We could and should, however, condemn a highway that encouraged drunk driving, and whose track record showed that people drove drunk there whenever they could.
We're never going to win our P2P network rights by being dishonest, acting like these networks have legitimate uses. Instead, let's take action to strike down music copyrights... As for software piracy--well! Software vendors will have to figure that one out for themselves.
This is not a particularly clever defense, and it won't mean anything. The problem the courts have with file-sharing services is that regardless of how you slice it, people use these services almost exclusively to pirate software and to share copyrighted music (whether or not you think this is legal is entirely up to you--the courts seem to think it isn't, or shouldn't be).
Ok, so they provide interconnectivity, just like ISPs. Yet somehow, almost all the pirating goes on on the P2P networks, instead of through the internet at large. This is because these services greatly facilitate the act of piracy. No matter how they try to weasel out of it, these services know what their service provides, and they're not fooling anyone.
Cool. Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't understand what I said. Cookies are removeable, anyway, but the point was that I hear far more complaints about spam than I do about banners. If this is merely a coincidence, I'm Janet Reno. So fuck off.
Re:Spam isn't effective - market forces don't appl
on
DoubleClick Gets Into Spam
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Boohoo! Spam isn't effective! Stop it!
How could you possibly say that a relationship between spam quantity and selling products is demonstrably weak, and then flout reason by not demonstrating?
Do you seriously expect me to believe that business DON'T use analysis to decide what to do? That all business decisions are random, especially at companies we don't like because they email us? That is bordering on troll material, friend.
Regardless of what DoubleClick's true motives are, regardless of how much you want to believe that spam sux0rs and so it doesn't sell products, people are doing it. People would stop doing it if it didn't work. Yes, really!. Spammers LIKE to make MONEY. They're not in it just to piss on your parade. When you can prove to me that spammers are malevolently and anarchistically spamming with stolen commodore 64s (remember, they have no money because spamming doesn't pay), you might have a shred of credibility. In the interim, you're just flamebait.
Perhaps I should also provide murderers with an alternative if I don't like being shot? Or provide con artists with an alternative if I don't like being cheated?
The day advertisers start advertising products for their functionality, durability, and versatility, rather than sexy-lifestyle-fu and blinking lights, I'll consider advertising an honest endeavour.
Cool. So, the day you die from spam (food poisoning?), or a piece of artificially intelligent spam seduces you, I'll consider your arguments worthwhile. My only point was that if you don't like spam, you can help get rid of it by making it less worth the reputational risk (by making other forms of advertising more appealing). I never said you had to. And spam is inherently passive- it never said you had to do anything either.
My face isn't the one in question. I have no idea whether or not spam is TRULY effective, because I don't have any first-hand experience. However, it may interest you that in the text of the Slashdot post itself lies this:
DoubleClick is now branching out from the ad serving business into the SPAM business due to the fact that direct email marketing 'is one of the few forms of Internet advertising that is thriving.'
Clearly, regardless of your intuition or otherwise, Doubleclick thinks that spam is more profitable than banner ads. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to remember that while YOU personally may not respond well to spam (or anyone you know, for that matter) geeks generally do not. In fact, geeks tend to get really overexcited about the issue (for example, claiming that it is theft "plain and simple") but most people couldn't care less, and even seem to be buying spammed products. All of your postulations are all well and good, but the only reason to advertise is to sell more products, spam has been around for a while and its presence is only growing, therefore spam must be an effective way of selling products. That is what is plain and simple.
Remember: complain about spam all you like, but the problem is that the spam is effective. Click banner ads etc. if you really hate spam, so that advertisers have a worthwhile alternative. Either that or kill the people who buy products from vendors who spam. The internet is too good of an opportunity to pass up; people will always want to make money off of it.
I beleive that geographic isolation (punctuated equilibrium) differentiated species after a long (the longer the better) period of mutation. Are there any biology/ecology people out there who can correct me?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but punctuated equilibrium is an aspect of evolution that posits that evolution occurs in accelerated spurts rather than continually and gradually. Geographic isolation would seem to tend to slow evolution rather than encourage it, as evolution depends on competition for its impetus.
Is it absolutely crazt to think that with the same pressures, and starting from the same genetic base, the two continents would develop similar dinosaurs?
Er yes, it is pretty crazy, unless you're being very loose with your definition of similar. The two continents would likely have very different climates, which would affect the developing dinosaurs directly, as well as providing completely different vegetation and even bacteria surrounding the two different groups of dinosaurs.
FYI that certain "same mass" is the Chandrasekhar limit, which is 1.4 solar masses. This type of supernova (type Ia) is invaluable for determining distances in deep space for exactly the reason you mentioned (they always blow with the same mass).
While I applaud the makers of this website for providing important and otherwise unobtainable information to us, education alone will not make the C&D climate change. No matter how much you know about groundless C&D letters, you can never be sure without talking to lawyers etc., and that's the power of a C&D.
What we need to do is to lobby our representatives in government (generally this is best done with old fashioned "snail mail," although email is better than nothing) to devise harsh penalties for groundless C&D letters, so that companies will think twice before abusing their power. It wouldn't hurt if laws like the DMCA were revised into oblivion, too--even bogus C&D letters need ostensible reasoning.
This is exactly what the internet is for: obscure information easily available to the masses. Be sure to tell your friends etc., as the only way the internet can remain a free place is through active individual self-education. A disturbingly low number of people actually read things like the DMCA or cease and desist letters; we need to be smarter and more aggressive if we want to stay free.
This is quite right. It should be noted that using physics to emulate inanimate objects has been done for a while (Perfect Storm, shitty though that movie was, Monsters Inc.-- yeah, I got those examples from the article itself, but that should be telling right there).
Computer generated humans won't be completely believable until they actually think for themselves; the physics only provide the rules for movement, not the logic for them.
Your point would seem to be wisdom, were it not for the $220,000 he withdrew from his bank accounts before he disappeared. And the fact that he has a wife who know very well about Ebay, but whom he did not tell about this plan.
The point here isn't that Ebay fraud is evil. The point is that sites like Ebay enable people to waste money on such frivolities as.. "Collectible Figurines." Anybody who would spend $20,000 over Ebay (read the article for confirmation of that one) for figurines is a waste of otherwise perfectly good carbon. This will probably be modded as a Troll, but I don't care. It's the truth.
The internet was never free. Hosting websites costs money--a lot of money, actually--and for a while companies thought that they could pay those bills with advertising. It shouldn't surprise anyone that it turns out that advertising isn't always so lucrative.
That said, I'd rather see popular websites try to find more creative ways to make money than monthly fees. This is probably going to be modded as serious flamebait, but how about (with Slashdot as an example here), make the fees correspond with mod points? The idea would be that site members who cared enough about the site to pay for it would also care enough to be sensible in their moderations (as in clicking on the links in posts they mod as informative, so that they don't waste their investment). I know that Slashdot people will probably shit their jeans, since information wants to be free ("like beer" whatever the fuck that means), but I'm tired of those same people simultaneously complaining about a broken moderation system (which is not to say that it isn't broken; just that the solution might not be exactly like open source software).
I think this is worth discussing. Perhaps other people might have similar ideas about how to use a pay system to fix Slashdot moderation (+ moderated sites in general)?
If your neighbor comes uninvited and starts criticizing your new furniture, wouldn't you ask him to get lost? Same here.
I don't presume to speak for the person to whom you were replying, but I know that if the neighbor had salient criticisms about my furniture, I most certainly would not tell him to get lost out of some misplaced sense of dignity. A good opinion is a good opinion, regardless of the source.
Likely nobody will take heed of my post, because I post at -1 and people will assume I'm a troll. However, I must ask: what the hell is so bad about spam? Why do geeks get so violent about it? Kill spammers? Ban Asia?
I get some spam every now and again. I hit delete. One time, I had an email address that I accidentally used to sign up for something or other, and that email address got too much spam to make hitting delete a feasible option. So? I got a new email address.
People equate this with telemarketing, as though every dribble of spam were an invasion of your privacy. Spam is obvious and easily deleted, and in the case that you are too lazy to deal with it, email addresses are easy to change (unlike, say, phone-numbers).
I'm not saying spam is good. But I find the vituperation that it engenders in geeks to be nothing short of puzzling.
Slashdot Mirror
Hot beverages wherever I go!
We could and should, however, condemn a highway that encouraged drunk driving, and whose track record showed that people drove drunk there whenever they could.
.. As for software piracy--well! Software vendors will have to figure that one out for themselves.
We're never going to win our P2P network rights by being dishonest, acting like these networks have legitimate uses. Instead, let's take action to strike down music copyrights.
This is not a particularly clever defense, and it won't mean anything. The problem the courts have with file-sharing services is that regardless of how you slice it, people use these services almost exclusively to pirate software and to share copyrighted music (whether or not you think this is legal is entirely up to you--the courts seem to think it isn't, or shouldn't be).
Ok, so they provide interconnectivity, just like ISPs. Yet somehow, almost all the pirating goes on on the P2P networks, instead of through the internet at large. This is because these services greatly facilitate the act of piracy. No matter how they try to weasel out of it, these services know what their service provides, and they're not fooling anyone.
Maybe now I'll be able to run XP at an acceptable speed! At least until Microsoft tells me not to!
Cool. Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't understand what I said. Cookies are removeable, anyway, but the point was that I hear far more complaints about spam than I do about banners. If this is merely a coincidence, I'm Janet Reno. So fuck off.
Boohoo! Spam isn't effective! Stop it!
How could you possibly say that a relationship between spam quantity and selling products is demonstrably weak, and then flout reason by not demonstrating?
Do you seriously expect me to believe that business DON'T use analysis to decide what to do? That all business decisions are random, especially at companies we don't like because they email us? That is bordering on troll material, friend.
Regardless of what DoubleClick's true motives are, regardless of how much you want to believe that spam sux0rs and so it doesn't sell products, people are doing it. People would stop doing it if it didn't work. Yes, really!. Spammers LIKE to make MONEY. They're not in it just to piss on your parade. When you can prove to me that spammers are malevolently and anarchistically spamming with stolen commodore 64s (remember, they have no money because spamming doesn't pay), you might have a shred of credibility. In the interim, you're just flamebait.
Perhaps I should also provide murderers with an alternative if I don't like being shot? Or provide con artists with an alternative if I don't like being cheated? The day advertisers start advertising products for their functionality, durability, and versatility, rather than sexy-lifestyle-fu and blinking lights, I'll consider advertising an honest endeavour.
Cool. So, the day you die from spam (food poisoning?), or a piece of artificially intelligent spam seduces you, I'll consider your arguments worthwhile. My only point was that if you don't like spam, you can help get rid of it by making it less worth the reputational risk (by making other forms of advertising more appealing). I never said you had to. And spam is inherently passive- it never said you had to do anything either.
My face isn't the one in question. I have no idea whether or not spam is TRULY effective, because I don't have any first-hand experience. However, it may interest you that in the text of the Slashdot post itself lies this:
DoubleClick is now branching out from the ad serving business into the SPAM business due to the fact that direct email marketing 'is one of the few forms of Internet advertising that is thriving.'
Clearly, regardless of your intuition or otherwise, Doubleclick thinks that spam is more profitable than banner ads. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to remember that while YOU personally may not respond well to spam (or anyone you know, for that matter) geeks generally do not. In fact, geeks tend to get really overexcited about the issue (for example, claiming that it is theft "plain and simple") but most people couldn't care less, and even seem to be buying spammed products. All of your postulations are all well and good, but the only reason to advertise is to sell more products, spam has been around for a while and its presence is only growing, therefore spam must be an effective way of selling products. That is what is plain and simple.
Thank you! Your letter will be duly added to the archives at ChillingEffects.org, the internet's Cease & Desist letter repository!
Remember: complain about spam all you like, but the problem is that the spam is effective. Click banner ads etc. if you really hate spam, so that advertisers have a worthwhile alternative. Either that or kill the people who buy products from vendors who spam. The internet is too good of an opportunity to pass up; people will always want to make money off of it.
I beleive that geographic isolation (punctuated equilibrium) differentiated species after a long (the longer the better) period of mutation. Are there any biology/ecology people out there who can correct me?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but punctuated equilibrium is an aspect of evolution that posits that evolution occurs in accelerated spurts rather than continually and gradually. Geographic isolation would seem to tend to slow evolution rather than encourage it, as evolution depends on competition for its impetus.
Is it absolutely crazt to think that with the same pressures, and starting from the same genetic base, the two continents would develop similar dinosaurs?
Er yes, it is pretty crazy, unless you're being very loose with your definition of similar. The two continents would likely have very different climates, which would affect the developing dinosaurs directly, as well as providing completely different vegetation and even bacteria surrounding the two different groups of dinosaurs.
FYI that certain "same mass" is the Chandrasekhar limit, which is 1.4 solar masses. This type of supernova (type Ia) is invaluable for determining distances in deep space for exactly the reason you mentioned (they always blow with the same mass).
While I applaud the makers of this website for providing important and otherwise unobtainable information to us, education alone will not make the C&D climate change. No matter how much you know about groundless C&D letters, you can never be sure without talking to lawyers etc., and that's the power of a C&D.
What we need to do is to lobby our representatives in government (generally this is best done with old fashioned "snail mail," although email is better than nothing) to devise harsh penalties for groundless C&D letters, so that companies will think twice before abusing their power. It wouldn't hurt if laws like the DMCA were revised into oblivion, too--even bogus C&D letters need ostensible reasoning.
This is exactly what the internet is for: obscure information easily available to the masses. Be sure to tell your friends etc., as the only way the internet can remain a free place is through active individual self-education. A disturbingly low number of people actually read things like the DMCA or cease and desist letters; we need to be smarter and more aggressive if we want to stay free.
The government being difficult and evasive? ICANNot believe it!
So, if it's circular: which part does the figure of 30 km/h refer to? The outside edge?
This is quite right. It should be noted that using physics to emulate inanimate objects has been done for a while (Perfect Storm, shitty though that movie was, Monsters Inc.-- yeah, I got those examples from the article itself, but that should be telling right there).
Computer generated humans won't be completely believable until they actually think for themselves; the physics only provide the rules for movement, not the logic for them.
What this guy meant to say is that this is the Holy Grail for Porn. You know why.
Your point would seem to be wisdom, were it not for the $220,000 he withdrew from his bank accounts before he disappeared. And the fact that he has a wife who know very well about Ebay, but whom he did not tell about this plan.
The point here isn't that Ebay fraud is evil. The point is that sites like Ebay enable people to waste money on such frivolities as .. "Collectible Figurines." Anybody who would spend $20,000 over Ebay (read the article for confirmation of that one) for figurines is a waste of otherwise perfectly good carbon. This will probably be modded as a Troll, but I don't care. It's the truth.
The internet was never free. Hosting websites costs money--a lot of money, actually--and for a while companies thought that they could pay those bills with advertising. It shouldn't surprise anyone that it turns out that advertising isn't always so lucrative.
That said, I'd rather see popular websites try to find more creative ways to make money than monthly fees. This is probably going to be modded as serious flamebait, but how about (with Slashdot as an example here), make the fees correspond with mod points? The idea would be that site members who cared enough about the site to pay for it would also care enough to be sensible in their moderations (as in clicking on the links in posts they mod as informative, so that they don't waste their investment). I know that Slashdot people will probably shit their jeans, since information wants to be free ("like beer" whatever the fuck that means), but I'm tired of those same people simultaneously complaining about a broken moderation system (which is not to say that it isn't broken; just that the solution might not be exactly like open source software).
I think this is worth discussing. Perhaps other people might have similar ideas about how to use a pay system to fix Slashdot moderation (+ moderated sites in general)?
If your neighbor comes uninvited and starts criticizing your new furniture, wouldn't you ask him to get lost? Same here.
I don't presume to speak for the person to whom you were replying, but I know that if the neighbor had salient criticisms about my furniture, I most certainly would not tell him to get lost out of some misplaced sense of dignity. A good opinion is a good opinion, regardless of the source.
Likely nobody will take heed of my post, because I post at -1 and people will assume I'm a troll. However, I must ask: what the hell is so bad about spam? Why do geeks get so violent about it? Kill spammers? Ban Asia?
I get some spam every now and again. I hit delete. One time, I had an email address that I accidentally used to sign up for something or other, and that email address got too much spam to make hitting delete a feasible option. So? I got a new email address.
People equate this with telemarketing, as though every dribble of spam were an invasion of your privacy. Spam is obvious and easily deleted, and in the case that you are too lazy to deal with it, email addresses are easy to change (unlike, say, phone-numbers).
I'm not saying spam is good. But I find the vituperation that it engenders in geeks to be nothing short of puzzling.
Gandhi.
i was jilted before. can this be the FP that the other was meant to be?