And most reader users were happy to see the social Bullshit deleted. All we ever wanted was a cross platform reader that would sync and organize your feeds.
Signed. I'm not interested in the social integration/people following me/me following people that things like google takeout supply, just let me read my feeds in piece!
Agreed. I need a replacement that syncs across multiple platforms. I don't need a magazine style layout. I learned to read. I don't need pictures. And I don't need some social community to validate my reading choices.
But again you are hand waiving away the customer side of the record keeping. If you are going to charge me money you better be prepared to document those charges.
Telling a company they have two million hits is easy, because it's just a Web counter. Yet even given the ease with which it is accomplished, click fraud is rampant.
That still leaves the monumental task of record keeping, and determining whose account to charge, and keeping unique counters for every Web page and every Web user.
Is a reload of the page going to be counted again, or just once? Is each device going to count as a chargeable visit or just each user?
What about embedded content? Does a picture, video, or or sidebar pulled from another source get its own billing?
You are proposing as system with a data flow that approachs the transaction frequency of DNS hits but requires detailed levels of record keeping, even before the charges are levied for payment.
That nobody does this is the best clue it is not practical or cost effective.
A potential approach / solution: first, have a service (I'll call it PayMe) where I can set up an account
You should copyright it just so nobody else does. But I suspect you are too late.
The Idea is good, and initially that is what Google Wallet was supposed to do, but they they got sidetracked with the Google app store and forgot about micro payments.
Still 1 cent is too much. The payment should start at 1/10th of a cent and go to a maximum of no more than a dime.
The transaction costs have to be managed very carefully. The cost of transferring a micro-payment from your account to the web-site's account has to be kept exceptionally small. Paying for bandwidth, servers, accounting software, tech support, etc, could consume more money than a payer is willing to pay to view a web page.
This is the central problem with micro-payment systems. The transaction processing costs exceed the amount most payers are willing to pay.
But according to this test, from the users perspective there is no difference between no tip, 1c 2c or 3c. I would happily give every site I visit 3c if it always costs me 0c.
Its pretty much like clicking the "Like" button on a blog story. It costs you nothing, and that is exactly what you are willing to pay. Most people ignore them.
But also consider that a similar experiment DOES happen in the real world right here on Slashdot. And further, the experiment actually HAS a tiny reward attached, and pretty much proves that not having to pay means that the vast majority won't.
You don't have to subscribe to Slashdot in any monetary way, and you can still participate. But you CAN pay if you want to.
If you WANT to subscribe, you can throw some money their way, never see any ads, and get to see a story a few seconds/minutes before anyone else. (And you get an asterisk behind your name, Oh Joy Oh Rapture!). These three benefits amount to virtually nothing of practical value.
Since I like Slashdot, occasionally when I'm feeling generous I toss some money Slashdot's way, and the forget about it for another year or two. I expect nothing in return.
Each page I view depletes the money I sent, and sooner or later I'm in unpaid status, and remains that way for months or years. I could care less, because I suffer no penalty by not paying, and receive no significant benefit when I do pay. (I toss money toward several open source projects I like as well. Not a lot. Not consistently.)
So there is virtually zero benefit for paying, and zero penalty for not paying. Now, go thru this topic and count the number of asterisks behind names.
With no actual cost involved, people by and large don't pay. The vast majority don't click "LIKE" buttons either.
It seems you meant to say "I can't disagree with your statement that it's not valid, but even invalid experiments can yield useful data."
That's exactly how I read it as well.
The theory seems to be: Nobody is plunking down pennies, but if we all pretend we were, we will see how such a payment system might work.
Unless or until there is an actual monetary collection mechanism the experiment is a bogus mind game. You would learn much more by putting a primate in a cage with three buttons which invoked a tiny, medium, and large swat with a newspaper when pressed. Even the dumbest monkey would press even the lightest swat inducing button more than one or two times. Even is the buttons induced nothing worse than an annoyingly bright light they would not push the buttons. If the buttons did nothing at all they would learn not to waste any effort pushing them.
So unless there is a penalty, newspaper or monetary, no amount of pretend button pushing will teach us anything.
The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space. There could hardly be a more dangerous mode of thought for a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech.
Um, you got that exactly backwards.
In fact I'm having a great deal of trouble figuring out how you went from your first paragraph to you last one without even noticing that they are in fundamental opposition. You hear people in the US bitching about prostitutes walking around near school zones, precisely because they CAN walk there, and bitching is easily the favorite national past time.
Those attempts to ban things in the US are noticeable because of their loud failure mode. NYC finds out its still legal to sell 20 OZ drinks, meanwhile French business owners still can't work more than a certain amount of hours at their own business.
No, I meant exactly what I said. Reread what I wrote and see if you still believe the biggest hurdle to leap giving the instructions.
If so, please make a pizza from scratch, just to refresh your memory of the task at hand, then design a machine that can do that and a load of laundry while the dough is rising.
We do trust current robots implicitly. Robots of all types of deployed and mostly run our industrial and manufacturing industries. They are showing up in the homes as well. The typical robots that you read about or see in movies are typically empowered with logic and AI well beyond anything we can actually create. As long as the 'intelligence' of robots continue to be (easily) understood and fully grasped by us this will not change. When robots start advancing beyond our comprehension that is the point when we will start to fear them, but that holds true of anything beyond our comprehension.
Its a tortured definition of a robot that includes simple machinery designed to do simple tasks driven by simply switches.
Come back to the discussion when you instruct a machine to get out the flour, yeast, tomato sauce and peperoni and bake you a pizza in your own kitchen and serve it to you with your favorite brew.
I trust my neato vacuum robot to behave according to its simple rules, as designed. I don't trust any "intelligent" machine to behave in a generally intelligent manner, because they just doserving And that has nothing whatsoever to do with valleys, canny or uncanny.
You've hit the nail on the head.
I seriously doubt humans will ever create robots like Data, from Star Trek, because we would never trust them. Regardless of their programming, people would always suspect that the robots would be serving different masters, and spying on us. Hell, we don't even trust our own cell phones or our computers.
Even if the device doesn't look like a human, people will not likely trust truely intelligent autonomous machines. I'm not convinced there is a valley involved. Its a popular meme, but not all that germane.
This. When they talk about the.Net community, I think to myself, "Do I know of even ONE such person?" No.
Then you read this gem from Microsoft's Hynds:
This uncertainty sets the stage for avoidance of open source components by a large part of the.NET developer population. In fact I had seen developers fired because they included a component into a project without getting clearance to ensure the license of that component did not impinge on the licensing of the project as a whole.
The problem is that a Eurpoa rover would need to be powered by an RTG, which means you have to send a vehicle about the size of curiosity. So thats 1000kg that you have to land.
Meh! Details....
The day before Curiosity landed the general opinion here among the Slashdot Rocket Scientists that it had ZERO chance for success. Too complicated. Too Rube Goldberg. Parachutes, Rockets, and Skycranes! Such foolishness. Stupid arrogant NASA/JPL about to get their comeuppance.
Lent is the past tense of lend. Data from one discovery was lent to a totally different theory. Honed in is fairly common usage when working toward a goal.
The so called "translation" is from a language called English, with which it appears you are only tangentially acquainted.
Tidal forces seem like a good culprit, considering the extreme gravitational forces involved.
Which is interesting because enough gravitational heating of the moon's core to keep an ocean liquid suggests the possibility of life even in the absence of sunlight, just as is found in some deep oceans on earth. I suppose its possible for there to be enough infrared near thermal vents, but by and large, you would expect any putative life to have evolved completely without any form of photoreceptors, let alone eyes.
Some clever minds are probably already at work conceptualizing payload packages to investigate these cracks for an under-ice rover.
The interesting thing here is that the story Didn't push his agenda yet his story was still rejected. Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"? Have his opponents not heard of Barbra Streisand?
Slashdot Mirror
And most reader users were happy to see the social Bullshit deleted.
All we ever wanted was a cross platform reader that would sync and organize your feeds.
TheOldReader is all about social whoring and very little about being a cross platform syncing reader.
Sell it?
Why not just monetize Reader themselves?
It is a natural outlet for nerd rage.
Que the religion rage posts in 3, 2, 1....
Nothing even remotely like reader.
There is no app. It depends on a browser. And it's curated? Really?
Signed.
I'm not interested in the social integration/people following me/me following people that things like google takeout supply, just let me read my feeds in piece!
Agreed. I need a replacement that syncs across multiple platforms. I don't need a magazine style layout. I learned to read. I don't need pictures. And I don't need some social community to validate my reading choices.
But again you are hand waiving away the customer side of the record keeping. If you are going to charge me money you better be prepared to document those charges.
Telling a company they have two million hits is easy, because it's just a Web counter. Yet even given the ease with which it is accomplished, click fraud is rampant.
That still leaves the monumental task of record keeping, and determining whose account to charge, and keeping unique counters for every Web page and every Web user.
Is a reload of the page going to be counted again, or just once? Is each device going to count as a chargeable visit or just each user?
What about embedded content? Does a picture, video, or or sidebar pulled from another source get its own billing?
You are proposing as system with a data flow that approachs the transaction frequency of DNS hits but requires detailed levels of record keeping, even before the charges are levied for payment.
That nobody does this is the best clue it is not practical or cost effective.
A potential approach / solution: first, have a service (I'll call it PayMe) where I can set up an account
You should copyright it just so nobody else does. But I suspect you are too late.
The Idea is good, and initially that is what Google Wallet was supposed to do, but they they got sidetracked with the Google app store and forgot about micro payments.
Still 1 cent is too much. The payment should start at 1/10th of a cent and go to a maximum of no more than a dime.
The transaction costs have to be managed very carefully. The cost of transferring a micro-payment from your account to the web-site's account has to be kept exceptionally small. Paying for bandwidth, servers, accounting software, tech support, etc, could consume more money than a payer is willing to pay to view a web page.
This is the central problem with micro-payment systems. The transaction processing costs exceed the amount most payers are willing to pay.
But according to this test, from the users perspective there is no difference between no tip, 1c 2c or 3c.
I would happily give every site I visit 3c if it always costs me 0c.
Its pretty much like clicking the "Like" button on a blog story. It costs you nothing, and that is exactly what you are willing to pay. Most people ignore them.
But also consider that a similar experiment DOES happen in the real world right here on Slashdot.
And further, the experiment actually HAS a tiny reward attached, and pretty much proves that not having to pay means that the vast majority won't.
You don't have to subscribe to Slashdot in any monetary way, and you can still participate. But you CAN pay if you want to.
If you WANT to subscribe, you can throw some money their way, never see any ads, and get to see a story a few seconds/minutes before anyone else. (And you get an asterisk behind your name, Oh Joy Oh Rapture!). These three benefits amount to virtually nothing of practical value.
Since I like Slashdot, occasionally when I'm feeling generous I toss some money Slashdot's way, and the forget about it for another year or two. I expect nothing in return.
Each page I view depletes the money I sent, and sooner or later I'm in unpaid status, and remains that way for months or years. I could care less, because I suffer no penalty by not paying, and receive no significant benefit when I do pay. (I toss money toward several open source projects I like as well. Not a lot. Not consistently.)
So there is virtually zero benefit for paying, and zero penalty for not paying.
Now, go thru this topic and count the number of asterisks behind names.
With no actual cost involved, people by and large don't pay. The vast majority don't click "LIKE" buttons either.
It seems you meant to say "I can't disagree with your statement that it's not valid, but even invalid experiments can yield useful data."
That's exactly how I read it as well.
The theory seems to be:
Nobody is plunking down pennies, but if we all pretend we were, we will see how such a payment system might work.
Unless or until there is an actual monetary collection mechanism the experiment is a bogus mind game. You would learn much more by putting a primate in a cage with three buttons which invoked a tiny, medium, and large swat with a newspaper when pressed. Even the dumbest monkey would press even the lightest swat inducing button more than one or two times. Even is the buttons induced nothing worse than an annoyingly bright light they would not push the buttons. If the buttons did nothing at all they would learn not to waste any effort pushing them.
So unless there is a penalty, newspaper or monetary, no amount of pretend button pushing will teach us anything.
The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space. There could hardly be a more dangerous mode of thought for a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech.
Um, you got that exactly backwards.
In fact I'm having a great deal of trouble figuring out how you went from your first paragraph to you last one without even noticing that they are in fundamental opposition. You hear people in the US bitching about prostitutes walking around near school zones, precisely because they CAN walk there, and bitching is easily the favorite national past time.
Those attempts to ban things in the US are noticeable because of their loud failure mode. NYC finds out its still legal to sell 20 OZ drinks, meanwhile French business owners still can't work more than a certain amount of hours at their own business.
No, I meant exactly what I said.
Reread what I wrote and see if you still believe the biggest hurdle to leap giving the instructions.
If so, please make a pizza from scratch, just to refresh your memory of the task at hand, then design a machine that can do that and a load of laundry while the dough is rising.
Or maybe get those agency's funds un sequestered?
That's not a drone. That's an R/C model plane.
Probably one of these, or similar model. Probably trying to get a photo. Or a plausibly deniable dry run.
But sounds like something that could easily be blown out of proportion. TSA getting funds sequestered? Not any more.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/12/091217-drone-03.jpg
We do trust current robots implicitly. Robots of all types of deployed and mostly run our industrial and manufacturing industries. They are showing up in the homes as well. The typical robots that you read about or see in movies are typically empowered with logic and AI well beyond anything we can actually create. As long as the 'intelligence' of robots continue to be (easily) understood and fully grasped by us this will not change. When robots start advancing beyond our comprehension that is the point when we will start to fear them, but that holds true of anything beyond our comprehension.
Its a tortured definition of a robot that includes simple machinery designed to do simple tasks driven by simply switches.
Come back to the discussion when you instruct a machine to get out the flour, yeast, tomato sauce and peperoni and bake you a pizza in your own kitchen and serve it to you with your favorite brew.
Exactly.
Why do people always totally fail to understand Amisov? He wasn't trying to be coy or opaque.
I trust my neato vacuum robot to behave according to its simple rules, as designed. I don't trust any "intelligent" machine to behave in a generally intelligent manner, because they just doserving And that has nothing whatsoever to do with valleys, canny or uncanny.
You've hit the nail on the head.
I seriously doubt humans will ever create robots like Data, from Star Trek, because we would never trust them. Regardless of their programming, people would always suspect that the robots would be serving different masters, and spying on us. Hell, we don't even trust our own cell phones or our computers.
Even if the device doesn't look like a human, people will not likely trust truely intelligent autonomous machines.
I'm not convinced there is a valley involved. Its a popular meme, but not all that germane.
This. When they talk about the .Net community, I think to myself, "Do I know of even ONE such person?" No.
Then you read this gem from Microsoft's Hynds:
This uncertainty sets the stage for avoidance of open source components by a large part of the .NET developer population. In fact I had seen developers fired because they included a component into a project without getting clearance to ensure the license of that component did not impinge on the licensing of the project as a whole.
Gee, I wonder who might have instigated that?
Bring more with you sir. You will need it.
The problem is that a Eurpoa rover would need to be powered by an RTG, which means you have to send a vehicle about the size of curiosity. So thats 1000kg that you have to land.
Meh! Details....
The day before Curiosity landed the general opinion here among the Slashdot Rocket Scientists that it had ZERO chance for success. Too complicated. Too Rube Goldberg. Parachutes, Rockets, and Skycranes! Such foolishness. Stupid arrogant NASA/JPL about to get their comeuppance.
Well...
"lent data"??? "honed in"????
Not sure what's up with "lent data". (Typo of "sent data"? Odd translation of an idiom from a non-English language?)
I've heard the "honed in" misusage a lot. It seems to be a Mondegreen> from "homed in" (like a homing pigeon.)
Lent is the past tense of lend. Data from one discovery was lent to a totally different theory.
Honed in is fairly common usage when working toward a goal.
The so called "translation" is from a language called English, with which it appears you are only tangentially acquainted.
Tidal forces seem like a good culprit, considering the extreme gravitational forces involved.
Which is interesting because enough gravitational heating of the moon's core to keep an ocean liquid suggests the possibility of life even in the absence of sunlight, just as is found in some deep oceans on earth. I suppose its possible for there to be enough infrared near thermal vents, but by and large, you would expect any putative life to have evolved completely without any form of photoreceptors, let alone eyes.
Some clever minds are probably already at work conceptualizing payload packages to investigate these cracks for an under-ice rover.
Didn't push his agenda?
Didn't push his view in the Superman comic book.
People can have more than one view.
George Washington helped draft and signed the Constitution, yet he owned 317 slaves.
The interesting thing here is that the story Didn't push his agenda yet his story was still rejected. Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"? Have his opponents not heard of Barbra Streisand?