Funadmental to the nature of this debate is the definition of a banner ad. Is a banner ad:
a) a gif/jpg at the top of a page
or
b) a gif/jpg at the top of a page that leads you to a URL
Well, the answer is both, depending on whether the advertiser is branding (which is usually paid for using cost-per-thousand views) or ROI (which is usually paid on a cost-per-click).
BUT.. what about the advertiser that is neither branding, NOR has anything to offer at their website. This represents a sizeable portion of advertisers. Now, if you believe the web-centric model of current banner advertising IS indeed flawed (which I agree with), you have an option:
c) an interactive gif/jpg banner which expands (java, flash, whatever) to offer you point-of-surf value (a contest, a 2 for one offer, a branded service offer a-la sports scores to your cellphone thanks to ESPN or whatever)
Now, as an advertiser, are no longer worried about having to offer something on your website as a retailer which really can't offer any value in a web-centric medium. But you/do/ gain the ability to offer value and interactivity in a small space without the surfer leaving the page he or she is on, in addition to the web page not losing a surfer (which is a whole paradox in itself.. if a site has a great click thru rate, than its turn-over is also quite high, thus losing additional traffic and 'strickiness', which counts when bartering advertising inventory deals).
So, as always, everyone takes the IT WORKS or IT SUCKS approach, when what is really needed is just a different way of looking and implenting the one thing we all know to be true. And that is that surfers will HATE supersitials and find ways around then; when offering content, interactivity and value add in exchange for consumer information and customer relationships by way of a direct, unobtrusive interactive banner touch point is within technological grasp. Indeed, my most memorable experiences with advertising have constituted advertising i have/requested/ (a la free product demo video, etc).
The big thing I find ironic is that if the banner is dead, but superstitials rule (ie, TV-style commercials), why didn't it help all those.coms that blew their budgets on nation-wide prime-time advertising. Answer: because there was no value in the advertising. The next generation of advertsing MUST introduce the ability to offer point-of-touch value, and I can garauntee that if companies can offer compelling stories to foster customer relationships and communication (whether its customer aquisition or retension), this as-yet identified medium (the interactive banner being my best guess) will present better ROI and value to both advertiser, consumer, and inventory-provider (ie, website) than any advertising medium ever has.
Again, the fundamental thing here is that people do not want to 'go' somewhere else when they wish to request advertising information; this is why a model like the interactive banner, ie a 'volountary' supersitial, if you will, is so crutial to the success of advertising online. Otherwise, people will just keep ignoring....
Garret
Bullying is no joke; we've all done it.
on
Sean In The Middle
·
· Score: 1
At least the recent rash of publicity concerning bullying will help parents/peers/people realize that the following statements made in a many-to-one situation (that is, when a group gangs up on a smaller group) can be emotionally damaging enough to either cause an unbalanced individual to seek recource through violence, or a balanced individual to at least vocalize the desire:
1) you're a loser
2) you're fat
3) you're gay (although there is nothing wrong with being gay It's just that in the context of bullying, it has less to do with being homosexual and more to do with being ostrocized and isolated)
4) go away
5) get lost
6) loser, loser, loser
7) critisism. period.
As you can tell, I was bullied as a kid, and I'd be lying if I didn't say I played out some pretty graphic scenarios in my head. But I've never even/been/ in a fight, much less believe that violence solves anything. Its simply important to realize that while it may be difficult to tell who's serious and who's not when threats are uttered (and this is a serious matter, I'm not protecting the kid above), we wouldn't even have to GUESS if parents and teachers took a more involved role in containing and controlling the bullying that goes on in school; and this includes making kids feel safe in knowing that:
a) the matter will be dealt with in a way that blowing the whistle on popular (but abusive) inidividuals will not result in furthur abuse by other peers
b) being bullied is not something that should be accepteed
c) any recourse taken by the bullied individual to seek revenge without intervention by an unbiased party (ie, teacher, peer, mediator), be it physical or implied, is just as bad as the bullying itself (and I'm sure many believe that the bullying manifests itself due to unchecked agression towards the bullier from some other source such as parents or other peers)
We need to be open about these things; bullying is universal, and, from what I remember in school, no one does anything about it. I remember some kid used to climb on my shoulders in the bus, while 30 kids laughed at me, as he'd smack my head against the seat in front of me. The bus driver refused to involve himself, and I felt as if trying to bring this matter to anyone else would result in furthur persecution. Bullying is a serious thing, and people are finally starting to appreciate what goes on when it goes on unchecked; persecuted individuals cannot control their emotions, as they are driven into a state of mind no one else can understand, and do things that results in injury to both guilty, and innocent parties.
I have something to discuss.. like, why does no one think its fun to know when it happens? Has the market bust turned all us geeks into blinder-wearing profit-seeking business types? How useful is the obfuscated Obfuscated C Code Contest? But geeks still seem to dig it...:) While I may not be staring at 'while (1) { printf("%lu\n", time()); }' when the rollover happens, at least its cool to know we lived the moment! It only happens one in one billion times!
Well, by that logic, Windows doesn't crash.. you crash because you chose to run Windows.
The tabacco industry lied for many years about the dangers of smoking (and I smoke, so I'm not some bleeding heart liberal here). It may be black and white today, but many believed the tabacco industry earlier in the century.
I guess what I'm saying is that if Microsoft makes certain claims, than their products should backup those claims. Whether they do or not, I'm not here to discuss... but... hheeeey waitaminute... TROLL ALERT?! damn, back to the main thread..
Actually, peer to peer (otherwise known as 'conversation' when you're not referring to it in the context of technology) is pretty useful. If you're the type that hates the fact that everyone forms their musical/artistic/cultural/political views based on centralized authorities (TV, websites, mags, etc), then you covet the existance of conversation. Your friend may only know of Brittany Spears, but thanks to regular human-style peer to peer communication, at least you have an/opportunity/ to enlighten someone. Peer to peer (with respect to file sharing.. I dont know how you can group SETI et al. in the same group as its a totally different social application of an admittedly similar technological application of TCP/IP architecture) on the 'net is the same thing.. when all the major labels get their internet-music-subscription-shit up, and everyone flocks to them, the discovery and exploration of millions of artists and pieces of art (including music) will vapourize faster than you can type in your credit card # and hit submit. And while Katz loves pointing how nothing is ground shaking, there are still millions of people in the world who don't need cars.. but does that render the car an irrelevant technology?
>Microsoft is a commercial operating system company that makes most of its revenue from selling its software. We charge money for our software. That is how we pay our developers, our support people and others to provide for the ongoing existence of our company.
We live in a capitalist economy. MS is fully within its rights to do anything and everything to try and get more money. Thats what capitalism is. No where in the capitalist doctrine does it say, '.. but you should give up your attempt to amass more riches should you feel you are not being/nice/.' If MS, Nike, McDonalds, and all the other conglomerates have prooven anything, its that the consumer has no boycott power. For every anti-MSer, there are 9 people who could be told 'the whole story', and still not care. So what it really comes down to is the lack of 'checks and balances' in capitalism.. there is nothing to dissuade a corperation from becoming 'too big', or 'too.. unnice'. People complain that MS does all this evil stuff, and then go to work and probably work their own web-of-lies to see product (hell, the internet boom practically owed its existance to the near-hysteric levels of hyperbole in business exchanges in the late 90s.)
So don't complain about the traffic cop who gives you the ticket.. complain about the fact that the traffic law exists in the first place. MS is just doing what the all-american dream is - beating the hell out of your competition, getting stinkin' rich, and relaxing by the pool. While I may not fundamentally believe that they deserve it from a technological point of view, you have to give them credit just for doing what any other huge corperation has succeeded in doing; convincing millions and millions of people to run their software by/any/ means neccessary. Sure they 'embrace and extend'.. sure they market to dummies.. I'm sure MS has made hundreds of questionable decisions not based on technical merit alone. But McDonalds, up until three years ago, used to feed dead cats and dogs from animal shelters to your BigMac cows, and people still ate it (you probably did too, according to statistics). Nike has the sweatshops, but kids look up to the NBAers who make more than all of Nike's factory workers salaries with one deal than the factory workers do in a year. So when it comes to the MS whining and bitching, do it at your terminal (I sure do); I dont think its a revelation to/anyone/ that MS will do just about anything to Get Your Money, but in the end, its all relatively harmless in the context of the big picture. The real irony here is that the reason Microsoft thinks it needs to do this (with respect to the serial key situation with XP) is because people copy and use MS for free. I'm always confused by how much 'anti-commie' sentiment is still around, in the same climate as 'things should be free if you want them to be' (witness Napster as a recent case). Again, MS is just doing/everything/ they can to make the/most amount of money/.. its capitalism baby!
An excellant point. Actually, there are very few ways to measure ROI on TV and radio commercials (return on investment). The only way to do this on the web is the click-thru (since we cant count the number of people who looked at a banner rather than avoided it with their eyes.) The beauty of all this is it helps make underground, grass-roots media more attractive.. the sites which do not succumb to this style of advertising will enjoy some run-off of P.O'd viewers. Contrast this to television, where everything has ads; its an accepted fact that you cant avoid them on television. The net is quite different in this respect.
I think we're going to start seeing the backlash soon whereby the words 'well, c'mon, we gotta make money, so can you blame us' coming from the mouth of a corperation does not neccessarily gel with people. Something like Napster, which could be argued acts as a (probably over-engineered) sampling tool to determine what to buy, is used by everyone. I have a hard time believing that employees of the very compnies that are trying to deny fair use to the consumer dont use Napster (and consequently, will miss it dearly?). So, while historically we've seen big business types promoting the asshole-argument, those same bigwigs havn't been in the position of suffering thanks to their business decisions. (Eg: for drug companies, the people jacking the prices of the drugs arn't dependant on the drugs to save their lives). Now, if you work at a record company, or content provider, those very people go home, and their wife/kids/neighbours, and even possibly themselves, are bitching because they cant store a copy of something they OWN online, such that they can listen to it elsewhere without the bulk of having to carry the CD around.
I know thats a little bit of an obfuscated argument, and may not be the case here.. but eventually you get to a point where so many people are affected by unsportsmanlike or uncivil big business practices that even those in the position of making the decisions have a first hand view of what they are really doing.
Keep in mind that as a BSD user, I can see thinking alot less hard about firing off an insulting and picky email at tucows (ie, corperation, started off with windows, etc.. ) than any of the BSD sites.
Ie, the BSD sites probably get the benifit of the doubt when a BSDer considers 'correcting' misinformation found on those sites than that of tucows. I have no doubt people would have relished grilling tucows on relatively small points than the BSD sites. Incidentally, although I dont read them, they are probably at least more biased and non-objective when it comes to summerizing support and ease-of-use issues related to the various flavours of BSD than tucows would have been.
If anyone really thinks that a collection of individuals at tucows were really out to kill *BSD or to turn the average user away from trying out a *BSD OS (the existance of which, ironically, would have been keeping them employed), I think it's just another case of people being a little to lovey-lovey with their OS of choice. From what I saw of the points under scrutiny, I don't think they were wildly unfair.. just, aimed at the gnubie, which is to be expected from the type of user base tucows attracts. If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
>[I'm going to continue to assume that] You're in the ad business - you know as well as I do that the cheapest and most effective method of advertising is word of mouth. Not slapping the word "viral" onto a glorified chain letter, but real people spreading the word that someone concentrated on their core business and developed a superior product than that of their competitors.
Bang on. I actually work on the bleeding edge of online advertising (as a developer). We are working on bringing the Fortune500 companies online; delivering an advertising model that will enable them to get favorable ROI. And I really do think it comes down to the value we place on our privacy. Definately the most important factor in a successful consumer-tracking model is that it is an 'opt-in' system, not 'opt-out'; that is, a company does not start communication with you until you SPECIFICALLY request it (by interacting with a banner online, for instance). The point is, for fortune 500 companies, it already is opt-in for the most part. Coke would never send you unsolicited email. Allowing them to track the data of consumers who want to be tracked makes everyone happier, and probably does something to keep those companies off the backs of those who do not 'opt-in' to be 'tracked'. And don't make any conclusions as to the severity or level of detail in 'tracked'; right now, all ad companies can track is browser, ip, os, area code, and time data. Nothing personal, but information that still might give a company insight into increasing its Return on Investment (ROI) on a given campaign, and thus allowing them to actually show/less/ ads that give them equal economic returns. Tying your browsing habits to your personal data will only happen 'opt-in'-style, in the future. Fortune500 companies will be insanely careful as to how they handle this kind of information, and these sorts of technologies.
I find it all quite exciting; I started working this job feeling ethically uncomfortable, but the stipulations as to how the ultimate decisions must be in the hands of the consumer has convinced me that I am a part of something which is better for everybody in the long run.
My original point was that if that 'opt-out' option is available, it's better for everyone, including, I believe, you, to opt-out rather than supplying bogus information. Never will companies stop trying to track the consumer's behaviours (and in the future, it will be less of a 'tracking' and more of a 'listen to what the consumer has to say'), so bogus information will only lead to incorrect targeting and more wasted dollars, paper, and electrons. If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
> What about those of us who just don't want the "information" you "want to give" us
Who said it was me?:) I work in an industry company; we don't advertise, much less track info. And, at any rate, you live in a capitalist country; if you think advertising isn't the foundation of capitalism, give my sympathies to your mail box for being misunderstood. You're getting information, whether you like it or not. The basis of my argument inherently assumes you'll never stop getting 'junk mail' (which I believe to be true). So, stop whining about it, and at least make the best of it. You're opinion is nothing but a tantrum.
Also, track records arn't applicable with respect to new consumer-behaviour-tracking technologies. One of the very foundations of technology, society and values studies states that social patterns and behaviour are irrevoricably changed by new technologies. That is, if you can only look backwards, you'll never be happy with the future. I know more than a few marketers who's attitudes towards consumers are almost direct reactions against consumers' attitudes towards marketers. There's no use arguing who started it now (never mind that these people are your family, your neighbours, and maybe even you, depending on your job and employer); we might as well just make amends and figure out a way of making things better for both 'sides'.
The point is, I'm no coperation-lover, nor do I work for one, endorse one, or play one in a movie, but you're a fool if you think they're going to magically go away if you whine and wave your arms around enough. I'm much rather figure out a way of sleeping with the enemy, and getting a good lay out of it. You sound like my counter-culture friends who would rather spend a good night out culture-busting than figure out an alternative for the corperations (who are too lazy and focused on their core business to pursue such alternatives); that is, a cheaper, better, more cost effective, easier way of advertising that doesn't piss everyone off. Including yours truely. If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
> I do this as a matter of principal; keep seperate web-based email addresses, my "salary" ranges from 0-10,000 to 250-500,000 depending on my mood at any given time, my job title similarly varies, etc. etc.
The thing is that much of this sort of behaviour is counter-productive to getting more accurate or personally applicable company->consumer communication. Companies actually (gasp) use this information to determine how to best initiate information, and what sort of information to give you. The thing I find mind-blowing is that people complain how companies never do things the way they want, but turn around and throw as many cogs into their consumer-profiling analytics as they can. Did you know that if a company could give you what you actually wanted, they could ease up on the geurilla or trick-the-consumer style tactics? Ask Coke or Microsoft! We dont like them because they can rarely afford to target their enormous consumer-bases with customer-granular communication. (Imagine if the fist time you heard of Microsoft, they offered to send you sports scores to your cell, or a free software package of your choice along with Win98, which you (or 98% of computer users) will get anyways.) They would/love/ to send you communication that aligns with your interest rather than showing commercials of the All American family (ie, the lowest-common-demographic denominator); but they can't (yet), because consumer targeting and profiling technology isn't there yet and people still don't believe that if a company can give you what YOU actually want, everyone is better off. If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
The night is still young, as they say. www.adcritic.com exists solely for the purpose of people who want to see commercials. So advertising can't be all bad! Its just bad in its current form, with the current crop of online advertisers. Just because the fortune 500 companies who make funny ads (or at least can afford major ad houses to make funny ads) havn't started advertising on the net yet doesn't mean they won't. What they need is a way of offering you something via a banner that is other than a 'click-through' (because what does Coke have to offer you on their web site? Nothing!).
Maybe in the future we might see 'interactive' banners that can offer you services though a banner, brought to you by a company. For all the whining and anti-advertising mumbling that people do, no one is truely unsusceptable to advertising. Plugging ThinkGeek is just as pro-advertising as plugging Nike or MSN! Just because your consumer loyalty doesn't run with the majority of companies that advertise online doesn't mean that you havn't helped in some fashion to support it in the past. Ask any company you like - you have to advertise to stay in business!
There is lots of time for the online advertising model to evolve; but for those who point out that the internet existed before advertising forget that many sites exist in their current form because of advertising. Someone who can make some money off running a site they love can also justify spending time making it good looking, user friendly, etc; alot of qualities the fan-run, pre-advertising sites didn't have before. Ie, advertising revenues justify the webmaster investing time into adding the nicities that allow more than 30% of humans online. As technies, we often forget that alot of the increased traffic on the net is due to better site designs and such. A more user-centric standard has fallen out of the online-advertising supported tier sites.
It always kills me when people pull the ostritch routine with things they don't like, but will obviously exist for ever (think prostitution, or drugs.. now think advertising). You can't win the war to eradicate the world of these things; you have to work with them in order to ensure that they meet your needs. You'll never be rid of advertising, so here's your chance to propose new ideas, and new directions advertising can take, instead of wishing it would just all go away.
I for one will be freakin happy when animated gifs go away - and the same guys who make those funny commercials on TV get involved with the online phenomenon. Remember, online advertising is still young! If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
It's the same old joke.. the US grabbing and clutching, hording and not playing nice when most of the hardware is available outside the US, and most of the software/could/ be built outside the US.
I'll never understand the mentality.. the longer they treat the 'kid bullies' of the world like kids, the longer those 'kid bully' countries will stay kids. It's that holier than thou attitude.. ie, "We can act responsibly with our terribly dangerous super-computing powers and weapons (cha'right), but the rest of the world can't. Well, except for Canada, but thats only cause we could kick their ass in a microsecond if they ever started to misbehave."
Just the opinions of lone Canadian, who's seen red (tape) for way to much of his existance. If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
There is alot of "well, what if they use/sell the database anyhow, even though they said they wouldn't?"
Like, duh. Of course they could. The point is, that it would be illegal of them to do so, where, before, it was questionably legal. This case sets a precedent that doing such a thing, is, in vact, a violation of consumer privacy. If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
I dont know how many doctors/researchers you know, but most I know own a computer and access at home.
There's nothing that prevents them from using their home computer. And.. hey, it makes a good case for working from home! Lucky them!;)
Seriously tho, while it shows a lack of trust between employer and employee, surely if other companies are allowed to do it, so can the government (which, for all intents and purposes, is a business with a bad bottom line). If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
With all due respect, I think non-profit groups would prefer having any equipment at all.
They'd probably want equipment and software they are familliar with, since they probably couldn't afford support should their *BSD or *nix knowledge be close to nil, which I imagine it might be.
Isn't this a little akin to advocating a friend not to give KraftDinner and Chicken Noodle soup to a food bank.. that she should wait until she can give Duck a l'Orange and Yorkshire Pudding? If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Starbucks will provide high speed access, Microsoft will provide the software,
Dell will provide the computer,
The Gap will provide the clothes,
Bayers will provide the drugs (trust us, you'll need em),
McDonalds will provide the food,
Etrade will provide the stock trading services you will need to afford all this,
and if you ever go anywhere else to drink-coffee-while-you-browse-and-look-stylish-and -defeat-your-headache-while-eating-your-power-lunc h-and-taking-advantage-of-the-latest-rate-cut-on-t he-market, they've made a strategic partnership with the FBI to have you shot. At half price, of course. If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
The Celeron can't really have all that much life left; I'd imagine money poured into it, marketing and promotion wise, by Intel, is having ever-diminishing returns.
Heck, the official clock speeds of Celeron's dont much matter anyhow.. so many of them were rated (and subsequently 'locked') under their real performance abilities.
But yeah, I go with the general concensus that the whole Celeron line was to confuse consumers... that whole 'you dont have to make a good product if more than 50% of your consumer base is ignorant of your market to begin with' thing. At any rate, now we'll really see if it's the commercials, or the quality of the chip that sells. Go AMD! I'd take a Duron 8 days of the week. If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Nope, no y200k issues here, but then again, we did a code audit and made fixes. Most other people did too. I think the devestation would have come in the form of economic chaos.. note the guy above who got to pay his previous years rent. Imagine what would have happened if 80% of the invoices/bills sent in Jan 2001 were actually y2000 values.
And its a moot argument.. we'll really never know for sure, will we? Reminds me of that scarecrow joke:
"I build this scarecrow to scare off elephants."
"Elephants? There/are/ no elephants around here!"
"Exactly. See, its working."
Neither party can proove anything. If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Actually, your point is well taken with respect to the space program, but a few trips to the Epcott center in Florida shows we also thought we'd be being served by robots by now. Telephones should be video-telephones. Meals prepared by a single machine. Yaddayadda.
And I don't disagree that today, we are capable of supporting our own invensions, but I dont think we're too far off from the scale of complexity I was trying to describe (50-100 or so years off). If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
> The thing is, they would be able to adapt because technology today continutes to make life easier
Context is everything. Its a moot point to say that you couldn't 'live' in 1950 for lack of all of today's technologies' convenience. Of course you couln't, you're too used to what you have now.
But to assume 'easier' is interesting, for I would argue that it was far easier to walk over to my neighbour's house and ask him for high lawnmower rather than buy a computer, know how to set it up, get an ISP, learn how to email, and email him. I'd rather say that technology today continues to make us lazier, when it comes to going out of our houses, or moving in a physical fasion. Name a technology today that actually makes the task it purpotes to do easier, from a comprehension of the steps to accomplish that task.
Think of an accountant from the 1950s that not only has to understand the principals of accounting, as he did before, but now has to know how to use Office 2000 and Excel. It saves him time in the long run, maybe, he has to invest alot more learning and application of knowledge in order to achieve his goal. And at any rate, there is a fairly widely supported theory that the time the use of a computer saves is recouped by the very same computer in learning and maintainance tasks.)
Chances are, all modern day technology does is let you do it all from one place, or faster, or cheaper... but rarely easier. If you are the farmer who now has milking machines, you're probably thinking thats a heck of a lot easier, but not for those who are in charge of maintainting, inventing, supporting, selling, or purchasing the milking machines. And what can you do with your extra time now? Why, consume more! Buy more! Shop! Watch TV! All of which were invented pre-1950.:) If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
With respect to our dwindling rate of innovation (which I will attempt to confirm), you can read all about it in a facinating book called "The End of Science".
But just to take a historical approach, all innovation has come in 'spurts'. Use of tools, and then the transition from using various sorts of metals for those tools were all intersperced with fairly significant gaps of time betwixt those innovations.
ICs, while developed 'after' the 50 years in questions, depended on scientific innovations made before 1950. See: History of the Transistor. Lasers were conceptualized before that. As for the gent who asked 'where would we be without the IC or the laser', I can answer only with: still in cars, still with telephones, still with television. NOT with the internet, NOT with an extra 10 or so years of life expentancy (under which the assumption that medical advances do indeed represent benificial innovation is arguable, as a beating heart seems to be more important that healthy and happy emotions in today's value system), and not with video games, chat boards, an online world community (which really only includes those with access to computers). While the technology world has improved, tweaked, and unarguably changed our social existance over the past 50 years, our quality of life, and almost anything you do that doesn't involve a computer relys on scientific principals that were theorized long before 1950 rolled around. Note that it took Einstein, centuries later, to come up with something better than Newtonian psysics.
Also note the 60s/70s views that we'd all be living on the moon by now. Clearly, optimism was high regarding the continuation of technological innovation, but what people forgot to take into account was that the research currently on the bleeding edge is so complex to maintain and manage that we may in fact come to a point where we are simply incapable of comprehending the scope of a given application or technology, and whereby a group of people large enough to work on it will die before they are able to complete their work; ie, innovations that are so complex that we simply are unable to attain them. If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
> In addition, Serial ATA will let each drive communicate directly with the processor. Currently, the different drives must share a common connection.
Finally, a good reason not to have to pay out the wazoo for SCSI, while hopefully doing away with IDE interrupts.
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicacorn
Re:Again, social engineering will always beat hack
on
The Honeypot Project
·
· Score: 2
C'mon now.. its more the other way.. hacks that 'come from the outside', but are really someone you know and trust. Or someone who has gained valuable information from someone you know and trust. It's the same in all walks of life: abuse, murder.. why stop at hacking? I'm not saying that there is/no/ hacking from cold-callers.. I'm just saying that the number pales in comparison to those you'd least suspect.
People who wish to steal or break in usually do so only because they know what the value of what's inside....
Slashdot Mirror
Funadmental to the nature of this debate is the definition of a banner ad. Is a banner ad:
.. what about the advertiser that is neither branding, NOR has anything to offer at their website. This represents a sizeable portion of advertisers. Now, if you believe the web-centric model of current banner advertising IS indeed flawed (which I agree with), you have an option:
/do/ gain the ability to offer value and interactivity in a small space without the surfer leaving the page he or she is on, in addition to the web page not losing a surfer (which is a whole paradox in itself .. if a site has a great click thru rate, than its turn-over is also quite high, thus losing additional traffic and 'strickiness', which counts when bartering advertising inventory deals).
/requested/ (a la free product demo video, etc).
.coms that blew their budgets on nation-wide prime-time advertising. Answer: because there was no value in the advertising. The next generation of advertsing MUST introduce the ability to offer point-of-touch value, and I can garauntee that if companies can offer compelling stories to foster customer relationships and communication (whether its customer aquisition or retension), this as-yet identified medium (the interactive banner being my best guess) will present better ROI and value to both advertiser, consumer, and inventory-provider (ie, website) than any advertising medium ever has.
....
a) a gif/jpg at the top of a page
or
b) a gif/jpg at the top of a page that leads you to a URL
Well, the answer is both, depending on whether the advertiser is branding (which is usually paid for using cost-per-thousand views) or ROI (which is usually paid on a cost-per-click).
BUT
c) an interactive gif/jpg banner which expands (java, flash, whatever) to offer you point-of-surf value (a contest, a 2 for one offer, a branded service offer a-la sports scores to your cellphone thanks to ESPN or whatever)
Now, as an advertiser, are no longer worried about having to offer something on your website as a retailer which really can't offer any value in a web-centric medium. But you
So, as always, everyone takes the IT WORKS or IT SUCKS approach, when what is really needed is just a different way of looking and implenting the one thing we all know to be true. And that is that surfers will HATE supersitials and find ways around then; when offering content, interactivity and value add in exchange for consumer information and customer relationships by way of a direct, unobtrusive interactive banner touch point is within technological grasp. Indeed, my most memorable experiences with advertising have constituted advertising i have
The big thing I find ironic is that if the banner is dead, but superstitials rule (ie, TV-style commercials), why didn't it help all those
Again, the fundamental thing here is that people do not want to 'go' somewhere else when they wish to request advertising information; this is why a model like the interactive banner, ie a 'volountary' supersitial, if you will, is so crutial to the success of advertising online. Otherwise, people will just keep ignoring
Garret
At least the recent rash of publicity concerning bullying will help parents/peers/people realize that the following statements made in a many-to-one situation (that is, when a group gangs up on a smaller group) can be emotionally damaging enough to either cause an unbalanced individual to seek recource through violence, or a balanced individual to at least vocalize the desire:
/been/ in a fight, much less believe that violence solves anything. Its simply important to realize that while it may be difficult to tell who's serious and who's not when threats are uttered (and this is a serious matter, I'm not protecting the kid above), we wouldn't even have to GUESS if parents and teachers took a more involved role in containing and controlling the bullying that goes on in school; and this includes making kids feel safe in knowing that:
1) you're a loser
2) you're fat
3) you're gay (although there is nothing wrong with being gay It's just that in the context of bullying, it has less to do with being homosexual and more to do with being ostrocized and isolated)
4) go away
5) get lost
6) loser, loser, loser
7) critisism. period.
As you can tell, I was bullied as a kid, and I'd be lying if I didn't say I played out some pretty graphic scenarios in my head. But I've never even
a) the matter will be dealt with in a way that blowing the whistle on popular (but abusive) inidividuals will not result in furthur abuse by other peers
b) being bullied is not something that should be accepteed
c) any recourse taken by the bullied individual to seek revenge without intervention by an unbiased party (ie, teacher, peer, mediator), be it physical or implied, is just as bad as the bullying itself (and I'm sure many believe that the bullying manifests itself due to unchecked agression towards the bullier from some other source such as parents or other peers)
We need to be open about these things; bullying is universal, and, from what I remember in school, no one does anything about it. I remember some kid used to climb on my shoulders in the bus, while 30 kids laughed at me, as he'd smack my head against the seat in front of me. The bus driver refused to involve himself, and I felt as if trying to bring this matter to anyone else would result in furthur persecution. Bullying is a serious thing, and people are finally starting to appreciate what goes on when it goes on unchecked; persecuted individuals cannot control their emotions, as they are driven into a state of mind no one else can understand, and do things that results in injury to both guilty, and innocent parties.
I have something to discuss .. like, why does no one think its fun to know when it happens? Has the market bust turned all us geeks into blinder-wearing profit-seeking business types? How useful is the obfuscated Obfuscated C Code Contest? But geeks still seem to dig it ... :) While I may not be staring at 'while (1) { printf("%lu\n", time()); }' when the rollover happens, at least its cool to know we lived the moment! It only happens one in one billion times!
Well, by that logic, Windows doesn't crash .. you crash because you chose to run Windows.
... but ... hheeeey waitaminute ... TROLL ALERT?! damn, back to the main thread ..
The tabacco industry lied for many years about the dangers of smoking (and I smoke, so I'm not some bleeding heart liberal here). It may be black and white today, but many believed the tabacco industry earlier in the century.
I guess what I'm saying is that if Microsoft makes certain claims, than their products should backup those claims. Whether they do or not, I'm not here to discuss
Actually, peer to peer (otherwise known as 'conversation' when you're not referring to it in the context of technology) is pretty useful. If you're the type that hates the fact that everyone forms their musical/artistic/cultural/political views based on centralized authorities (TV, websites, mags, etc), then you covet the existance of conversation. Your friend may only know of Brittany Spears, but thanks to regular human-style peer to peer communication, at least you have an /opportunity/ to enlighten someone. Peer to peer (with respect to file sharing .. I dont know how you can group SETI et al. in the same group as its a totally different social application of an admittedly similar technological application of TCP/IP architecture) on the 'net is the same thing .. when all the major labels get their internet-music-subscription-shit up, and everyone flocks to them, the discovery and exploration of millions of artists and pieces of art (including music) will vapourize faster than you can type in your credit card # and hit submit. And while Katz loves pointing how nothing is ground shaking, there are still millions of people in the world who don't need cars .. but does that render the car an irrelevant technology?
>Microsoft is a commercial operating system company that makes most of its revenue from selling its software. We charge money for our software. That is how we pay our developers, our support people and others to provide for the ongoing existence of our company.
.. but you should give up your attempt to amass more riches should you feel you are not being /nice/.' If MS, Nike, McDonalds, and all the other conglomerates have prooven anything, its that the consumer has no boycott power. For every anti-MSer, there are 9 people who could be told 'the whole story', and still not care. So what it really comes down to is the lack of 'checks and balances' in capitalism .. there is nothing to dissuade a corperation from becoming 'too big', or 'too .. unnice'. People complain that MS does all this evil stuff, and then go to work and probably work their own web-of-lies to see product (hell, the internet boom practically owed its existance to the near-hysteric levels of hyperbole in business exchanges in the late 90s.)
.. complain about the fact that the traffic law exists in the first place. MS is just doing what the all-american dream is - beating the hell out of your competition, getting stinkin' rich, and relaxing by the pool. While I may not fundamentally believe that they deserve it from a technological point of view, you have to give them credit just for doing what any other huge corperation has succeeded in doing; convincing millions and millions of people to run their software by /any/ means neccessary. Sure they 'embrace and extend' .. sure they market to dummies .. I'm sure MS has made hundreds of questionable decisions not based on technical merit alone. But McDonalds, up until three years ago, used to feed dead cats and dogs from animal shelters to your BigMac cows, and people still ate it (you probably did too, according to statistics). Nike has the sweatshops, but kids look up to the NBAers who make more than all of Nike's factory workers salaries with one deal than the factory workers do in a year. So when it comes to the MS whining and bitching, do it at your terminal (I sure do); I dont think its a revelation to /anyone/ that MS will do just about anything to Get Your Money, but in the end, its all relatively harmless in the context of the big picture. The real irony here is that the reason Microsoft thinks it needs to do this (with respect to the serial key situation with XP) is because people copy and use MS for free. I'm always confused by how much 'anti-commie' sentiment is still around, in the same climate as 'things should be free if you want them to be' (witness Napster as a recent case). Again, MS is just doing /everything/ they can to make the /most amount of money/ .. its capitalism baby!
We live in a capitalist economy. MS is fully within its rights to do anything and everything to try and get more money. Thats what capitalism is. No where in the capitalist doctrine does it say, '
So don't complain about the traffic cop who gives you the ticket
An excellant point. Actually, there are very few ways to measure ROI on TV and radio commercials (return on investment). The only way to do this on the web is the click-thru (since we cant count the number of people who looked at a banner rather than avoided it with their eyes.) The beauty of all this is it helps make underground, grass-roots media more attractive .. the sites which do not succumb to this style of advertising will enjoy some run-off of P.O'd viewers. Contrast this to television, where everything has ads; its an accepted fact that you cant avoid them on television. The net is quite different in this respect.
I think we're going to start seeing the backlash soon whereby the words 'well, c'mon, we gotta make money, so can you blame us' coming from the mouth of a corperation does not neccessarily gel with people. Something like Napster, which could be argued acts as a (probably over-engineered) sampling tool to determine what to buy, is used by everyone. I have a hard time believing that employees of the very compnies that are trying to deny fair use to the consumer dont use Napster (and consequently, will miss it dearly?). So, while historically we've seen big business types promoting the asshole-argument, those same bigwigs havn't been in the position of suffering thanks to their business decisions. (Eg: for drug companies, the people jacking the prices of the drugs arn't dependant on the drugs to save their lives). Now, if you work at a record company, or content provider, those very people go home, and their wife/kids/neighbours, and even possibly themselves, are bitching because they cant store a copy of something they OWN online, such that they can listen to it elsewhere without the bulk of having to carry the CD around.
.. but eventually you get to a point where so many people are affected by unsportsmanlike or uncivil big business practices that even those in the position of making the decisions have a first hand view of what they are really doing.
I know thats a little bit of an obfuscated argument, and may not be the case here
Keep in mind that as a BSD user, I can see thinking alot less hard about firing off an insulting and picky email at tucows (ie, corperation, started off with windows, etc .. ) than any of the BSD sites.
.. just, aimed at the gnubie, which is to be expected from the type of user base tucows attracts.
Ie, the BSD sites probably get the benifit of the doubt when a BSDer considers 'correcting' misinformation found on those sites than that of tucows. I have no doubt people would have relished grilling tucows on relatively small points than the BSD sites. Incidentally, although I dont read them, they are probably at least more biased and non-objective when it comes to summerizing support and ease-of-use issues related to the various flavours of BSD than tucows would have been.
If anyone really thinks that a collection of individuals at tucows were really out to kill *BSD or to turn the average user away from trying out a *BSD OS (the existance of which, ironically, would have been keeping them employed), I think it's just another case of people being a little to lovey-lovey with their OS of choice. From what I saw of the points under scrutiny, I don't think they were wildly unfair
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
>[I'm going to continue to assume that] You're in the ad business - you know as well as I do that the cheapest and most effective method of advertising is word of mouth. Not slapping the word "viral" onto a glorified chain letter, but real people spreading the word that someone concentrated on their core business and developed a superior product than that of their competitors.
/less/ ads that give them equal economic returns. Tying your browsing habits to your personal data will only happen 'opt-in'-style, in the future. Fortune500 companies will be insanely careful as to how they handle this kind of information, and these sorts of technologies.
Bang on. I actually work on the bleeding edge of online advertising (as a developer). We are working on bringing the Fortune500 companies online; delivering an advertising model that will enable them to get favorable ROI. And I really do think it comes down to the value we place on our privacy. Definately the most important factor in a successful consumer-tracking model is that it is an 'opt-in' system, not 'opt-out'; that is, a company does not start communication with you until you SPECIFICALLY request it (by interacting with a banner online, for instance). The point is, for fortune 500 companies, it already is opt-in for the most part. Coke would never send you unsolicited email. Allowing them to track the data of consumers who want to be tracked makes everyone happier, and probably does something to keep those companies off the backs of those who do not 'opt-in' to be 'tracked'. And don't make any conclusions as to the severity or level of detail in 'tracked'; right now, all ad companies can track is browser, ip, os, area code, and time data. Nothing personal, but information that still might give a company insight into increasing its Return on Investment (ROI) on a given campaign, and thus allowing them to actually show
I find it all quite exciting; I started working this job feeling ethically uncomfortable, but the stipulations as to how the ultimate decisions must be in the hands of the consumer has convinced me that I am a part of something which is better for everybody in the long run.
My original point was that if that 'opt-out' option is available, it's better for everyone, including, I believe, you, to opt-out rather than supplying bogus information. Never will companies stop trying to track the consumer's behaviours (and in the future, it will be less of a 'tracking' and more of a 'listen to what the consumer has to say'), so bogus information will only lead to incorrect targeting and more wasted dollars, paper, and electrons.
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
> What about those of us who just don't want the "information" you "want to give" us
:) I work in an industry company; we don't advertise, much less track info. And, at any rate, you live in a capitalist country; if you think advertising isn't the foundation of capitalism, give my sympathies to your mail box for being misunderstood. You're getting information, whether you like it or not. The basis of my argument inherently assumes you'll never stop getting 'junk mail' (which I believe to be true). So, stop whining about it, and at least make the best of it. You're opinion is nothing but a tantrum.
Who said it was me?
Also, track records arn't applicable with respect to new consumer-behaviour-tracking technologies. One of the very foundations of technology, society and values studies states that social patterns and behaviour are irrevoricably changed by new technologies. That is, if you can only look backwards, you'll never be happy with the future. I know more than a few marketers who's attitudes towards consumers are almost direct reactions against consumers' attitudes towards marketers. There's no use arguing who started it now (never mind that these people are your family, your neighbours, and maybe even you, depending on your job and employer); we might as well just make amends and figure out a way of making things better for both 'sides'.
The point is, I'm no coperation-lover, nor do I work for one, endorse one, or play one in a movie, but you're a fool if you think they're going to magically go away if you whine and wave your arms around enough. I'm much rather figure out a way of sleeping with the enemy, and getting a good lay out of it. You sound like my counter-culture friends who would rather spend a good night out culture-busting than figure out an alternative for the corperations (who are too lazy and focused on their core business to pursue such alternatives); that is, a cheaper, better, more cost effective, easier way of advertising that doesn't piss everyone off. Including yours truely.
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
> I do this as a matter of principal; keep seperate web-based email addresses, my "salary" ranges from 0-10,000 to 250-500,000 depending on my mood at any given time, my job title similarly varies, etc. etc.
/love/ to send you communication that aligns with your interest rather than showing commercials of the All American family (ie, the lowest-common-demographic denominator); but they can't (yet), because consumer targeting and profiling technology isn't there yet and people still don't believe that if a company can give you what YOU actually want, everyone is better off.
The thing is that much of this sort of behaviour is counter-productive to getting more accurate or personally applicable company->consumer communication. Companies actually (gasp) use this information to determine how to best initiate information, and what sort of information to give you. The thing I find mind-blowing is that people complain how companies never do things the way they want, but turn around and throw as many cogs into their consumer-profiling analytics as they can. Did you know that if a company could give you what you actually wanted, they could ease up on the geurilla or trick-the-consumer style tactics? Ask Coke or Microsoft! We dont like them because they can rarely afford to target their enormous consumer-bases with customer-granular communication. (Imagine if the fist time you heard of Microsoft, they offered to send you sports scores to your cell, or a free software package of your choice along with Win98, which you (or 98% of computer users) will get anyways.) They would
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
The night is still young, as they say. www.adcritic.com exists solely for the purpose of people who want to see commercials. So advertising can't be all bad! Its just bad in its current form, with the current crop of online advertisers. Just because the fortune 500 companies who make funny ads (or at least can afford major ad houses to make funny ads) havn't started advertising on the net yet doesn't mean they won't. What they need is a way of offering you something via a banner that is other than a 'click-through' (because what does Coke have to offer you on their web site? Nothing!).
.. now think advertising). You can't win the war to eradicate the world of these things; you have to work with them in order to ensure that they meet your needs. You'll never be rid of advertising, so here's your chance to propose new ideas, and new directions advertising can take, instead of wishing it would just all go away.
Maybe in the future we might see 'interactive' banners that can offer you services though a banner, brought to you by a company. For all the whining and anti-advertising mumbling that people do, no one is truely unsusceptable to advertising. Plugging ThinkGeek is just as pro-advertising as plugging Nike or MSN! Just because your consumer loyalty doesn't run with the majority of companies that advertise online doesn't mean that you havn't helped in some fashion to support it in the past. Ask any company you like - you have to advertise to stay in business!
There is lots of time for the online advertising model to evolve; but for those who point out that the internet existed before advertising forget that many sites exist in their current form because of advertising. Someone who can make some money off running a site they love can also justify spending time making it good looking, user friendly, etc; alot of qualities the fan-run, pre-advertising sites didn't have before. Ie, advertising revenues justify the webmaster investing time into adding the nicities that allow more than 30% of humans online. As technies, we often forget that alot of the increased traffic on the net is due to better site designs and such. A more user-centric standard has fallen out of the online-advertising supported tier sites.
It always kills me when people pull the ostritch routine with things they don't like, but will obviously exist for ever (think prostitution, or drugs
I for one will be freakin happy when animated gifs go away - and the same guys who make those funny commercials on TV get involved with the online phenomenon. Remember, online advertising is still young!
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Absolutely agree.
.. the US grabbing and clutching, hording and not playing nice when most of the hardware is available outside the US, and most of the software /could/ be built outside the US.
.. the longer they treat the 'kid bullies' of the world like kids, the longer those 'kid bully' countries will stay kids. It's that holier than thou attitude .. ie, "We can act responsibly with our terribly dangerous super-computing powers and weapons (cha'right), but the rest of the world can't. Well, except for Canada, but thats only cause we could kick their ass in a microsecond if they ever started to misbehave."
It's the same old joke
I'll never understand the mentality
Just the opinions of lone Canadian, who's seen red (tape) for way to much of his existance.
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
There is alot of "well, what if they use/sell the database anyhow, even though they said they wouldn't?"
Like, duh. Of course they could. The point is, that it would be illegal of them to do so, where, before, it was questionably legal. This case sets a precedent that doing such a thing, is, in vact, a violation of consumer privacy.
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
> ... access from state computers
.. hey, it makes a good case for working from home! Lucky them! ;)
I dont know how many doctors/researchers you know, but most I know own a computer and access at home.
There's nothing that prevents them from using their home computer. And
Seriously tho, while it shows a lack of trust between employer and employee, surely if other companies are allowed to do it, so can the government (which, for all intents and purposes, is a business with a bad bottom line).
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
With all due respect, I think non-profit groups would prefer having any equipment at all.
.. that she should wait until she can give Duck a l'Orange and Yorkshire Pudding?
They'd probably want equipment and software they are familliar with, since they probably couldn't afford support should their *BSD or *nix knowledge be close to nil, which I imagine it might be.
Isn't this a little akin to advocating a friend not to give KraftDinner and Chicken Noodle soup to a food bank
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Actually, I heard that:
d -defeat-your-headache-while-eating-your-power-lunc h-and-taking-advantage-of-the-latest-rate-cut-on-t he-market, they've made a strategic partnership with the FBI to have you shot. At half price, of course.
Starbucks will provide high speed access, Microsoft will provide the software,
Dell will provide the computer,
The Gap will provide the clothes,
Bayers will provide the drugs (trust us, you'll need em),
McDonalds will provide the food,
Etrade will provide the stock trading services you will need to afford all this,
and if you ever go anywhere else to drink-coffee-while-you-browse-and-look-stylish-an
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
The Celeron can't really have all that much life left; I'd imagine money poured into it, marketing and promotion wise, by Intel, is having ever-diminishing returns.
.. so many of them were rated (and subsequently 'locked') under their real performance abilities.
... that whole 'you dont have to make a good product if more than 50% of your consumer base is ignorant of your market to begin with' thing. At any rate, now we'll really see if it's the commercials, or the quality of the chip that sells. Go AMD! I'd take a Duron 8 days of the week.
Heck, the official clock speeds of Celeron's dont much matter anyhow
But yeah, I go with the general concensus that the whole Celeron line was to confuse consumers
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Nope, no y200k issues here, but then again, we did a code audit and made fixes. Most other people did too. I think the devestation would have come in the form of economic chaos .. note the guy above who got to pay his previous years rent. Imagine what would have happened if 80% of the invoices/bills sent in Jan 2001 were actually y2000 values.
.. we'll really never know for sure, will we? Reminds me of that scarecrow joke:
/are/ no elephants around here!"
And its a moot argument
"I build this scarecrow to scare off elephants."
"Elephants? There
"Exactly. See, its working."
Neither party can proove anything.
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Actually, your point is well taken with respect to the space program, but a few trips to the Epcott center in Florida shows we also thought we'd be being served by robots by now. Telephones should be video-telephones. Meals prepared by a single machine. Yaddayadda.
And I don't disagree that today, we are capable of supporting our own invensions, but I dont think we're too far off from the scale of complexity I was trying to describe (50-100 or so years off).
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
> The thing is, they would be able to adapt because technology today continutes to make life easier
... but rarely easier. If you are the farmer who now has milking machines, you're probably thinking thats a heck of a lot easier, but not for those who are in charge of maintainting, inventing, supporting, selling, or purchasing the milking machines. And what can you do with your extra time now? Why, consume more! Buy more! Shop! Watch TV! All of which were invented pre-1950. :)
Context is everything. Its a moot point to say that you couldn't 'live' in 1950 for lack of all of today's technologies' convenience. Of course you couln't, you're too used to what you have now.
But to assume 'easier' is interesting, for I would argue that it was far easier to walk over to my neighbour's house and ask him for high lawnmower rather than buy a computer, know how to set it up, get an ISP, learn how to email, and email him. I'd rather say that technology today continues to make us lazier, when it comes to going out of our houses, or moving in a physical fasion. Name a technology today that actually makes the task it purpotes to do easier, from a comprehension of the steps to accomplish that task.
Think of an accountant from the 1950s that not only has to understand the principals of accounting, as he did before, but now has to know how to use Office 2000 and Excel. It saves him time in the long run, maybe, he has to invest alot more learning and application of knowledge in order to achieve his goal. And at any rate, there is a fairly widely supported theory that the time the use of a computer saves is recouped by the very same computer in learning and maintainance tasks.)
Chances are, all modern day technology does is let you do it all from one place, or faster, or cheaper
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
With respect to our dwindling rate of innovation (which I will attempt to confirm), you can read all about it in a facinating book called "The End of Science".
But just to take a historical approach, all innovation has come in 'spurts'. Use of tools, and then the transition from using various sorts of metals for those tools were all intersperced with fairly significant gaps of time betwixt those innovations.
ICs, while developed 'after' the 50 years in questions, depended on scientific innovations made before 1950. See: History of the Transistor. Lasers were conceptualized before that. As for the gent who asked 'where would we be without the IC or the laser', I can answer only with: still in cars, still with telephones, still with television. NOT with the internet, NOT with an extra 10 or so years of life expentancy (under which the assumption that medical advances do indeed represent benificial innovation is arguable, as a beating heart seems to be more important that healthy and happy emotions in today's value system), and not with video games, chat boards, an online world community (which really only includes those with access to computers). While the technology world has improved, tweaked, and unarguably changed our social existance over the past 50 years, our quality of life, and almost anything you do that doesn't involve a computer relys on scientific principals that were theorized long before 1950 rolled around. Note that it took Einstein, centuries later, to come up with something better than Newtonian psysics.
Also note the 60s/70s views that we'd all be living on the moon by now. Clearly, optimism was high regarding the continuation of technological innovation, but what people forgot to take into account was that the research currently on the bleeding edge is so complex to maintain and manage that we may in fact come to a point where we are simply incapable of comprehending the scope of a given application or technology, and whereby a group of people large enough to work on it will die before they are able to complete their work; ie, innovations that are so complex that we simply are unable to attain them.
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
> In addition, Serial ATA will let each drive communicate directly with the processor. Currently, the different drives must share a common connection.
Finally, a good reason not to have to pay out the wazoo for SCSI, while hopefully doing away with IDE interrupts.
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicacorn
C'mon now .. its more the other way .. hacks that 'come from the outside', but are really someone you know and trust. Or someone who has gained valuable information from someone you know and trust. It's the same in all walks of life: abuse, murder .. why stop at hacking? I'm not saying that there is /no/ hacking from cold-callers .. I'm just saying that the number pales in comparison to those you'd least suspect.
....
People who wish to steal or break in usually do so only because they know what the value of what's inside
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicacorn