DigiScents... ahh yes, fond memories. Back when I was a WiReD-reading bastard, I read about this company touting their "upcoming technology." I actually thought it was an interesting technology, and registered digitalscents.com. (I swear, your honor, it was only so that I could setup forums for people to discuss "digital scent" technology.)
Instead, a few months later I sold it to DigiScents for $2000.
I don't understand why Firefox is blowing 50K to put an ad in the NYT.
1. The ad itself has already gotten $50K worth of coverage across the internet.
2. Firefox is not spending any money. People donated over $250,000 to Firefox because they wanted their name in an ad. So they spent the $50K on the ad, as promised, and held onto $200K for other ad campaigns.
As a "thank you" to the community it is pretty weak as well. It thanks only the NYT bottom line.
This was never offered as a thank you to the community. This ad was paid for by the community. Why would we thank ourselves? This ad is meant, pure and simple, as a way to get NYT readers to wonder how in the hell a program can be so good that it got 10,000 people to donate money to advertise it.
It has already worked, and it hasn't even run in the fucking paper yet!
A well-hyped $50K 1.0 launch party would be a better way to generate press and motivate people to switch to the browser.
This is why you are posting to slashdot instead of handling marketing for any products.
It would get far wider coverage than a single page in one edition of the NYT.
You mean like multiple postings on slashdot, CNET, and other highly trafficked internet sites? Oh wait... that's what has happened with this ad campaign.
10,000 people on slashdot criticizing an ad they haven't even seen yet.
Personally, if a person looks at the ad long enough to wonder why there are so many names on the page they're NOT EVEN LEGIBLE, then I think that accomplishes the task at hand -- promoting firefox.
This isn't a branch of government. We're talking about the New York Times. Surely they can decide whether to charge Firefox the correct rate based on the message.
Or more likely they just felt like it. Those irreplaceable animators were responsible for $200 MILLION in top line revenue. That's several hundred thousand dollars per employee. I'd call that profitable.
1. That revenue was not on an ongoing basis, but based on certain years of movie profits based on their work, with no guarantee of future performance.
2. this article at NPR sums up the layoff: "The decision is part of Disney's ongoing move away from hand-drawn animation in favor of computer-generated cartoons."
3. Disney is under no requirement to continue to produce a certain type of product just to keep people employed. They are phasing out hand-drawn animation, thus they do not need to employ animators that do not work with computers. Those animators will have to find other jobs doing hand-drawn animation, create their own companies, or improve their skillsets to include computer-generated animation skills.
What was your name for the company managers when they were hiring people that "they really didn't need" (as you put it)? Would those people have been better off for that period of time they had a job, without a job?
If companies really had to treat employees as adopted children, with a lifelong responsibility for them, not only would you see the economic effect in the prices of everything, you'd find it a lot harder to get a job in the first place.
Based on your understanding of economics, I think you should be praying to god that you were ever hired in the first place.
I can't afford a mortgage now. I couldn't afford a mortgage when I was employed.
Based on your understanding of how capitalism works, and your choice of nicknames on/., I am starting to understand why that is.
No. If those companies don't need the employees, they shouldn't have hired them in the first place.
Please go back to school and pay attention in economics class this time. Companies' needs change over time, their ability to make money and support all those people and make money also changes over time. The market changes and companies must change with the market. If AOL does business in fantasy land as you propose, they WOULD go out of business, and instead of firing 950 people they'd be firing their entire workforce.
Once they are hired, the company is responsible for those people unless the company is going out of business.
Christ on a cracker. I am now convinced you are a moron, and have filtered you out properly...
Please, I beg of you... please read some books on economics and capitalism. These companies are hiring people to do a job, as long as that is needed... they aren't adopting children fer chrissakes.
Better [to create useless jobs for these people] than throwing them into the street after mortgages were signed.
If you take your views out to their logical conclusion, I think you will find the end result VERY SCARY. You wouldn't be able to afford a mortgage because you'd be paying higher costs on everything because companies would be wasting money paying people to not do anything. Can't you see that?
What's going to stop the next employer from doing the same thing?
Absolutely nothing, thankfully. That's capitalism. If something were to stop the next employer from doing the same thing, you'd be paying more for everything, and you'd REALLY be bitching. Especially since companies would be going out of business, companies you depend on.
What is the point of trying to build a career that can be stolen arbitrarily?
Stolen career? A career is "a chosen pursuit; a profession or occupation." While someone's career may be in what they were doing at AOL, it should not be defined by 'AOL'.
My current career is as a programmer/sysadmin where I work. However my career would continue (elsewhere) if I were fired. To prevent that, I have made sure I have many skills that make me valuable to my employer.
You do not own your job unless you are the owner of the company. In all other cases, you work at the whim of the company that hired you. It is THEIR position, not yours. If you do not like this, then open your own business and work for yourself. That is the American way. Not grousing over how much churn there is at humongous mega corporations.
The applications are what is important, true. But even more important is that the operating system offers the most security possible so that it doesn't become an infected message of unusability. If that requires a one-time change in an application in order to fit into the new security model, so be it.
Then Steve and the marketing watch/. Depending on our reaction, they decide if they should proceed, what features they should or shouldn't include... and save a bundle of money on actual market research.
I didn't say you need to play video games to write them. I stated two separate issues. (1) Playing video games can be educational. (2) How could his kids do something creative on the computer, such as programming a video game, within his current set of rules, which limits the computer use to research?
People seem to think that eliminating Swearing and Sex on the radio is some sort of terrible crime but it is really meaningless. When you look at the bigger issues.
I think what the FCC is doing to "censor" TV/radio is completely un-American.
(I put "censor" in quotes because they don't actually stop broadcasts from going out, they simply fine you if they later deem it was offensive -- a subtle difference, but a difference.)
But read this quote from the person at PTC:
Mahaney said the issue should not be the source of complaints, but whether programming violates federal law prohibiting the broadcast of indecent matter when children are likely to be watching. "Why does it matter how the complaints come?" Mahaney said. "If the networks haven't done anything illegal, if they haven't done anything indecent, why do they care what we say?"
She has a great point. The problem is not that PTC has sent in a billion complaints, but that the FCC exists and is actually in charge of fining companies who dare to broadcast things people tune in to.
Personally, I think the FCC should be inundated with bogus complaints. When they aired Saving Private Ryan recently, unedited, I was real tempted to send in a complaint about the movie just because I think the whole thing is ridiculous.
It is one thing if ABC says, we're going to show you Monday Night Football, and opens with an intro that might not be suitable for children, or CBS airs a half-time show that features an "accidental" nudie show to a wide audience, but other than that, as long as the networks are correctly classifying their broadcasts, I think they should air whatever people want to watch.
The way Florida does it, eliminating Election Day will also move the submission of votes out of the public eye, out of the oversight of pollwatchers, out of the reach of exit pollers, and entirely into the corrupt hands of the partisan vote fraud fixers running the state elections.
Sorry, this is completely illogical.
Having fewer polling places makes it much EASIER for non-partisan poll watchers to keep an eye on the entire process and keep everything fair.
Slashdot Mirror
DigiScents... ahh yes, fond memories. Back when I was a WiReD-reading bastard, I read about this company touting their "upcoming technology." I actually thought it was an interesting technology, and registered digitalscents.com. (I swear, your honor, it was only so that I could setup forums for people to discuss "digital scent" technology.)
Instead, a few months later I sold it to DigiScents for $2000.
I miss 1999... sniff sniff.
What's the point of hooking this device up to a PC? Why not, just, you know, use the device without a PC?
Why not, just, you know, read the fucking article?
I don't understand why Firefox is blowing 50K to put an ad in the NYT.
1. The ad itself has already gotten $50K worth of coverage across the internet.
2. Firefox is not spending any money. People donated over $250,000 to Firefox because they wanted their name in an ad. So they spent the $50K on the ad, as promised, and held onto $200K for other ad campaigns.
As a "thank you" to the community it is pretty weak as well. It thanks only the NYT bottom line.
This was never offered as a thank you to the community. This ad was paid for by the community. Why would we thank ourselves? This ad is meant, pure and simple, as a way to get NYT readers to wonder how in the hell a program can be so good that it got 10,000 people to donate money to advertise it.
It has already worked, and it hasn't even run in the fucking paper yet!
A well-hyped $50K 1.0 launch party would be a better way to generate press and motivate people to switch to the browser.
This is why you are posting to slashdot instead of handling marketing for any products.
It would get far wider coverage than a single page in one edition of the NYT.
You mean like multiple postings on slashdot, CNET, and other highly trafficked internet sites? Oh wait... that's what has happened with this ad campaign.
10,000 people on slashdot criticizing an ad they haven't even seen yet.
Personally, if a person looks at the ad long enough to wonder why there are so many names on the page they're NOT EVEN LEGIBLE, then I think that accomplishes the task at hand -- promoting firefox.
This isn't a branch of government. We're talking about the New York Times. Surely they can decide whether to charge Firefox the correct rate based on the message.
Or more likely they just felt like it. Those irreplaceable animators were responsible for $200 MILLION in top line revenue. That's several hundred thousand dollars per employee. I'd call that profitable.
1. That revenue was not on an ongoing basis, but based on certain years of movie profits based on their work, with no guarantee of future performance.
2. this article at NPR sums up the layoff: "The decision is part of Disney's ongoing move away from hand-drawn animation in favor of computer-generated cartoons."
3. Disney is under no requirement to continue to produce a certain type of product just to keep people employed. They are phasing out hand-drawn animation, thus they do not need to employ animators that do not work with computers. Those animators will have to find other jobs doing hand-drawn animation, create their own companies, or improve their skillsets to include computer-generated animation skills.
Interesting, isn't it, how nobody ever responds to the Disney example? Or the Disney quote?
Maybe because it is a great example of people being laid off for no reason?
How do you expect anyone to refute a quote taken out of context, or a firing of some unnamed division with no supporting context?
Cruel, arbitrary, dishonest and destructive.
What was your name for the company managers when they were hiring people that "they really didn't need" (as you put it)? Would those people have been better off for that period of time they had a job, without a job?
If companies really had to treat employees as adopted children, with a lifelong responsibility for them, not only would you see the economic effect in the prices of everything, you'd find it a lot harder to get a job in the first place.
Based on your understanding of economics, I think you should be praying to god that you were ever hired in the first place.
I can't afford a mortgage now. I couldn't afford a mortgage when I was employed.
/., I am starting to understand why that is.
Based on your understanding of how capitalism works, and your choice of nicknames on
No. If those companies don't need the employees, they shouldn't have hired them in the first place.
Please go back to school and pay attention in economics class this time. Companies' needs change over time, their ability to make money and support all those people and make money also changes over time. The market changes and companies must change with the market. If AOL does business in fantasy land as you propose, they WOULD go out of business, and instead of firing 950 people they'd be firing their entire workforce.
Once they are hired, the company is responsible for those people unless the company is going out of business.
Christ on a cracker. I am now convinced you are a moron, and have filtered you out properly...
Please, I beg of you... please read some books on economics and capitalism. These companies are hiring people to do a job, as long as that is needed... they aren't adopting children fer chrissakes.
Better [to create useless jobs for these people] than throwing them into the street after mortgages were signed.
If you take your views out to their logical conclusion, I think you will find the end result VERY SCARY. You wouldn't be able to afford a mortgage because you'd be paying higher costs on everything because companies would be wasting money paying people to not do anything. Can't you see that?
What's going to stop the next employer from doing the same thing?
Absolutely nothing, thankfully. That's capitalism. If something were to stop the next employer from doing the same thing, you'd be paying more for everything, and you'd REALLY be bitching. Especially since companies would be going out of business, companies you depend on.
What is the point of trying to build a career that can be stolen arbitrarily?
Stolen career? A career is "a chosen pursuit; a profession or occupation." While someone's career may be in what they were doing at AOL, it should not be defined by 'AOL'.
My current career is as a programmer/sysadmin where I work. However my career would continue (elsewhere) if I were fired. To prevent that, I have made sure I have many skills that make me valuable to my employer.
You do not own your job unless you are the owner of the company. In all other cases, you work at the whim of the company that hired you. It is THEIR position, not yours. If you do not like this, then open your own business and work for yourself. That is the American way. Not grousing over how much churn there is at humongous mega corporations.
Sorry, what the fuck are you babbling about?
The applications are what is important, true. But even more important is that the operating system offers the most security possible so that it doesn't become an infected message of unusability. If that requires a one-time change in an application in order to fit into the new security model, so be it.
No comment.
Then Steve and the marketing watch /. Depending on our reaction, they decide if they should proceed, what features they should or shouldn't include... and save a bundle of money on actual market research.
I have one thing to say to this stupid idea.
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
"A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans... or at least put out a street light."
I didn't say you need to play video games to write them. I stated two separate issues. (1) Playing video games can be educational. (2) How could his kids do something creative on the computer, such as programming a video game, within his current set of rules, which limits the computer use to research?
People seem to think that eliminating Swearing and Sex on the radio is some sort of terrible crime but it is really meaningless. When you look at the bigger issues.
What if an artistic movie could not be shown on TV, even though it would begin with explicit warnings about its content, due to the after-the-fact censorship performed by the FCC?
When a show airs, explicit ratings show up in the corner that tell you the intended audience and objectionable content.
Advocating for the devil: What rating was displayed on the SuperBowl and Monday Night Football?
No computer games. Yup. None. ...
The computer is used for schoolwork and research.
It sounds like you are discouraging creative computer use? Why?
What if your kid could be a great computer programmer? What if they wanted to create a video game?
The right computer games encourage thinking.
https://www.parentstv.org/ptc/fcc/fcccomplaint2.as p
That is the exact question that Oprah asked on her show.
I think what the FCC is doing to "censor" TV/radio is completely un-American.
(I put "censor" in quotes because they don't actually stop broadcasts from going out, they simply fine you if they later deem it was offensive -- a subtle difference, but a difference.)
But read this quote from the person at PTC:
She has a great point. The problem is not that PTC has sent in a billion complaints, but that the FCC exists and is actually in charge of fining companies who dare to broadcast things people tune in to.
Personally, I think the FCC should be inundated with bogus complaints. When they aired Saving Private Ryan recently, unedited, I was real tempted to send in a complaint about the movie just because I think the whole thing is ridiculous.
It is one thing if ABC says, we're going to show you Monday Night Football, and opens with an intro that might not be suitable for children, or CBS airs a half-time show that features an "accidental" nudie show to a wide audience, but other than that, as long as the networks are correctly classifying their broadcasts, I think they should air whatever people want to watch.
The way Florida does it, eliminating Election Day will also move the submission of votes out of the public eye, out of the oversight of pollwatchers, out of the reach of exit pollers, and entirely into the corrupt hands of the partisan vote fraud fixers running the state elections.
Sorry, this is completely illogical.
Having fewer polling places makes it much EASIER for non-partisan poll watchers to keep an eye on the entire process and keep everything fair.
Yes, but have you ever tried to fuck a pie?
Piece of cake.
How pleafant that they've done what waf neceffary to make this happen.
Personally, I think it fucks.