That 5000 is the percent that actually pays, the 1-2 dollar average is across all his users. There's still some bad math or heavy rounding in there since they say that 10% of the users pay, and so the average paid by paying users should not be 25-50 times the average paid by all users.
Most of the sites that I visit that have descriptive names are using names that are descriptive of what company runs them rather than what they do (and that company name was already known/trademarked).
This is my point. In the case of the OP, the trademarked name is already registered. This is a serious problem.
Actually in the case of the OP they don't even have a company. They have a plan for a company and an idea for a name and he says "we don't own a trademark on this name". If this guy wants too much money, than it seems like the perfect opportunity to think of another name. Technically we don't even know if the name that he wants is descriptive of the business, we're taking it on faith that he's not clammoring for some crazy made-up name.
I'm sure it helps you a little in search results, but it doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal.
When was the last time you purchased something from a company on the fifth page of Google? A small company I worked for paid thousands of euros to an SEO get first page google ranking. Our business (which was already pretty good) doubled immediately. Our main competitor had a position called Vice President of Search Engine Optimization, that is how important this is in a sector that has real, physical products (cheap consumer goods don't count).
I didn't mean that search position wasn't a big deal, I meant that you can get good search position by other means than your domain name.
What the OP needs to do is not marry himself to the name he's picked. Make the guy an offer that seems reasonable, deal with him respectfully, and if the reasonable offer is not accepted than he needs to find some way to fight it or else find another name
Having a domain name that describes your company is tremendously important for a variety of reasons, not least of which is google ranking.
Yet some of the most successful sites don't do that at all. Google, Yahoo and Amazon are fantastically successful, and both Slashdot and Digg are doing pretty well for themselves. Most of the sites that I visit that have descriptive names are using names that are descriptive of what company runs them rather than what they do (and that company name was already known/trademarked). The only exceptions that I can think of that I use semi-regularly are tv.com and imdb.com, and the latter is sort of a made up phrase that only became descriptive after the site proved useful. I'm sure it helps you a little in search results, but it doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal.
It's certainly bad for the employees who may not get paid as much as they would if there wasn't such an agreement, because they've removed an entire source of demand. But like someone else said it basically means that when Google or Yahoo need more employees that have experience working in their field they have to get them from other competitors who aren't part of the agreement, therefore the companies in the agreement make each other stronger by strangling the rest of the field.
I haven't had IE crash the entire PC in a long time, but I've seen it take down Windows Explorer and therefore cause a desktop/taskbar restart. I think I've had to restart the desktop via Task Manager at a time like that too, something I'm not sure the typical user is going to know how to do.
all it says is that if someone want to sue anyone for using Google Wave due to patent violations in Google Wave, they have to stop using Google Wave too
But in the low event that someone does break through your line, showing up in three black SUVs seconds later is about the worst thing you can do to minimize the exposure...hence the Washington Post article seeing readers worldwide. Can't they mark the lines somehow so that the line-cutter calls some [possibly fake] utility, and then the call is forwarded to the right people to come in and move the line themselves? The article takes pains to detail that these guys are cutting lines accidentally all the time (government or no), but it was the black SUVs that were memorable.
Explicit memory allocation/deallocation relies on the programmer to know the last places in the program where the allocated memory is ever used, so that they can be sure to free the memory at or after those points. In large object oriented systems where you're not supposed to need to know how this object that you've got does its business, having to know that it has allocated itself some memory breaks the wall.
TFS and TFA are really poor, this isn't even about paywalls. If you go and read the TRFA that TFA is ripping from you'll see they're having presentations on:
"technology/service to track content on the Web and to extract payments from third-parties and ad networks that have appropriated newspaper content."
and...
"Journalism Online: Presentation on proposed service to charge for access to newspaper content and to license that content that (sic) online aggregators"
i.e. getting people who use your content on their own websites to pay you some of their revenue, and...
"Aggregating User Data: Collecting enhanced online newspaper user data across newspaper properties and mining that data to aggressively sell target content to specific audience segments across the network (e.g. golf enthusiasts)."
i.e. better targeting the advertising on their own websites
The only way you can dream paywalls into TRFA is if you assume that "discussion about content models" or "Next steps" is about that. Fair enough, maybe it is, since they've spoken out on that possibility recently. But most of the meeting seems to be about other things, and probably a lot of things come up in these two sessions
A lot of third parties make games for xbox and windows too, so that statement doesn't really mean anything without examples that have MS as the creator/publisher.
2) How does Skynet know who Kyle Reese is? At that point, he's just some starving teenager. If Skynet does know Kyle Reese, why doesn't it just kill him on first site?
because of records from the past when he showed up to save Sarah Connor. That's also what it meant when it told Marcus that "all its other agents had failed to kill John Connor"...agents it hadn't sent yet.
5) Moon Bloodgood's character has no place in this movie.
she was the eye candy
8) If Skynet can build the Marcus style robot in 2018, why bother building the Arnold model? Even if interfacing the human organs into the robot was some kind of one-time thing that Skynet couldn't duplicate, the robot body was still pretty bad ass. It was much more advanced than the Arnold model.
I dunno, the T-800 seemed to be pretty much destroying Marcus in a one-on-one fight. Only losing when it was two-on-one and surprised.
11) How were they able to get past Skynet's defenses and airlift out all the prisoners?
it let them past the defenses in order to maintain the illusion that the signal was working, and they got back out due to the huge explosions
Even beings with empathy don't necessarily have empathy for everything around them. You'd be paralyzed and unable to do just about anything if you cared that just walking or driving around outside was potentially killing hundreds of insects. Some vegetarians have adapted their lifestyles due to empathy with animals, but most people don't have the same qualms.
So who's to say that to Skynet humans aren't just insects or cattle?
Since this is posted in the context of a story that indicates that medical science didn't know everything about the consumption of caffeine and sugars, you should at least acknowledge the fact that the headline tomorrow might be "vitamin just found in ____ found to prevent ____." It seems like every day that we find a new benefit of a vitamin, so it doesn't seem unlikely that they might find a new benefit of some other substance that they then start labeling a vitamin. Didn't Folic Acid come out of nowhere less than a decade ago?
This guy is crazy to submit to this test. Here is a (near) pseudo-science test being applied to him with a loaded question that can have only one possible correct and right answer. And the machine is not assured to give him that correct answer. And he does it in a nationally published magazine.
Suppose this machine 'proved' that he was more turned on by a professional sexpot movie star than his own wife. Do you think that she would...ever... let him live that down? If you say yes, then you don't know anything about women...go fuck your compiler.
if it proved he was more attracted to Angelina Jolie:
1) it wouldn't get published, too obvious. and,
2) he would just say to his wife that nothing eventful happened at work today
OTOH, since this worked out so fabulously I heard that next week they're going to use this to answer the eternal question of whether he thinks his wife looks fat "in this"
Well, the people that had good surgery don't tend to advertise that they had surgery at all. Add in a lot of people that had work before they were stars, and it's hard to really get good comparisons. One person that had work after being in the spotlight that I think worked out well is Jennifer Grey (the sister from Ferris Bueller, the star of Dirty Dancing, etc).
A lot of the examples of bad surgery happened to people who were trying to delay aging, and (besides the fact that it doesn't seem to work as well on aging skin) people tend to compare their new surgery look to their look before they got old which isn't a fair comparison.
it seems like it's the guy that wrote AdBlock that's creating the derivative work and distributing it to you.
So the guy who makes FX plugins for an audio editing program is creating and distributing derivative works?
Good point, i agree that it doesn't make sense. I shouldn't have corrected a bad analogy used against a bad argument
I just wish that people that felt strongly about blocking ads would have their add-on put something to the request headers that indicated as much. At least let the site owner decide if he wants to deliver you content with non-Flash/non-Java/non-Whatever advertising or not deliver you content at all. That would at least be putting your money where your mouth is, rather than the freeloading that's going on now.
Man, I bet you hate Tivo, huh?
This is actually the only analogy that makes sense, most of your examples below are examples of people buying an item and then using it differently than the seller would like. The seller has his money, end of story. You didn't buy the web page that you viewed with your adblock, the web page was paid for by the advertising that you stripped off. It's easier to see if you don't look at the web page as being free, but instead costing whatever fraction-of-a-penny that the advertiser pays per impression.
Probably public libraries, too. The book publishers should totally get to decide whether you loan out books for free--after all, it's their content, right? Even after you (or a library) have legally acquired a copy? And god forbid you rip the ads out of one of those old sci-fi books, or a comic book. Ought to be illegal.
Everyone should have to tell publishers of any copyrighted material what they intend to do with and/or to it before they receive a copy, especially if the publisher's just giving away ad-laden magazines on a street corner to anyone who asks, for free. That way they can refuse to give a copy to someone who's gonna rip the ads out before reading it.
Ditto for those free newspapers every city seems to have. Ought to have to swear on a bible that you won't just use it for bird cage liner without looking at the ads before you can take one.
I look at the situation as more akin to reading books cover-to-cover in a bookstore without buying them. The bookstore is not going to go out of business if only a few people do that, but certainly if everyone is doing that then it's over.
Yes, of course it is. You can do WTF ever you want to copyrighted works, you just can't (necessarily) distribute the original work and/or its derivatives.
it seems like it's the guy that wrote AdBlock that's creating the derivative work and distributing it to you.
I just wish that people that felt strongly about blocking ads would have their add-on put something to the request headers that indicated as much. At least let the site owner decide if he wants to deliver you content with non-Flash/non-Java/non-Whatever advertising or not deliver you content at all. That would at least be putting your money where your mouth is, rather than the freeloading that's going on now.
The web as we know it exists largely because of advertising. If everyone blocked ads I'd hate to see what things looked like.
If you're asking how does it address black holes, it just uses one as a plot device and doesn't go much into it. If you're asking how does it address the speedup in improvements to technology, it doesn't at all. I think you're asking the latter, but I'm not sure why you would be expecting that subject to be addressed in this movie.
I think that most people regard the high upfront hardware cost as only "worth it" if you're going to be buying a lot of Kindle books down the road. Therefore the threat of being blocked from buying more books for it is a very big deal, even if the stuff you have now continues to be accessible. If there were multiple stores selling Kindle content then you wouldn't be at as much of a risk of accidentally alienating one of them, but it seems like that is only possible now by using workarounds (and who knows if those will be intentionally broken at some point).
Slashdot Mirror
That 5000 is the percent that actually pays, the 1-2 dollar average is across all his users. There's still some bad math or heavy rounding in there since they say that 10% of the users pay, and so the average paid by paying users should not be 25-50 times the average paid by all users.
Most of the sites that I visit that have descriptive names are using names that are descriptive of what company runs them rather than what they do (and that company name was already known/trademarked).
This is my point. In the case of the OP, the trademarked name is already registered. This is a serious problem.
Actually in the case of the OP they don't even have a company. They have a plan for a company and an idea for a name and he says "we don't own a trademark on this name". If this guy wants too much money, than it seems like the perfect opportunity to think of another name. Technically we don't even know if the name that he wants is descriptive of the business, we're taking it on faith that he's not clammoring for some crazy made-up name.
I'm sure it helps you a little in search results, but it doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal.
When was the last time you purchased something from a company on the fifth page of Google? A small company I worked for paid thousands of euros to an SEO get first page google ranking. Our business (which was already pretty good) doubled immediately. Our main competitor had a position called Vice President of Search Engine Optimization, that is how important this is in a sector that has real, physical products (cheap consumer goods don't count).
I didn't mean that search position wasn't a big deal, I meant that you can get good search position by other means than your domain name.
What the OP needs to do is not marry himself to the name he's picked. Make the guy an offer that seems reasonable, deal with him respectfully, and if the reasonable offer is not accepted than he needs to find some way to fight it or else find another name
Having a domain name that describes your company is tremendously important for a variety of reasons, not least of which is google ranking.
Yet some of the most successful sites don't do that at all. Google, Yahoo and Amazon are fantastically successful, and both Slashdot and Digg are doing pretty well for themselves. Most of the sites that I visit that have descriptive names are using names that are descriptive of what company runs them rather than what they do (and that company name was already known/trademarked). The only exceptions that I can think of that I use semi-regularly are tv.com and imdb.com, and the latter is sort of a made up phrase that only became descriptive after the site proved useful. I'm sure it helps you a little in search results, but it doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal.
It's certainly bad for the employees who may not get paid as much as they would if there wasn't such an agreement, because they've removed an entire source of demand. But like someone else said it basically means that when Google or Yahoo need more employees that have experience working in their field they have to get them from other competitors who aren't part of the agreement, therefore the companies in the agreement make each other stronger by strangling the rest of the field.
The irony is that Microsoft's own ads depict office workers as dinosaurs that need to get out of the stone age, yet they benefit from that same fact
I haven't had IE crash the entire PC in a long time, but I've seen it take down Windows Explorer and therefore cause a desktop/taskbar restart. I think I've had to restart the desktop via Task Manager at a time like that too, something I'm not sure the typical user is going to know how to do.
all it says is that if someone want to sue anyone for using Google Wave due to patent violations in Google Wave, they have to stop using Google Wave too
But in the low event that someone does break through your line, showing up in three black SUVs seconds later is about the worst thing you can do to minimize the exposure...hence the Washington Post article seeing readers worldwide. Can't they mark the lines somehow so that the line-cutter calls some [possibly fake] utility, and then the call is forwarded to the right people to come in and move the line themselves? The article takes pains to detail that these guys are cutting lines accidentally all the time (government or no), but it was the black SUVs that were memorable.
Explicit memory allocation/deallocation relies on the programmer to know the last places in the program where the allocated memory is ever used, so that they can be sure to free the memory at or after those points. In large object oriented systems where you're not supposed to need to know how this object that you've got does its business, having to know that it has allocated itself some memory breaks the wall.
more detail if you care
TFS and TFA are really poor, this isn't even about paywalls. If you go and read the TRFA that TFA is ripping from you'll see they're having presentations on:
"technology/service to track content on the Web and to extract payments from third-parties and ad networks that have appropriated newspaper content."
and...
"Journalism Online: Presentation on proposed service to charge for access to newspaper content and to license that content that (sic) online aggregators"
i.e. getting people who use your content on their own websites to pay you some of their revenue, and...
"Aggregating User Data: Collecting enhanced online newspaper user data across newspaper properties and mining that data to aggressively sell target content to specific audience segments across the network (e.g. golf enthusiasts)."
i.e. better targeting the advertising on their own websites
The only way you can dream paywalls into TRFA is if you assume that "discussion about content models" or "Next steps" is about that. Fair enough, maybe it is, since they've spoken out on that possibility recently. But most of the meeting seems to be about other things, and probably a lot of things come up in these two sessions
I think TV and radio were the "free crap of virtually no journalistic value" he was referring to
dogs wag their tails and bark for everything that's not a dog too, that's part of being a dog.
A lot of third parties make games for xbox and windows too, so that statement doesn't really mean anything without examples that have MS as the creator/publisher.
2) How does Skynet know who Kyle Reese is? At that point, he's just some starving teenager. If Skynet does know Kyle Reese, why doesn't it just kill him on first site?
because of records from the past when he showed up to save Sarah Connor. That's also what it meant when it told Marcus that "all its other agents had failed to kill John Connor"...agents it hadn't sent yet.
5) Moon Bloodgood's character has no place in this movie.
she was the eye candy
8) If Skynet can build the Marcus style robot in 2018, why bother building the Arnold model? Even if interfacing the human organs into the robot was some kind of one-time thing that Skynet couldn't duplicate, the robot body was still pretty bad ass. It was much more advanced than the Arnold model.
I dunno, the T-800 seemed to be pretty much destroying Marcus in a one-on-one fight. Only losing when it was two-on-one and surprised.
11) How were they able to get past Skynet's defenses and airlift out all the prisoners?
it let them past the defenses in order to maintain the illusion that the signal was working, and they got back out due to the huge explosions
The TV show did not suck. At least, not as much as the new movie.
The critic ratings at RT are a really low 34%, but the community rating of 73% is pretty impressive
Even beings with empathy don't necessarily have empathy for everything around them. You'd be paralyzed and unable to do just about anything if you cared that just walking or driving around outside was potentially killing hundreds of insects. Some vegetarians have adapted their lifestyles due to empathy with animals, but most people don't have the same qualms.
So who's to say that to Skynet humans aren't just insects or cattle?
Since this is posted in the context of a story that indicates that medical science didn't know everything about the consumption of caffeine and sugars, you should at least acknowledge the fact that the headline tomorrow might be "vitamin just found in ____ found to prevent ____." It seems like every day that we find a new benefit of a vitamin, so it doesn't seem unlikely that they might find a new benefit of some other substance that they then start labeling a vitamin. Didn't Folic Acid come out of nowhere less than a decade ago?
This guy is crazy to submit to this test. Here is a (near) pseudo-science test being applied to him with a loaded question that can have only one possible correct and right answer. And the machine is not assured to give him that correct answer. And he does it in a nationally published magazine.
Suppose this machine 'proved' that he was more turned on by a professional sexpot movie star than his own wife. Do you think that she would ...ever... let him live that down? If you say yes, then you don't know anything about women...go fuck your compiler.
if it proved he was more attracted to Angelina Jolie:
1) it wouldn't get published, too obvious. and,
2) he would just say to his wife that nothing eventful happened at work today
OTOH, since this worked out so fabulously I heard that next week they're going to use this to answer the eternal question of whether he thinks his wife looks fat "in this"
Well, the people that had good surgery don't tend to advertise that they had surgery at all. Add in a lot of people that had work before they were stars, and it's hard to really get good comparisons. One person that had work after being in the spotlight that I think worked out well is Jennifer Grey (the sister from Ferris Bueller, the star of Dirty Dancing, etc).
A lot of the examples of bad surgery happened to people who were trying to delay aging, and (besides the fact that it doesn't seem to work as well on aging skin) people tend to compare their new surgery look to their look before they got old which isn't a fair comparison.
At this point I think we've heard enough examples to know that Apple is using a Magic 8-Ball to decide which apps make it to the store or not
Now if only they'd come up with an online version of Gears so that we don't have to install it on every machine!
So the guy who makes FX plugins for an audio editing program is creating and distributing derivative works?
Good point, i agree that it doesn't make sense. I shouldn't have corrected a bad analogy used against a bad argument
Man, I bet you hate Tivo, huh?
This is actually the only analogy that makes sense, most of your examples below are examples of people buying an item and then using it differently than the seller would like. The seller has his money, end of story. You didn't buy the web page that you viewed with your adblock, the web page was paid for by the advertising that you stripped off. It's easier to see if you don't look at the web page as being free, but instead costing whatever fraction-of-a-penny that the advertiser pays per impression.
Probably public libraries, too. The book publishers should totally get to decide whether you loan out books for free--after all, it's their content, right? Even after you (or a library) have legally acquired a copy? And god forbid you rip the ads out of one of those old sci-fi books, or a comic book. Ought to be illegal.
Everyone should have to tell publishers of any copyrighted material what they intend to do with and/or to it before they receive a copy, especially if the publisher's just giving away ad-laden magazines on a street corner to anyone who asks, for free. That way they can refuse to give a copy to someone who's gonna rip the ads out before reading it.
Ditto for those free newspapers every city seems to have. Ought to have to swear on a bible that you won't just use it for bird cage liner without looking at the ads before you can take one.
I look at the situation as more akin to reading books cover-to-cover in a bookstore without buying them. The bookstore is not going to go out of business if only a few people do that, but certainly if everyone is doing that then it's over.
Yes, of course it is. You can do WTF ever you want to copyrighted works, you just can't (necessarily) distribute the original work and/or its derivatives.
it seems like it's the guy that wrote AdBlock that's creating the derivative work and distributing it to you.
I just wish that people that felt strongly about blocking ads would have their add-on put something to the request headers that indicated as much. At least let the site owner decide if he wants to deliver you content with non-Flash/non-Java/non-Whatever advertising or not deliver you content at all. That would at least be putting your money where your mouth is, rather than the freeloading that's going on now.
The web as we know it exists largely because of advertising. If everyone blocked ads I'd hate to see what things looked like.
If you're asking how does it address black holes, it just uses one as a plot device and doesn't go much into it. If you're asking how does it address the speedup in improvements to technology, it doesn't at all. I think you're asking the latter, but I'm not sure why you would be expecting that subject to be addressed in this movie.
I think that most people regard the high upfront hardware cost as only "worth it" if you're going to be buying a lot of Kindle books down the road. Therefore the threat of being blocked from buying more books for it is a very big deal, even if the stuff you have now continues to be accessible. If there were multiple stores selling Kindle content then you wouldn't be at as much of a risk of accidentally alienating one of them, but it seems like that is only possible now by using workarounds (and who knows if those will be intentionally broken at some point).