification), but so are the DRAM transistors.
The slowest part of ram is the row (column?) select. (I forgot which-- one is around an order of magnitude slower I believe) I don't know much about the bleeding edge research, but I'm pretty sure control logic is the gate on the speed by far. If you need proof of this (not speaking to who I am replying to, they know) just compare RAM burst speed to typical. Make the RAM cell as simple as you want-- it won't mean diddly squat until you can decode the address faster and get it set to read/write (er, not that decoding the address is necessarily the slow part-- if it is I need to go hit some people)
Oh we're in agreement then-- I meant take a billion from the military budget (leaving $399B from my nice rounded figure). Hell take off a bit more and pay off a bunch of other things such as, gee, education?
And now you know! Give out a bunch of helium-filled balloons to little kids in the big city. Get atop the highest building in the area. You'll need to use ogygen tanks for air up there and the warm clothes will come in handy. Now shoot the little kids' ballons from the top of the building. Use the radio to tell when the police are coming. Wear a flight helmet so the police can't identify you. Once they are almost on you, jump off the building utilizing a hybrid paraglider/parachute device (duct tape required). Try to drift into a heavily wooded area. Finally, use the GPS device to find your way home.
I really don't mean this to be a troll but we're spending $400 billion in what is essentially special interest which happens to go by the name "military". I simply wish to suggest that a single billion would be more than enough to fund this (except of course if the prize is a billion dollars).
Well yes the point you make is valid, but it doesn't explain why you can't buy an AMD with a 400 gb harddrive.
Fine, I'll go with #1, with patents expiring in two months time. Being two months ahead of a competitor is more than enough to make an astonishing amount of money. After that, every piece of code is officially unowned, except of course for the legal responsibilities (liabilities) to the creator.
Everyone wins, except bad business.