Congrats, Slashdot, for helping Mr. Gore in his attempt to remain relevant. Is there any controversial issues left for Mr. Gore to give his opinion in exchange for another 15 minutes?
If you're going to give unsolicited opinions on things you don't understand, the least you can do is hold a public office.
That's not my job. That's why I pay taxes for a government. But the solution sure as hell isn't to throw up your hands and say that you're not going to regulate any of it because there's a gray area.
3. Cocaine -- See #1. No crime committed against anyone else. Now if you kill someone (when on drugs or off), I can agree that a crime is committed, but the intoxicant shouldn't matter. Sometimes that intoxicant is adrenaline.
4. Opion/Heroin -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).
This is outright ignorant. In your mind, if A causes crime, A should be illegal, but if A greatly increases the likelihood of crime and results in huge harm to society in medical costs, then it should not be outlawed. The problem isn't what one does when high on the drug; it's what one does when they are on the low in order to get high again.
Actually, I believe that's the sound of you not following recent advancements with IE7 and just wanting to jump on the anti-Microsoft bandwagon here. Truth is, IE7 goes a long way to standards support.
Besides, I did all my non-work web browsing on my PDA using the wireless link from the company next door. Do you know how hard it was to type a Slashdot comment on a tiny virtual keyboard?
I think it depends on your model. Mine has a feature where it automatically generates a comment disagreeing with a specified comment. It works great for Slashdot, as the PDA's intelligence, however artificial, is on par with the average user here. I accidentally used the feature on one of my own comments once, and people were very confused.
The difference in time zone can be complex, but it can also be wonderful. Leave for the day after having sent issues 1-10 to the manager in India, and come back at 8am the next day with issues 1-10 resolved. Like anything else, you have to know what you're doing to manage an outsourced project like this. If you're just doing it to cut $40/hr to $10/hr with no consideration for the extra overhead costs required, you're probably not ready to do this...
I work for a large consulting firm, and we do it all the time, but only in areas where we have "US" offices. For example, we might have an Indian wing of the firm, but we only deal with the US wing's office in India. We send US consultants over there to manage developers we hire into that office. We also send developers to US.
From the article: 'The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Talk about a setup. I predict 90% of the comments on this article will be modded funny (regardless of whether they actually are).
No, that is not correct. You can post flyers on any school's network.
Even if that were true, it still provides no reason to use the model they were using, except that they do not want to cap off the amount of ad money they can make on a given day. Unfortunately, that means the more money they make in a day, the less value each advertiser has.
Anyway, this discussion is moot because FB has since changed their policies according to another thread. I guess they realized it was a dumb model, too.
My comments are in the context of the original article, which is not talking about students. Anyway, just because most students might decide not to do such analysis, again, doesn't make the model any more sensible. Intelligent businesspeople who are interested in an actual advertising campaign would want to do such analysis, and it's not possible with Facebook's model.
I really don't know how you could possibly make a generalization like that. Are you familiar with what goes into an analysis on where to spend advertising dollars? You seem to making the argument that it is such a "duh" decision that no one needs to do any actual analysis on it. The statistical argument you suggested is obvious and certainly provides some marginal insight, but there is a lot more to it, like comparing advertising investment to benefit ratios of different advertising alternatives. $1 spent at Facebook is $1 that cannot be spent elsewhere. It makes it unnecessarily difficult to do such analysis because the return on your $1 investment is affected complexly by three variables, not just one (i.e., impression-to-realization conversion rate).
Super Bowl advertisers buy a specified amount of time. This is equivalent to a banner ad program that allows advertisers to buy a specified percentage of impressions. I'd like to see the Super Bowl try to get advertisers to pay for an equal 1/n share of advertising time which will equate to an unknown number of seconds depending upon the total number of advertisers (but we can give you historical stats!).
You're missing the point. It still happens to work because not many advertisers use it per day. The fact that it still works is not a result of the system, which still makes no sense; it's the result of underutilized capacity.
If you use my bag of candy example elsewhere in this thread, if you get a good deal because only 2 other people want a share of the candy, that means you got lucky. It doesn't mean that you made a good decision from a cost-benefit point of view, which is nearly impossible to do with a model like this.
Do you have a link? They must have changed their policies recently. I inquired into this at one point and have an email response that documents that it is (or was) impossible to buy a certain number of impressions.
Wrong. Unless they have changed their policies, they do not at all sell a certain number of impressions. Did you read any of my two comments before snapping back? I guess you're just trying to fit in here...
That is just based on an estimate, using average impressions/day and average advertisers/day. My point is that you are not buying a fixed percentage in a rotation or a number of impressions. You are buying an equal-weight spot in a rotation with unknown size.
Let's say I have a bag of candy and I offer you an equal share in the bag for 15 cents. You don't know how many pieces are in the bag, and you don't know how many ways I'm going to split it up. How can you possibly decide whether it is worth it?
I then tell you that in similar situations people usually end up with at least 3 pieces of candy each. The only way this helps you is if you think 5 cents per piece is a steal. And you still might not get it.
It makes it very difficult to do comparisons against other opportunities.
Facebook is a poor example, because their advertising model makes no sense to begin with. You pay a fixed price for rotation on a particular day, but you have absolutely no idea whether that will be 1 impression or 1 million impressions. It all depends on how many other people pay for that particular day. Given this, the amount of traffic the site receives doesn't really impact the value of an advertising dollar as much the number of advertisers for that day does.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pus sification
That's nothing. The FBI have since sacked his home while he was out. Fucking ridiculous.
This is why God invented ambiguous references:
Microsoft immediately responded by saying their reckless ways are endangering the security of Windows users
Finally, admission of guilt.
Congrats, Slashdot, for helping Mr. Gore in his attempt to remain relevant. Is there any controversial issues left for Mr. Gore to give his opinion in exchange for another 15 minutes?
If you're going to give unsolicited opinions on things you don't understand, the least you can do is hold a public office.
I know he didn't say that. I'm saying that. And I'm calling it ignorant to say otherwise.
That's not my job. That's why I pay taxes for a government. But the solution sure as hell isn't to throw up your hands and say that you're not going to regulate any of it because there's a gray area.
3. Cocaine -- See #1. No crime committed against anyone else. Now if you kill someone (when on drugs or off), I can agree that a crime is committed, but the intoxicant shouldn't matter. Sometimes that intoxicant is adrenaline.
4. Opion/Heroin -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).
This is outright ignorant. In your mind, if A causes crime, A should be illegal, but if A greatly increases the likelihood of crime and results in huge harm to society in medical costs, then it should not be outlawed. The problem isn't what one does when high on the drug; it's what one does when they are on the low in order to get high again.
Actually, I believe that's the sound of you not following recent advancements with IE7 and just wanting to jump on the anti-Microsoft bandwagon here. Truth is, IE7 goes a long way to standards support.
I hear screams.
Besides, I did all my non-work web browsing on my PDA using the wireless link from the company next door. Do you know how hard it was to type a Slashdot comment on a tiny virtual keyboard?
I think it depends on your model. Mine has a feature where it automatically generates a comment disagreeing with a specified comment. It works great for Slashdot, as the PDA's intelligence, however artificial, is on par with the average user here. I accidentally used the feature on one of my own comments once, and people were very confused.
The difference in time zone can be complex, but it can also be wonderful. Leave for the day after having sent issues 1-10 to the manager in India, and come back at 8am the next day with issues 1-10 resolved. Like anything else, you have to know what you're doing to manage an outsourced project like this. If you're just doing it to cut $40/hr to $10/hr with no consideration for the extra overhead costs required, you're probably not ready to do this...
I work for a large consulting firm, and we do it all the time, but only in areas where we have "US" offices. For example, we might have an Indian wing of the firm, but we only deal with the US wing's office in India. We send US consultants over there to manage developers we hire into that office. We also send developers to US.
From the article: 'The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Talk about a setup. I predict 90% of the comments on this article will be modded funny (regardless of whether they actually are).
No, that is not correct. You can post flyers on any school's network.
Even if that were true, it still provides no reason to use the model they were using, except that they do not want to cap off the amount of ad money they can make on a given day. Unfortunately, that means the more money they make in a day, the less value each advertiser has.
Anyway, this discussion is moot because FB has since changed their policies according to another thread. I guess they realized it was a dumb model, too.
My comments are in the context of the original article, which is not talking about students. Anyway, just because most students might decide not to do such analysis, again, doesn't make the model any more sensible. Intelligent businesspeople who are interested in an actual advertising campaign would want to do such analysis, and it's not possible with Facebook's model.
Thanks.
I really don't know how you could possibly make a generalization like that. Are you familiar with what goes into an analysis on where to spend advertising dollars? You seem to making the argument that it is such a "duh" decision that no one needs to do any actual analysis on it. The statistical argument you suggested is obvious and certainly provides some marginal insight, but there is a lot more to it, like comparing advertising investment to benefit ratios of different advertising alternatives. $1 spent at Facebook is $1 that cannot be spent elsewhere. It makes it unnecessarily difficult to do such analysis because the return on your $1 investment is affected complexly by three variables, not just one (i.e., impression-to-realization conversion rate).
Who says I am a member of Facebook? I just want to advertise there. Can I even become a member of Facebook?
Super Bowl advertisers buy a specified amount of time. This is equivalent to a banner ad program that allows advertisers to buy a specified percentage of impressions. I'd like to see the Super Bowl try to get advertisers to pay for an equal 1/n share of advertising time which will equate to an unknown number of seconds depending upon the total number of advertisers (but we can give you historical stats!).
As far as I can tell, Facebook does not make this data available. So, again, you're just guessing.
You're missing the point. It still happens to work because not many advertisers use it per day. The fact that it still works is not a result of the system, which still makes no sense; it's the result of underutilized capacity.
If you use my bag of candy example elsewhere in this thread, if you get a good deal because only 2 other people want a share of the candy, that means you got lucky. It doesn't mean that you made a good decision from a cost-benefit point of view, which is nearly impossible to do with a model like this.
Do you have a link? They must have changed their policies recently. I inquired into this at one point and have an email response that documents that it is (or was) impossible to buy a certain number of impressions.
Wrong. Unless they have changed their policies, they do not at all sell a certain number of impressions. Did you read any of my two comments before snapping back? I guess you're just trying to fit in here...
That is just based on an estimate, using average impressions/day and average advertisers/day. My point is that you are not buying a fixed percentage in a rotation or a number of impressions. You are buying an equal-weight spot in a rotation with unknown size.
Let's say I have a bag of candy and I offer you an equal share in the bag for 15 cents. You don't know how many pieces are in the bag, and you don't know how many ways I'm going to split it up. How can you possibly decide whether it is worth it?
I then tell you that in similar situations people usually end up with at least 3 pieces of candy each. The only way this helps you is if you think 5 cents per piece is a steal. And you still might not get it.
It makes it very difficult to do comparisons against other opportunities.
Facebook is a poor example, because their advertising model makes no sense to begin with. You pay a fixed price for rotation on a particular day, but you have absolutely no idea whether that will be 1 impression or 1 million impressions. It all depends on how many other people pay for that particular day. Given this, the amount of traffic the site receives doesn't really impact the value of an advertising dollar as much the number of advertisers for that day does.
I believe that would only work if the data centers were full of Powerbook G5s.