That is incorrect. The payment you make to the site you browse is a chance to be influenced. The site thus gains an opportunity to influence you, which they sell forward to the advertizers. Whether these advertizers succeed or fail in their attempt to use their opportunity is their problem, not yours. Either way you've paid.
True in the short term. But unless advertising with a particular publication produces sufficient ROI, it will be diverted. There's no such thing as a free lunch for publishers whose users tolerate their ads but don't change their buying habits, even when ads get clicked.
The fundamental problem is that people are hanging onto Windows XP like it's their god damned life.
That's what's driven people away from IE: XP users couldn't upgrade past IE8, so to get a modern browser they had to switch to Firefox or Chrome, which they then got used to, and so kept using when they eventually upgraded their Windows OS.
So Microsoft may have shot themselves in the foot by preventing IE9+ from working on XP.
The trick is to have friends who aren't dicks and reveal the ending but can offer good recommendations.
Yes, this usually works one-on-one with a friend, but doesn't usually happen with forced larger groups like office chat, parties, mates at the pub, gaggles of girlfriends at the coffee shop, and online group chat.
The biggest commonality of cable cutters (including me) I know is that they don't watch or care about "live" TV.
I'm not sure this is true in the larger (more social) community. Many get much of their enjoyment from a show by talking and writing about it afterward (something I suspect is also true of sex). So unless friends synchronize delayed viewing, and participation in online discussion isn't important, this drives viewing close to release dates, which this move by ABC aims to better monetize.
But yes, if you can do without timely talking and writing, you can save a lot on AV entertainment.
Take the humble Commodore 64. The most common home micro of the 80s.
Lots of users. Lots of software. Lots of piracy.
What happened in the end is that lots of companies making software made lots of money, despite the piracy, until the computer faded into obscurity with a dwindling userbase that had moved on to more powerful computers.
I've never owned a game console, but watching things it seemed to me that the reason the Playstation greatly outsold the Nintendo 64 was because the Playstation used crackable CDs while the N64 used cartridges. The weak DRM was a winner for Sony, while the game makers had their piracy losses offset by the bigger ecosystem.
However I don't think this is a good argument that content makers lose more than they gain from DRM. Weak DRM can be a net gain for publishers if some of the gains had by making piracy inconvenient is given back to users as lower prices or automatic updates.
Yes, I think this is a big part of the hate of the overweight. "They're getting to eat all the tasty food I'm denying myself, so I'll make them pay a social price."
One thing I haven't seen on either this or ASIMO is a back with lordosis. This is critical for our balance while walking, and may allow these robots to get rid of the knee bend.
The biggest fish they've bragged about is some cabbie in LA and his friends who sent a whopping $8500 to some terrorist group in Africa. Are we willing to sell the Bill of Rights for that?
Yes, I would have thought that serious terrorists and crooks would be using long-key one-time-pad encryption with random transmission and reception locations and devices so that no amount of surveillance can tell who's talking to who about what.
You know what else is great for discovering products? Asking knowledgable people with no financial interest in my decision.
The most knowledgeable people will usually be professionals. But the ranks of these will thin If enough people don't want to pay them, either directly, by looking at their annoying and distracting ads, or by turning them into salespeople by using their affiliate links.
Amateurs can be a good substitute, particularly now we have online forums. But often the information from amateurs is either wrong, anecdotal (only useful in aggregate), or is second-hand information from the above threatened professionals.
My resumes are honest, solicited, and submitted for positions where I believe I am the best candidate.
But, like all advertising, your resume doesn't tell the whole truth. Not many will comprehensively list their faults.
It's possible to conceive of a world without job ads: all potential employees are interrogated by an independent employment assessment organization who then provides employers with the most suitable single candidate or group of candidates.
Of course this is mostly a fantasy, just like a world without ads for products is a fantasy, where we would rely entirely on product assessment organizations. In practice, product makers, like job seekers, will never be able to resist tilting the playing field in their favour with spin.
So given that ads will always be with us, let's just get rid of the most intrusive types: door-to-door, on-street, telemarketing, and ads that distract us from our media consumption. And find other ways to pay media professionals.
I wrote a embedded control system for a small company that has a webpage UI in which an invisible Java applet is embedded that controls both the webpage and the machine's devices. Will they now have to pony up $100/year for a cert, which would be a non-trivial drain on their resources, particularly if the certs need to be annually and manually re-installed at each location around the world where the machine is installed?
A God that is a regular animal that happens to fly and have pasta feathers wouldn't be able to create existence. So thinking about first cause does help us both define God and understand the nature of being.
I think it's useful to first pin down God solely by the properties required to make a first cause. That established can help those who wish to pin It down further through reference to media and personal experience.
0. For something to cause something it must exist before the other thing. Therefore the universe cannot have been caused because there is no time until the universe exists.
There was once no time in our universe. Or if you're talking about any universe, you need something "out of time".
1. The principle of causality doesn't hold true. There are uncaused events all the time. See: Bell inequality.
Isn't this spooky action at a distance a violation of General Relativity rather than causality?
2. The postulates the argument is based on set up an inconsistent system that could be in principle be used to prove anything.
As physics currently stands, that's right, the problem is under-constrained. So it can help to consider Occam's razor and religious literature that claims access to the supernatural.
3. Even if the postulates were fine there is a gap in the logic - there is no justification for saying that God is the original uncaused thing. It could be anything, like body odor or flying [insert food name here] monster.
Well unless physics comes up with something better, the first cause has to be eternal and powerfully instrumental. So God isn't B.O., but certainly an entity made of food could qualify.
The simulation argument is interesting, but what created the outermost level? I've tried, but I can't conceive of a pair of computational systems that can simulate each other.
2) Event the causality principle is not something that is 100% certain
Any hints to the nature of a non-causal existence?
3) Prolongating the reasoning, what caused the first-cause? What makes it exempt from the need for a cause ? Why does everything else need a cause ?
4) Assuming that first-cause exists, absolutely nothing says it would be the same thing as what religions call "god".
The most comprehensible way for something be exempt from causality is for it to be eternal and supernatural. Add sentient and you've arrived at Deism. That is, if you need a first cause, something like a god is a parsimonious explanation.
Does anyone have a good response to the first-cause argument for the existence of God(s)? That is, is the creation of the ultimate progenitor of our universe from no-thing/no-laws best explained as being the act of an eternal and powerful supernatural entity, outside causality, that can be defined as "God"? Or is it easier to accept that something has always existed, perhaps allowing the definition of "always" to go beyond our time arrow?
Web-apps are hosted on a competitive platform with open standards called a browser, which allows applications to be modified to the user's advantage by extensions and user-scripts. Native apps are locked down.
From the user's perspective, advantage Web. From the developer's perspective, advantage native.
Will customization be stopped by adding DRM to HTTP, forcing use of blessed browsers?
A 10nm feature size is 1000 times smaller than the first 10um processes of the early 1970s. That is, one million transistors will soon fit into the space that one used to.
Slashdot Mirror
I will second the economist.
I'd be interested to know the main thing you get out of The Economist:
That is incorrect. The payment you make to the site you browse is a chance to be influenced. The site thus gains an opportunity to influence you, which they sell forward to the advertizers. Whether these advertizers succeed or fail in their attempt to use their opportunity is their problem, not yours. Either way you've paid.
True in the short term. But unless advertising with a particular publication produces sufficient ROI, it will be diverted. There's no such thing as a free lunch for publishers whose users tolerate their ads but don't change their buying habits, even when ads get clicked.
The fundamental problem is that people are hanging onto Windows XP like it's their god damned life.
That's what's driven people away from IE: XP users couldn't upgrade past IE8, so to get a modern browser they had to switch to Firefox or Chrome, which they then got used to, and so kept using when they eventually upgraded their Windows OS.
So Microsoft may have shot themselves in the foot by preventing IE9+ from working on XP.
The trick is to have friends who aren't dicks and reveal the ending but can offer good recommendations.
Yes, this usually works one-on-one with a friend, but doesn't usually happen with forced larger groups like office chat, parties, mates at the pub, gaggles of girlfriends at the coffee shop, and online group chat.
The biggest commonality of cable cutters (including me) I know is that they don't watch or care about "live" TV.
I'm not sure this is true in the larger (more social) community. Many get much of their enjoyment from a show by talking and writing about it afterward (something I suspect is also true of sex). So unless friends synchronize delayed viewing, and participation in online discussion isn't important, this drives viewing close to release dates, which this move by ABC aims to better monetize.
But yes, if you can do without timely talking and writing, you can save a lot on AV entertainment.
Take the humble Commodore 64. The most common home micro of the 80s. Lots of users. Lots of software. Lots of piracy. What happened in the end is that lots of companies making software made lots of money, despite the piracy, until the computer faded into obscurity with a dwindling userbase that had moved on to more powerful computers.
I've never owned a game console, but watching things it seemed to me that the reason the Playstation greatly outsold the Nintendo 64 was because the Playstation used crackable CDs while the N64 used cartridges. The weak DRM was a winner for Sony, while the game makers had their piracy losses offset by the bigger ecosystem.
However I don't think this is a good argument that content makers lose more than they gain from DRM. Weak DRM can be a net gain for publishers if some of the gains had by making piracy inconvenient is given back to users as lower prices or automatic updates.
Your logic is flawed, if "at some point, you realize that you don't really have to watch it at all", then why record it in the first place?
Some combination of bad reviews, busyness, and the availability of better stuff can keep recordings from reaching the top of the priority queue.
Yes, I think this is a big part of the hate of the overweight. "They're getting to eat all the tasty food I'm denying myself, so I'll make them pay a social price."
One thing I haven't seen on either this or ASIMO is a back with lordosis. This is critical for our balance while walking, and may allow these robots to get rid of the knee bend.
The biggest fish they've bragged about is some cabbie in LA and his friends who sent a whopping $8500 to some terrorist group in Africa. Are we willing to sell the Bill of Rights for that?
Yes, I would have thought that serious terrorists and crooks would be using long-key one-time-pad encryption with random transmission and reception locations and devices so that no amount of surveillance can tell who's talking to who about what.
Actually in many European countries by law advertising has to be truthful.
The truth, but not the whole truth. This is the sine qua non of advertising. Spin.
You know what else is great for discovering products? Asking knowledgable people with no financial interest in my decision.
The most knowledgeable people will usually be professionals. But the ranks of these will thin If enough people don't want to pay them, either directly, by looking at their annoying and distracting ads, or by turning them into salespeople by using their affiliate links.
Amateurs can be a good substitute, particularly now we have online forums. But often the information from amateurs is either wrong, anecdotal (only useful in aggregate), or is second-hand information from the above threatened professionals.
My resumes are honest, solicited, and submitted for positions where I believe I am the best candidate.
But, like all advertising, your resume doesn't tell the whole truth. Not many will comprehensively list their faults.
It's possible to conceive of a world without job ads: all potential employees are interrogated by an independent employment assessment organization who then provides employers with the most suitable single candidate or group of candidates.
Of course this is mostly a fantasy, just like a world without ads for products is a fantasy, where we would rely entirely on product assessment organizations. In practice, product makers, like job seekers, will never be able to resist tilting the playing field in their favour with spin.
So given that ads will always be with us, let's just get rid of the most intrusive types: door-to-door, on-street, telemarketing, and ads that distract us from our media consumption. And find other ways to pay media professionals.
I wrote a embedded control system for a small company that has a webpage UI in which an invisible Java applet is embedded that controls both the webpage and the machine's devices. Will they now have to pony up $100/year for a cert, which would be a non-trivial drain on their resources, particularly if the certs need to be annually and manually re-installed at each location around the world where the machine is installed?
What's next? "Unauthorized" headphones?
Decryptors epoxied with the speaker coils is the most effective way to plug the analog hole.
If you are trying to prove or disprove God (or some sort of creator) using science, then you have made a mistake.
"Prove" is a strong word, applicable only in mathematics. Prove or disprove beyond reasonable doubt, no. Evidence and likelihoods, yes.
A God that is a regular animal that happens to fly and have pasta feathers wouldn't be able to create existence. So thinking about first cause does help us both define God and understand the nature of being.
I think it's useful to first pin down God solely by the properties required to make a first cause. That established can help those who wish to pin It down further through reference to media and personal experience.
0. For something to cause something it must exist before the other thing. Therefore the universe cannot have been caused because there is no time until the universe exists.
There was once no time in our universe. Or if you're talking about any universe, you need something "out of time".
1. The principle of causality doesn't hold true. There are uncaused events all the time. See: Bell inequality.
Isn't this spooky action at a distance a violation of General Relativity rather than causality?
2. The postulates the argument is based on set up an inconsistent system that could be in principle be used to prove anything.
As physics currently stands, that's right, the problem is under-constrained. So it can help to consider Occam's razor and religious literature that claims access to the supernatural.
3. Even if the postulates were fine there is a gap in the logic - there is no justification for saying that God is the original uncaused thing. It could be anything, like body odor or flying [insert food name here] monster.
Well unless physics comes up with something better, the first cause has to be eternal and powerfully instrumental. So God isn't B.O., but certainly an entity made of food could qualify.
The simulation argument is interesting, but what created the outermost level? I've tried, but I can't conceive of a pair of computational systems that can simulate each other.
2) Event the causality principle is not something that is 100% certain
Any hints to the nature of a non-causal existence?
3) Prolongating the reasoning, what caused the first-cause? What makes it exempt from the need for a cause ? Why does everything else need a cause ?
4) Assuming that first-cause exists, absolutely nothing says it would be the same thing as what religions call "god".
The most comprehensible way for something be exempt from causality is for it to be eternal and supernatural. Add sentient and you've arrived at Deism. That is, if you need a first cause, something like a god is a parsimonious explanation.
How does that supernatural entity explain anything? Where did *it* come from?
Supernatural = anything goes. That is, God needs to be something that doesn't need or have an explanation.
Does anyone have a good response to the first-cause argument for the existence of God(s)? That is, is the creation of the ultimate progenitor of our universe from no-thing/no-laws best explained as being the act of an eternal and powerful supernatural entity, outside causality, that can be defined as "God"? Or is it easier to accept that something has always existed, perhaps allowing the definition of "always" to go beyond our time arrow?
Web-apps are hosted on a competitive platform with open standards called a browser, which allows applications to be modified to the user's advantage by extensions and user-scripts. Native apps are locked down.
From the user's perspective, advantage Web. From the developer's perspective, advantage native.
Will customization be stopped by adding DRM to HTTP, forcing use of blessed browsers?
A 10nm feature size is 1000 times smaller than the first 10um processes of the early 1970s. That is, one million transistors will soon fit into the space that one used to.