Would that be SCSI40,SCSI80,SCSI160, VGA, USB1, USB1.1, USB2.0, USB3.0, FW400, FW800, RG-6, RJ45, RJ11, or something else...that's obsolete before you age to another demographic?
And yet the newspapers think that they'll make more money by putting this crap behind a pay wall. In reality, they'll just get fewer hits on their website, and thus ads, and will end up lowering their revenue way more than what they charge for access to their 'premium' content.
Let me tell you a secret, from the point of view of "most newspapers" the paywall is to get people to start buying the paper again, not an attempt to make money on the Internet. Print ads and sale papers (from Target and the like) still make more money than digital ads and there is a lot of pressure to keep subscription numbers up to attract those ads.
Hence the reason I said they're all idiots. Charge more for internet ads, and vet them to make sure they're effective ads. Advertisers don't care about subscriber numbers. They care about sales from their ads.
Because advertisers, especially local ones that are impacted by that compelling content, are willing to pay for good quality ad hits.
I'll disagree. Real Estate and Car Companies like advertising on the Internet (through Google, mostly), but have become very cynical after being hit with every single web-based-ads sales pitch in the universe. The vibe I get is that 90% of all their referrals are crap. As for the smaller companies, most of them really don't need an advertising campaign with global (or even regional) reach, or they don't have effective websites to refer to, or have the belief that advertising on the web (in terms of banners and text on a non-search website) is ignored.
What's the answer? If I knew I wouldn't be posting it on Slashdot:-) Maybe some kind of City Guide (yellow pages+wikipedia+restaurant menus) with news as a sideline (to keep the updated content high and keep the search engines coming back).
Hence the reason I said they're all idiots. Charge more for internet ads, and vet them to make sure they're effective ads. Advertisers don't care about hits. They care about sales from their ads.
Even though most would consider the NY Times to have some real premium content worthy of paying for, they couldn't make it work. How are any other news sites going to?
And they're one of the few companies that gets how to advertise effectively, efficiently and usefully.
Go to just about any news website. You'll see flashing ads, bouncing ads, ads that pop down from the top.
Like I said above, the reader is there for the content. If the newspaper provides compelling content, then there will be more readers, they can charge more for ads, and be choosy about the quality of the ads. But newspapers are run by ad people. They think more ads = more revenue even if you're driving your readers away. Yes, they're ALL that dumb.
If it's truly premium content, then I can see justifying paying for it.
However, the real problem is that most newspapers think that their editorial content is almost as good as the WSJ and the like. But the sad truth is that it's nowhere near that. It's not indepth, it's not researched, it's not thorough, hell, it's not usually spell checked. And every newsroom I've ever been in believes they have great content. In spite of the fact that most stories are PR pieces or written by someone else who emailed it to the features, sports or news desk.
And yet the newspapers think that they'll make more money by putting this crap behind a pay wall. In reality, they'll just get fewer hits on their website, and thus ads, and will end up lowering their revenue way more than what they charge for access to their 'premium' content.
If they wanted to actually increase revenue, there's a simple solution. 1. Create compelling content 2. Charge a premium for ads around that compelling content.
Compelling content = more readership which means more ad impressions which means more ad revenue. Yes, compelling content is hard. But it's the only way for newspapers to make it in the future.
Yet every paper sees it as giving content away for free. And they're all idiots. They provide a real service - information. They just need to figure out how & who to charge to optimize their bottom line. Because advertisers, especially local ones that are impacted by that compelling content, are willing to pay for good quality ad hits.
I'd rather take home a smaller paycheck than have to use MS products for a living. $3/hr is about $6k/yr. I'd consider my personal happiness to be worth more than that.
That's true. But I also could not imagine the sales staff at an Apple store helping Windows using customers. Aside from a lack of experience, I imagine MS customers are more... unhappy.
You don't have kids do you? Karate will not allow a kid to defend himself.
My older son, who is 8, has been playing hockey for 4 years. His legs are strong enough to throw me off of him when we're horsing around. And I weigh 225 lbs.
However, if I needed to, I could still beat him without any issue.
This device helps in those situations - adult vs kid, not kid vs kid. It's definitely not a panacea, but I could see where if you lived where you might be worried about your child wandering off or being lured away that you might consider something like this. And for those of you who say that it's my responsibility, that's true. However, I don't watch my 8 yr old every second of the day. I doubt any parent does.
Negative effects meaning...spam? Because that's all the negative effects I'm going to get. If you choose a computer that's unsafe for you, that's your fault. Just like if you choose a car with fewer airbags.
And, among other things, machines like cars and guns can be used with impunity, without safety knowledge, and have negative effects. Much more so that a computer. And yet USING those things is not criminally negligent.
Probably, the administration told them they had to allow it so that the administration wouldn't have to hear everyone bitch about how they can't check their email, or get online, or 'read a case file', etc, etc.
For the record, here's the increase in the US debt: WW2 to 1980: $1T Reagan: $1T to $3T = +2T or 200% in 8 years Bush 1: $3T to $5T = +2T or 66% in 4 years Clinton: $5T to $6T = +1T or 20% in 8 years Bush Jr: $6T to $11T = +5T or 83% in 8 years
So the Republican's "smaller govt" added $9T of the $11T to our national debt. The hypocrisy of the right on this would be hysterical if they didn't believe it so deeply. So it's just pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
Light doesn't travel through peanut butter...
Is spear phishing related to porn?
Call Jenny. She'll know.
Would that be SCSI40,SCSI80,SCSI160, VGA, USB1, USB1.1, USB2.0, USB3.0, FW400, FW800, RG-6, RJ45, RJ11, or something else...that's obsolete before you age to another demographic?
Nice implants!
Upgrade options, duh!
They want to help consumers with more choice. Just imagine what the NEXT version of this will look like:
http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/files/2009/08/windows-upgrade-chart.png
No they don't. They want to see the client in order to hand them the bill.
My point was that there doesn't need to be an else clause...
I'd be happy with spell checking. Proofreading/editing would probably be considered a premium service.
Have you read about the newspaper business?
It's not working. They're going under left and right.
And yet the newspapers think that they'll make more money by putting this crap behind a pay wall. In reality, they'll just get fewer hits on their website, and thus ads, and will end up lowering their revenue way more than what they charge for access to their 'premium' content.
Let me tell you a secret, from the point of view of "most newspapers" the paywall is to get people to start buying the paper again, not an attempt to make money on the Internet. Print ads and sale papers (from Target and the like) still make more money than digital ads and there is a lot of pressure to keep subscription numbers up to attract those ads.
Hence the reason I said they're all idiots. Charge more for internet ads, and vet them to make sure they're effective ads.
Advertisers don't care about subscriber numbers. They care about sales from their ads.
Because advertisers, especially local ones that are impacted by that compelling content, are willing to pay for good quality ad hits.
I'll disagree. Real Estate and Car Companies like advertising on the Internet (through Google, mostly), but have become very cynical after being hit with every single web-based-ads sales pitch in the universe. The vibe I get is that 90% of all their referrals are crap. As for the smaller companies, most of them really don't need an advertising campaign with global (or even regional) reach, or they don't have effective websites to refer to, or have the belief that advertising on the web (in terms of banners and text on a non-search website) is ignored.
What's the answer? If I knew I wouldn't be posting it on Slashdot :-) Maybe some kind of City Guide (yellow pages+wikipedia+restaurant menus) with news as a sideline (to keep the updated content high and keep the search engines coming back).
Hence the reason I said they're all idiots. Charge more for internet ads, and vet them to make sure they're effective ads.
Advertisers don't care about hits. They care about sales from their ads.
Perfect example.
Even though most would consider the NY Times to have some real premium content worthy of paying for, they couldn't make it work. How are any other news sites going to?
http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/ts/index.html
And they're one of the few companies that gets how to advertise effectively, efficiently and usefully.
Go to just about any news website. You'll see flashing ads, bouncing ads, ads that pop down from the top.
Like I said above, the reader is there for the content. If the newspaper provides compelling content, then there will be more readers, they can charge more for ads, and be choosy about the quality of the ads. But newspapers are run by ad people. They think more ads = more revenue even if you're driving your readers away. Yes, they're ALL that dumb.
If it's truly premium content, then I can see justifying paying for it.
However, the real problem is that most newspapers think that their editorial content is almost as good as the WSJ and the like. But the sad truth is that it's nowhere near that. It's not indepth, it's not researched, it's not thorough, hell, it's not usually spell checked. And every newsroom I've ever been in believes they have great content. In spite of the fact that most stories are PR pieces or written by someone else who emailed it to the features, sports or news desk.
And yet the newspapers think that they'll make more money by putting this crap behind a pay wall. In reality, they'll just get fewer hits on their website, and thus ads, and will end up lowering their revenue way more than what they charge for access to their 'premium' content.
If they wanted to actually increase revenue, there's a simple solution.
1. Create compelling content
2. Charge a premium for ads around that compelling content.
Compelling content = more readership which means more ad impressions which means more ad revenue. Yes, compelling content is hard. But it's the only way for newspapers to make it in the future.
Yet every paper sees it as giving content away for free. And they're all idiots. They provide a real service - information. They just need to figure out how & who to charge to optimize their bottom line. Because advertisers, especially local ones that are impacted by that compelling content, are willing to pay for good quality ad hits.
I'd rather take home a smaller paycheck than have to use MS products for a living. $3/hr is about $6k/yr. I'd consider my personal happiness to be worth more than that.
That's true. But I also could not imagine the sales staff at an Apple store helping Windows using customers. Aside from a lack of experience, I imagine MS customers are more ... unhappy.
You don't have kids do you? Karate will not allow a kid to defend himself.
My older son, who is 8, has been playing hockey for 4 years. His legs are strong enough to throw me off of him when we're horsing around. And I weigh 225 lbs.
However, if I needed to, I could still beat him without any issue.
This device helps in those situations - adult vs kid, not kid vs kid. It's definitely not a panacea, but I could see where if you lived where you might be worried about your child wandering off or being lured away that you might consider something like this. And for those of you who say that it's my responsibility, that's true. However, I don't watch my 8 yr old every second of the day. I doubt any parent does.
Negative effects meaning...spam? Because that's all the negative effects I'm going to get. If you choose a computer that's unsafe for you, that's your fault. Just like if you choose a car with fewer airbags.
And, among other things, machines like cars and guns can be used with impunity, without safety knowledge, and have negative effects. Much more so that a computer. And yet USING those things is not criminally negligent.
Ahh, but that wasn't in his statement, or even his argument.
Probably, the administration told them they had to allow it so that the administration wouldn't have to hear everyone bitch about how they can't check their email, or get online, or 'read a case file', etc, etc.
It's not always the IT admin's fault.
In what fucking world do you live in that you think running a random file is criminally negligent?
Because you need admin account to run an exe?
Or put one on the desktop?
Yeah, but it doesn't do a damn thing in this case, or most places at work, where users can access their personal mail accounts via webmail.
http://zfacts.com/p/480.html
And on that page, a pdf of annual debt.
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2004-National-Debt-History.pdf
Amen.
For the record, here's the increase in the US debt:
WW2 to 1980: $1T
Reagan: $1T to $3T = +2T or 200% in 8 years
Bush 1: $3T to $5T = +2T or 66% in 4 years
Clinton: $5T to $6T = +1T or 20% in 8 years
Bush Jr: $6T to $11T = +5T or 83% in 8 years
So the Republican's "smaller govt" added $9T of the $11T to our national debt.
The hypocrisy of the right on this would be hysterical if they didn't believe it so deeply. So it's just pathetic.