Most people shop for food once a week. Notifying them at the cash register may be faster than mailing them anything.
Your posting was both humorous and insightful. But in my case, it would also be dead wrong. Not only do I shop more irregularly than that, but I have no loyalty to the stores where I shop: I tend to go to one in particular more than the others, but in a 2-month period I may shop at 3-4 supermarkets.
I suppose the store could look at past habits and know whether someone is a "regular" but I think in that case there's no reason not to do both.
Regardless of all this, the odds that the person who bought the beef ate it long before the recall was announced seem rather high. Since beef should be cooked in just a few days or frozen, this could be moot, and your "did you already eat it" much more on the mark.
Ages ago, the Digital Western Research Lab (which became Compaq and then merged into HP Labs) had a technical note and video along these lines... quite funny.
Really, though, it's the same white lie. "When do we get a break" refers to the collective we of Boston, and that even makes some sense. Thinking of it another way, if you're out of town and your spouse complains over the phone how cold it is, are you going to say "When will you get a break"? Maybe if you've been gone a long time and will continue to be gone a long time, but otherwise you're affected in absentia, and will be affected directly Real Soon Now.
I reread the article, and don't see it saying that he says he's in Boston, he just says things like "It's 5 degrees outside [in Boston]" and "can't we [in Boston] get a break?". He says he doesn't lie, and I don't find anything in the article to contradict. But then I've never listened to the station.
True, but the ethics here aren't that questionable. He never says he's in Boston, he only implies it. Hmm, maybe he and Bill Clinton took the same ethics class?
NB: I'm a fan of Clinton in most respects, just not how he handled a certain affair. This isn't flamebait, only a joke:)
Parent is flamebait, but I'll take the bait: there's a difference between police going into your house and a student submitting an essay to a university. The student is claiming the work is original, and in many places signs a code of honor that attests to this. But technology makes it easy for students to find otherwise obscure text to plagiarize, and this is the counterbalance in the arms race. Still, I grant it would be better to formalize the permission for the analysis as part of the honor code; I posted elsewhere in this thread about how it would make sense to apply such a change only to future students.
By the way, I found it interesting that a student (TA I assume) at U.C. Berkeley developed the system but then the university refused to use it. I was a student there and I know first-hand how liberal the university's tendencies are. But at the same time, I'm pretty sure at least some CS professors there have used code analysis to find duplicated source code for ages. Essays aren't so different.
One issue is applying this technology to existing students. Probably the right thing to do is to change the honor code effective with next year's entering class, and allow for this analysis explicitly.
PS.
I searched for "grandfather" in the 4 pages of this thread, and didn't see it. I didn't read every message in detail and apologize if this proves redundant.
Mod parent insightful. The balance between the student's trust and the overall role of the school is tenuous, but the comment about how one can no longer rely on a teacher to identify every source of knowledge is quite valid.
I'd feel a lot better however if the service performing the analysis were non-profit, and also if it is known that it distills enough from each publication to identify duplication without being able to reproduce it (copyright issues).
Yes, it would. I scan the "killed" folder and do have more false positives than I'd like. But I see a lot of the "random keywords" spam there, and virtually none classified as OK, so I figure I'm coming out ahead.
It's just like buying a sweater at full price at Macy's and then seeing it on sale the next day. It's frustrating. The difference is that usually a department store will give a credit (since you can usually otherwise return the item anyway), but software rarely comes with that sort of guarantee
Unless of course the owner bought it with an American Express card:)
Yeah, this could backfire if existing customers are sufficiently affronted by this approach. At least, I know how pissed off I'd be if I bought last week!
Amazon doesn't have it. Neither does Walmart, who sold and charged us for one before Christmas but sent us a chafing dish instead!! By the time we opened the box (a few days after its arrival) and realized, it was too late for the holiday.
When I read on Slashdot that Lego was getting out of the business, I looked again. A Froogle search showed a paid ad from lego, and to my surprise, they had it in stock and my order is placed.
Please, not another chafing dish! ... Wait... Lego doesn't sell chafing dishes, right?
As the parent post noted, there are reasons, other than ads, for which popups are useful. My own reason for not completely disabling popups is:
My company has some internal sites that work by popping up new windows.
I like to respond to CNN polls:)
The first reason is something they maybe could have worked around, per your comment. But in responding to a poll on a page, I'd much rather have a dismissable popup show me results (as on CNN.com) than move to a new page where I now have to move back to get where I was (money.cnn.com). And if the submit is a button, not a link, I can't shift-click to open elsewhere.
So, I have to configure the browser to allow some sites and not others. Sadly, to allow polls to popup, I have to allow all the crap ads they send as well, so I should probably just bail, or wait until I figure out (if it's even doable) how to allow the one but not the other. I'm using firebird, if anyone wants to offer suggestions:)
You never know... I put in a limit order for Akamai's IPO at 100, and was excited when I saw it was at 114 until I realized my order never executed. So I cancelled it and stewed, and watched it keep going up the 1st day, only to jump in an hour later at $145. I saw it go up to maybe $345 and put in a stop loss order to sell at $245 on the way back down. (I'd have sold earlier but my wife insisted we not bail too early).
Obviously things have changed since 1999 (or whenever this happened). But while I agree with you completely that a limit order is good for ensuring your exposure is limited, people may want to place that limit pretty high, depending on how desperate they are to buy in. And anyone who is risk-averse should of course stay far away, or at least wait to see how the wind blows.
OK, I finally got through, and I think the clustering is absolutely worth a few seconds in the cases where the search term isn't sufficient to zoom in to the right response immediately. I'll still go to google first, I suspect, but I've already added a keyword to ease requests to vivisimo.
In what way is this flamebait/redundant? Seems like the observation that response time is important is on the mark: why wait a few seconds unless you find their clustering provides real value added?
Can't tell if it helps, until the Slashdot Effect (tm) diminishes, though...
They're providing the service. It's their prerogative to try and track usage, and your prerogative not to visit their site. But I take offense when I post an article, accepted by the Slashdot Czars, only to be chided for not posting a workaround to the article to bypass the NYT's attempts.
So, I've been defensive about this, and am getting modded as offtopic in this defense (unlike the others commenting on the privacy issue, oddly enough).
This debate notwithstanding, the grandparent of this made an excellent point about the tension between the desire of the stores/websites to get this info and the desires of individuals to be left alone.
And, for the record, I've recognized my mistake in thinking the google link bypassed the NYT site, and will be happy to at least try to identify such links in the future. Just like it's the prerogative of the NYT to ask for registration, it's the prerogative of others to use a back door left so wide open.
Actually, now it seems to read coming soon. Looks like their site release is now in the mysterious future.... when they get enough resources to handle being slashdotted.
Slashdot Mirror
Your posting was both humorous and insightful. But in my case, it would also be dead wrong. Not only do I shop more irregularly than that, but I have no loyalty to the stores where I shop: I tend to go to one in particular more than the others, but in a 2-month period I may shop at 3-4 supermarkets.
I suppose the store could look at past habits and know whether someone is a "regular" but I think in that case there's no reason not to do both.
Regardless of all this, the odds that the person who bought the beef ate it long before the recall was announced seem rather high. Since beef should be cooked in just a few days or frozen, this could be moot, and your "did you already eat it" much more on the mark.
Ages ago, the Digital Western Research Lab (which became Compaq and then merged into HP Labs) had a technical note and video along these lines... quite funny.
Really, though, it's the same white lie. "When do we get a break" refers to the collective we of Boston, and that even makes some sense. Thinking of it another way, if you're out of town and your spouse complains over the phone how cold it is, are you going to say "When will you get a break"? Maybe if you've been gone a long time and will continue to be gone a long time, but otherwise you're affected in absentia, and will be affected directly Real Soon Now.
I reread the article, and don't see it saying that he says he's in Boston, he just says things like "It's 5 degrees outside [in Boston]" and "can't we [in Boston] get a break?". He says he doesn't lie, and I don't find anything in the article to contradict. But then I've never listened to the station.
AAhnold already has this puppy on order. Next time he wants to get it right.
NB: I'm a fan of Clinton in most respects, just not how he handled a certain affair. This isn't flamebait, only a joke :)
This must be why the article on /. mentioned Clearchannel even though the article was quite different. Links to both in the original would have helped.
OK, sorry, that's where there's a virtual war and people just get selected by computer to be a victim and be executed.
By the way, I found it interesting that a student (TA I assume) at U.C. Berkeley developed the system but then the university refused to use it. I was a student there and I know first-hand how liberal the university's tendencies are. But at the same time, I'm pretty sure at least some CS professors there have used code analysis to find duplicated source code for ages. Essays aren't so different.
PS. I searched for "grandfather" in the 4 pages of this thread, and didn't see it. I didn't read every message in detail and apologize if this proves redundant.
I'd feel a lot better however if the service performing the analysis were non-profit, and also if it is known that it distills enough from each publication to identify duplication without being able to reproduce it (copyright issues).
Yes, it would. I scan the "killed" folder and do have more false positives than I'd like. But I see a lot of the "random keywords" spam there, and virtually none classified as OK, so I figure I'm coming out ahead.
My Mcafee Spamkiller ignores the white noise, and simply nukes all the mail containing viagra, etc.
Unless of course the owner bought it with an American Express card :)
Yeah, this could backfire if existing customers are sufficiently affronted by this approach. At least, I know how pissed off I'd be if I bought last week!
When I read on Slashdot that Lego was getting out of the business, I looked again. A Froogle search showed a paid ad from lego, and to my surprise, they had it in stock and my order is placed.
Please, not another chafing dish! ... Wait... Lego doesn't sell chafing dishes, right?
John Young has posted the text of the Christmas Eve FBI Almanac alert:
http://cryptome.org/fbi-almanacs.htm
I disagree with you completely!
As the parent post noted, there are reasons, other than ads, for which popups are useful. My own reason for not completely disabling popups is:
The first reason is something they maybe could have worked around, per your comment. But in responding to a poll on a page, I'd much rather have a dismissable popup show me results (as on CNN.com) than move to a new page where I now have to move back to get where I was (money.cnn.com). And if the submit is a button, not a link, I can't shift-click to open elsewhere.
So, I have to configure the browser to allow some sites and not others. Sadly, to allow polls to popup, I have to allow all the crap ads they send as well, so I should probably just bail, or wait until I figure out (if it's even doable) how to allow the one but not the other. I'm using firebird, if anyone wants to offer suggestions :)
I stand corrected. Very funny!
I think he's a professional defendant, or wants to be.
Obviously things have changed since 1999 (or whenever this happened). But while I agree with you completely that a limit order is good for ensuring your exposure is limited, people may want to place that limit pretty high, depending on how desperate they are to buy in. And anyone who is risk-averse should of course stay far away, or at least wait to see how the wind blows.
The sidebar isn't too bad, either.
Can't tell if it helps, until the Slashdot Effect (tm) diminishes, though...
So, I've been defensive about this, and am getting modded as offtopic in this defense (unlike the others commenting on the privacy issue, oddly enough).
This debate notwithstanding, the grandparent of this made an excellent point about the tension between the desire of the stores/websites to get this info and the desires of individuals to be left alone.
And, for the record, I've recognized my mistake in thinking the google link bypassed the NYT site, and will be happy to at least try to identify such links in the future. Just like it's the prerogative of the NYT to ask for registration, it's the prerogative of others to use a back door left so wide open.
Actually, now it seems to read coming soon. Looks like their site release is now in the mysterious future.... when they get enough resources to handle being slashdotted.