I googled for "shit" to look for some Uranus jokes (this was before I realised the article was about saturn) and found several references to Bush. It seems trust-worthy to me.
(And I just stopped this post from being -1 Offtopic. Now if only I could find a way to stop this from being -1 Flame-bait)
Same thing happens with red-lights and when speeding (both of which are already captured by machines). If you're going to lend your car out to people you have to be careful who you lend it to. Either trust the person enough not to break the law or to pay the fine when they do so.
And if your car is stolen, I'm sure the police will take that into consideration. After all it's a lot of work to say your car was stolen JUST to get out of a speeding ticket.
Stupid Kiwi's and their at least maximum penalties. Either their law is really harsh or they need a dictionary;)
(If your not a New Zealander and your thinking of modding me down, don't. If your a kiwi thinking of modding me down, I've got some hot XXX sheep if you don't:D)
You say not to click on any of the links but don't provide any alternate links for us to click. How are we to RTFA if we don't get any links..... oh wait. Sorry, I forgot where I was momentarily.
ANYONE who takes into account only 1 source is a moron, unless they don't truly care about the accuracy (for example I read the article you posted, and I don't care about it, but when I was studying the history of the internet I read several sources).
Wikipedia is 1 source and anyone who uses it exclusively is a moron as all people who only take 1 source into account are either morons or very trusting. Let's take Hatshepsut for example.
The published historian Gardner claims that she was an overbearing mother who Thutmose III hated. For his proof he states the fact a lot of Hatshepsut's reliefs have been destroyed and replaced with other people and that this is obviously indicative of his pent up frustration and anger at her.
Gae Callendar (another published historian) says that this is completely false and that there's proof that the relief's were destroyed long after Thutmose III and that even if he DID do it, this was common practise amongst the Egyptian Pharoahs so it isn't indicative that he hated her, but was just following Egyptian tradition.
Gardner says that Hatshepsut wasn't a true Pharaoh because she didn't have enough military campaigns, Callendar says she was and that Gardner is just comparing her to the people that had the MOST military campaigns which is unfair and that she had more campaigns then other pharaohs and Gardner admits they're true Pharaohs.
Now I never read a book that laid out the information just as I did. I learnt all that by reading SEVERAL books. If I had only read 1 book I would have had an unbalanced viewpoint, such as the one evident in this page with the quote
(Unfortunately many were damaged or destroyed when someone - most likely Thuthmose III - tried to erase her name and image from every monument that may have had her name.)
Though this seems a little drastic, there was obviously bitter feelings against Hatshepsut.
I would say Wikiepdia is more authoritive on this subject as it says
The traditional belief among historians is that Thutmose III was responsible; however, researchers such as Charles Nims? and Peter Dorman? have examined these erasures and found that those which can be dated were done after year 42 of Thutmose's reign. As with many detail about Hatshepsut, historians have opposing views on who defaced her monuments.
(Sidenote: I'm happy to say I helped start the correction of Hatshepsut's and Thutmose III's relationship. It originally said that Thutmose III did it, whereas I replaced that with some people believe he did it, others believe otherwise and then other people came along and fleshed out what I said with much more detail, this is NOT possible in encyclopedias, and often published books will contain one point of view, so I would say the fact anyone can edit it, IS a good thing. I personally believe in Callender's theories, but wikipedia has both).
That has nothing to do with targetted advertising but advertising itself. If you don't like adverts, that's fine. But the technology in this article won't make it more common or less common. Neither will targetted advertising. So it's irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm seeing either funny posts or angry posts about this. So to those who are angry, who gives a shit?
Does this technology identify who I am yet? No. Does it identify where I go yet? No. Does it identify what I have brought yet? No. Then what's the big deal? These advertisements don't intrude upon you anymore then current adverts do. They just pop up when they see a person as opposed to always being shown.
Most likely people feel it WILL do a lot of the things I just said. But I have to ask, are they such a bad thing? The biggest problem is most likely won't get to decide if the ad does a lot of the stuff I just said, but what if you could opt-in. Would you care then? They aren't going to show more ads JUST because of this technology, so why not opt-in to have them target the ads to you? I know I wouldn't mind on one proviso, I could fill out a form saying "I don't wish it to take into consideration anything involving sex that I buy" (condoms, porno, etc). If the advertising companies allowed for that sort of control on our part, I think many people would use it.
Imagine instead of having to watch yet another viagra advertisement or another herpes ad or another car ad, you got to see ads about the latest video game, some special on ram. Now wouldn't you much prefer that to a toyota ad. And if you don't, don't opt-in. But people are forgetting advertisements aren't a bad thing, it's just a lot of the time they're not interesting to us and therefore a waste of time. If they could stop being useless, they'd be useful.
I'm a bit surprised with that, but not overly. Over here it's plastic not paper, every note is a different color and a different size (the size thing to help blind people). And it's got a transparency in the corner making it even more difficult;) In comparison American money is pretty easy to counter-fit, but I imagine only in comparison
I imagine it's limited to geographical areas because most websites don't do it (some do, not all). If you just have hoods made by depending on interests it's just like having a whole bunch of web-boards in 1.
It's purpose is to encourage in-person interaction, that wouldn't be achieved if it didn't take geographical areas into account. Now setting it up so it's a geographical area PLUS interests would further it's cause to initiate in person interaction. However it might not want to be too popular or else it may substitute in-person interaction;)
How defined are the neighbourhoods? For instance in America you could probably have city-wide hoods and it have a decent member size. But in Australia lots of cities aren't going to have any members but 1 or 2 people. What do they do? Can they have a state-wide hood? If not it isn't going to be popular in places such as Perth (one of Australia's 8 largest cities).
Can hoods be redefined? For instance you might have a state-wide hood, but then as it becomes popular in that state you might want to break it down into smaller hoods? Is that sort of flexibility allowed? If not I can't see this being popular.
This idea relies upon it having lots of people to get lots of people. But that's the problem, how do you get lots of people in the first place? By making it so large hoods can be created that can later be broken down into smaller hoods. Otherwise I don't see this being popular at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I googled for "shit" to look for some Uranus jokes (this was before I realised the article was about saturn) and found several references to Bush. It seems trust-worthy to me.
(And I just stopped this post from being -1 Offtopic. Now if only I could find a way to stop this from being -1 Flame-bait)
You mis-spelt arms. You typed "arm" when it should be "arms."
install cameras that have built in lights (cameras still have those right? I remember years ago they did).
Same thing happens with red-lights and when speeding (both of which are already captured by machines). If you're going to lend your car out to people you have to be careful who you lend it to. Either trust the person enough not to break the law or to pay the fine when they do so.
And if your car is stolen, I'm sure the police will take that into consideration. After all it's a lot of work to say your car was stolen JUST to get out of a speeding ticket.
What sort of horror stories do you read? Let me guess, NYT?
That's a feature that is. Not a security hole.
If you go by all the hype.... yesterday ;)
(If your not a New Zealander and your thinking of modding me down, don't. If your a kiwi thinking of modding me down, I've got some hot XXX sheep if you don't
Pfft. What an inefficient nanomachine. It should get the rest of Billy AND clean up the remains.
You say not to click on any of the links but don't provide any alternate links for us to click. How are we to RTFA if we don't get any links..... oh wait. Sorry, I forgot where I was momentarily.
it's liek, fool of stars!!111111111111oneoneoneone
If you try looking for something that isn't directly related to technology the information is sparse.
Completely true [/sarcasm]
Wikipedia is 1 source and anyone who uses it exclusively is a moron as all people who only take 1 source into account are either morons or very trusting. Let's take Hatshepsut for example.
The published historian Gardner claims that she was an overbearing mother who Thutmose III hated. For his proof he states the fact a lot of Hatshepsut's reliefs have been destroyed and replaced with other people and that this is obviously indicative of his pent up frustration and anger at her.
Gae Callendar (another published historian) says that this is completely false and that there's proof that the relief's were destroyed long after Thutmose III and that even if he DID do it, this was common practise amongst the Egyptian Pharoahs so it isn't indicative that he hated her, but was just following Egyptian tradition.
Gardner says that Hatshepsut wasn't a true Pharaoh because she didn't have enough military campaigns, Callendar says she was and that Gardner is just comparing her to the people that had the MOST military campaigns which is unfair and that she had more campaigns then other pharaohs and Gardner admits they're true Pharaohs.
Now I never read a book that laid out the information just as I did. I learnt all that by reading SEVERAL books. If I had only read 1 book I would have had an unbalanced viewpoint, such as the one evident in this page with the quote
I would say Wikiepdia is more authoritive on this subject as it says(Sidenote: I'm happy to say I helped start the correction of Hatshepsut's and Thutmose III's relationship. It originally said that Thutmose III did it, whereas I replaced that with some people believe he did it, others believe otherwise and then other people came along and fleshed out what I said with much more detail, this is NOT possible in encyclopedias, and often published books will contain one point of view, so I would say the fact anyone can edit it, IS a good thing. I personally believe in Callender's theories, but wikipedia has both).
That has nothing to do with targetted advertising but advertising itself. If you don't like adverts, that's fine. But the technology in this article won't make it more common or less common. Neither will targetted advertising. So it's irrelevant to this discussion.
I hear there is heavy translation from English to other languages, but would it not be good to do the opposite as well?
Your new around here aren't you
I'm seeing either funny posts or angry posts about this. So to those who are angry, who gives a shit?
Does this technology identify who I am yet? No. Does it identify where I go yet? No. Does it identify what I have brought yet? No. Then what's the big deal? These advertisements don't intrude upon you anymore then current adverts do. They just pop up when they see a person as opposed to always being shown.
Most likely people feel it WILL do a lot of the things I just said. But I have to ask, are they such a bad thing? The biggest problem is most likely won't get to decide if the ad does a lot of the stuff I just said, but what if you could opt-in. Would you care then? They aren't going to show more ads JUST because of this technology, so why not opt-in to have them target the ads to you? I know I wouldn't mind on one proviso, I could fill out a form saying "I don't wish it to take into consideration anything involving sex that I buy" (condoms, porno, etc). If the advertising companies allowed for that sort of control on our part, I think many people would use it.
Imagine instead of having to watch yet another viagra advertisement or another herpes ad or another car ad, you got to see ads about the latest video game, some special on ram. Now wouldn't you much prefer that to a toyota ad. And if you don't, don't opt-in. But people are forgetting advertisements aren't a bad thing, it's just a lot of the time they're not interesting to us and therefore a waste of time. If they could stop being useless, they'd be useful.
I think age would come before sex.
outsource to India.
I'm a bit surprised with that, but not overly. Over here it's plastic not paper, every note is a different color and a different size (the size thing to help blind people). And it's got a transparency in the corner making it even more difficult ;) In comparison American money is pretty easy to counter-fit, but I imagine only in comparison
When you've got nowhere but up to go that isn't really an accomplishment ;)
The aussie whose currency is even less then Canada's.
I imagine it's limited to geographical areas because most websites don't do it (some do, not all). If you just have hoods made by depending on interests it's just like having a whole bunch of web-boards in 1. It's purpose is to encourage in-person interaction, that wouldn't be achieved if it didn't take geographical areas into account. Now setting it up so it's a geographical area PLUS interests would further it's cause to initiate in person interaction. However it might not want to be too popular or else it may substitute in-person interaction ;)
How defined are the neighbourhoods? For instance in America you could probably have city-wide hoods and it have a decent member size. But in Australia lots of cities aren't going to have any members but 1 or 2 people. What do they do? Can they have a state-wide hood? If not it isn't going to be popular in places such as Perth (one of Australia's 8 largest cities).
Can hoods be redefined? For instance you might have a state-wide hood, but then as it becomes popular in that state you might want to break it down into smaller hoods? Is that sort of flexibility allowed? If not I can't see this being popular.
This idea relies upon it having lots of people to get lots of people. But that's the problem, how do you get lots of people in the first place? By making it so large hoods can be created that can later be broken down into smaller hoods. Otherwise I don't see this being popular at all.
For when the mirror is slashdotted