Well, since the CPA ads are in a separate pool... will this pool also work in a similar way as the "other" pool, as in, that the highest-revenue ads are the most likely to be picked?
If this is a case, an advertisers who frauds will logically be picked less and less, so the damage done will not be that big. Something along this line sounds like a "natural" solution to the problem,/me thinks..
if you care about about it to say it, you should care enough about it to have your name attached to it.
Yeah well, the thing is... sometimes you just want to express your (negative) opinion about Linus Torvalds for example, and don't want to get your karma burned to hell..
Sorry, but Pandora doesn't make reccomendations based on data mining. They have employees hand tag their music library based on several different categories and then make the matches based off the tags.
Ok, my bad.. I'm not familliar with Pandora but based on the article I assumed it worked similar to last.fm..
You obviously aren't familliar with the sites recommended, Pandora and Last.fm... the trick with these services is that you decide what you listen to (for example, in Last.fm's case, you can listen to similar artists of, for example, Britney Spears - they will probably serve you a nice mixture of Christina, Destiny's Child, Shakira, etc... they do this based on data mining, which only works if you have a subscriber base as large as Last.fm... one point which Pandora seems to lack a bit (chicken or the egg problem)
And well, as far as I'm concerned, Last.fm's radio service is pretty high quality.. they offer you an option to subscribe to, among other things, get a guarantee for being able to listen to a radio station (if a server is full, a non-subscriber gets kicked off to make place for you)...
You should try it out... everyone who enjoys music recommendations and discovering new music will like these services...
You know, TCP/IP already has the ability to set a priority bit... so it is merely a matter of turning those bits on or off to offer different speeds for people.
Is that the tension over US control causes a splintering of the internet. So that you would have to do something weird if you were in the US and wanted to use the "French internet". It would be like the old days, when you had to be on bitnet to send mail to someone on bitnet.
I personally think that the Internet as we know it now has been integrated way too much into our lives (and those of corporations) to ever let such a thing happen. The disadvantages greatly outweight the advantages for internet segmentation.
What do they have to lose ? It's not like they're earning money with it at the moment... they're just trying to, if it works, yay for them, it if doesn't, too bad but not much harm done for them (unless the entire development process relied on a future commercialization of Azureus, which I highly doubt...)
The US inherited the British constitution. The law being talked about was in the British constition before the US inherited that constition, so it's in the US constition too.
Now, the thing being talked about here is, if a British judge made any conclusions in relation to email about that law in their constitution (which is in the US constition too), does that also mean that the same conclusions could be assumed for the US ?
And here's the article text for those even lazierder:
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Don't "misunderestimate" Dubya. Those verbal Bushisms are beginning to "resignate" with the American people. Maybe they'll even "embetter" the English language.
They may have started out as verbal slip-ups but several of President George W. Bush's mangled phrases found their way on Tuesday to a list of the top words of 2002.
"There are already 11,000 instances of 'misunderestimate' on the Web. The more people use words, whether jocularly or seriously, the more likely they are to enter the language and last for generations," said Paul J.J. Payack, chairman of yourDictionary.com, which compiled the list.
Payack, a man who refuses to misunderestimate the power of a president to shape the language, said, "Our lists attempt to capture those... innovations in word choice and usage that tell us something about ourselves."
The list of most important words of 2002 was drawn up with help from visitors to the yourDictionary.com Web site and from the site's group of linguists, who monitor the use of the English language around the world.
They include the so-called Bushisms; misunderestimate (to seriously underestimate), embetter (to make emotionally better -- the opposite of embitter), resignate (as in "They said this issue wouldn't resignate with the people") and foreign-handed (as in "I have a foreign-handed foreign policy").
In non-Bushisms, the post-September 11 world gave birth to "threat fatigue," while America's corporate and financial shenanigans introduced the verb to nasdaq (as in "His fortune was nasdaqued"), Nasdaq being the tech-heavy stock market.
There is also that well-known accounting practice disease known as Enronitis, and dot-communism (the conviction that everything on the Web should be free or, at least, paid for by someone else.)
But the most frequently used word on the planet, whatever the native language, is still "OK."
That is unquestionably the most incomprehensible article summary I've ever read. What?
Really, all these people sum it up way too complicated... Yahoo! delivers ads to its partners, one of its partners decided to forward such an ad to one of their partners, and wham!, Yahoo lost track of where the advertisement's being displayed...
Maybe they will rethink their business model once they realise of 1000 visits, only 10 ads were successfully uploaded to the visitor.
Yeah, like, requiring everyone to pay for a subscription... predictable costs, predictable profits, no slashdot effects anymore, looks like a very good solution!
That's hardly the parent poster's concern, now is it? Sucks for the ad biz when us "eyeballs" outsmart them.
But the parent poster said he always blocks ads, but he doesn't pay for slashdot... who do you think loses the most out of it - the ad biz which doesn't pay the publisher (slashdot) for undelivered ads (advertisers nowadays demand that they do not have to pay for undelivered ads, and that gets calculated to the publisher), or slashdot?
If enough people block ads on slashdot, chances are they're going to a subscription-only model or take other drastic approaches...
How do you propose that websites detect the use of an adblocker? (Without seriously degrading the user experience)
That's easy: server gets ad request, server delivers HTML for ad, if image doesn't get loaded by user 3 times in a row he's definately using an ad blocker...
Besides, I figure I'm just saving Doubleclick the bandwidth. It's not like I've ever purchased anything at all from an on-line ad, targeted or not.
So I guess you've never heard of branding? Take slashdot for example... I've never even once clicked on a Verizon ad, but since they're advertising here pretty well I do know what kind of business they in and will probably chose them over some Joe Schmoe when having to choose between them...
Personally I just don't use any browsers without blockers anymore.
Then what do you propose as a way the companies that deliver the websites you visit and block ads from should cover the costs they have for serving their content to you, plus a little profit ?
Yeah, I've been using dapper for around 3 weeks now and can say that as i experience it, it's pretty much stable... no crashes at all, just a helluva lot of updates all the time:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since the CPA ads are in a separate pool... will this pool also work in a similar way as the "other" pool, as in, that the highest-revenue ads are the most likely to be picked?
If this is a case, an advertisers who frauds will logically be picked less and less, so the damage done will not be that big. Something along this line sounds like a "natural" solution to the problem, /me thinks..
if you care about about it to say it, you should care enough about it to have your name attached to it.
Yeah well, the thing is... sometimes you just want to express your (negative) opinion about Linus Torvalds for example, and don't want to get your karma burned to hell..
What's the point of writing really really fast to memory, when you aren't going to read from it very much?
Well, you could have a really really fast logging engine.. other than that, i think the memory's pretty much worthless.. :)
... and this brings me to a question: where's microsoft? shouldn't they at least have attempted to take over the mp3 player market by now?
Hey hey, I did not bash for one second... I merely assumed Pandora worked similar to lastfm, which was wrong...
So I assume Pandora vs Last.fm could be considered like Yahoo's Directory vs Google ? :-)
Why do people type that way?
.. too much msn, i guess :)
Sorry, but Pandora doesn't make reccomendations based on data mining. They have employees hand tag their music library based on several different categories and then make the matches based off the tags.
Ok, my bad.. I'm not familliar with Pandora but based on the article I assumed it worked similar to last.fm..
You obviously aren't familliar with the sites recommended, Pandora and Last.fm ... the trick with these services is that you decide what you listen to (for example, in Last.fm's case, you can listen to similar artists of, for example, Britney Spears - they will probably serve you a nice mixture of Christina, Destiny's Child, Shakira, etc... they do this based on data mining, which only works if you have a subscriber base as large as Last.fm... one point which Pandora seems to lack a bit (chicken or the egg problem)
And well, as far as I'm concerned, Last.fm's radio service is pretty high quality.. they offer you an option to subscribe to, among other things, get a guarantee for being able to listen to a radio station (if a server is full, a non-subscriber gets kicked off to make place for you)...
You should try it out... everyone who enjoys music recommendations and discovering new music will like these services...
You know, TCP/IP already has the ability to set a priority bit... so it is merely a matter of turning those bits on or off to offer different speeds for people.
Is that the tension over US control causes a splintering of the internet. So that you would have to do something weird if you were in the US and wanted to use the "French internet". It would be like the old days, when you had to be on bitnet to send mail to someone on bitnet.
I personally think that the Internet as we know it now has been integrated way too much into our lives (and those of corporations) to ever let such a thing happen. The disadvantages greatly outweight the advantages for internet segmentation.
It's probably reasonable to say that those who block ads are those who never, ever respond to ads.
Are you familliar with the word "branding" ? It's what 95% of the internet advertising is all about, nowadays...
What do they have to lose ? It's not like they're earning money with it at the moment... they're just trying to, if it works, yay for them, it if doesn't, too bad but not much harm done for them (unless the entire development process relied on a future commercialization of Azureus, which I highly doubt...)
The US inherited the British constitution. The law being talked about was in the British constition before the US inherited that constition, so it's in the US constition too.
Now, the thing being talked about here is, if a British judge made any conclusions in relation to email about that law in their constitution (which is in the US constition too), does that also mean that the same conclusions could be assumed for the US ?
And here's the article text for those even lazierder:
That is unquestionably the most incomprehensible article summary I've ever read. What?
Really, all these people sum it up way too complicated... Yahoo! delivers ads to its partners, one of its partners decided to forward such an ad to one of their partners, and wham!, Yahoo lost track of where the advertisement's being displayed...
Maybe they will rethink their business model once they realise of 1000 visits, only 10 ads were successfully uploaded to the visitor.
Yeah, like, requiring everyone to pay for a subscription... predictable costs, predictable profits, no slashdot effects anymore, looks like a very good solution!
That's hardly the parent poster's concern, now is it? Sucks for the ad biz when us "eyeballs" outsmart them.
But the parent poster said he always blocks ads, but he doesn't pay for slashdot... who do you think loses the most out of it - the ad biz which doesn't pay the publisher (slashdot) for undelivered ads (advertisers nowadays demand that they do not have to pay for undelivered ads, and that gets calculated to the publisher), or slashdot?
If enough people block ads on slashdot, chances are they're going to a subscription-only model or take other drastic approaches...
How do you propose that websites detect the use of an adblocker? (Without seriously degrading the user experience)
That's easy: server gets ad request, server delivers HTML for ad, if image doesn't get loaded by user 3 times in a row he's definately using an ad blocker...
Besides, I figure I'm just saving Doubleclick the bandwidth. It's not like I've ever purchased anything at all from an on-line ad, targeted or not.
So I guess you've never heard of branding? Take slashdot for example... I've never even once clicked on a Verizon ad, but since they're advertising here pretty well I do know what kind of business they in and will probably chose them over some Joe Schmoe when having to choose between them...
Personally I just don't use any browsers without blockers anymore.
Then what do you propose as a way the companies that deliver the websites you visit and block ads from should cover the costs they have for serving their content to you, plus a little profit ?
They don't run their webserver as root, they log in as the 'root' mysql user to access their database, which is a bad thing too, but not as bad...
Yeah, I've been using dapper for around 3 weeks now and can say that as i experience it, it's pretty much stable... no crashes at all, just a helluva lot of updates all the time :-)
UHHH? Which part of the Middle East were we occupying before 9/11?
Ever considered your relation with Israel and the amount of hate that caused against the US by middle eastern countries ?
That's one of the first things you turn off to protect the machine.
Because the goal was to test the mac mini's security, not the ability of the system administrator to secure the box...
What if "your message" is "I hope you get the plague and die and take your kids with you for the sake of the gene pool?"
Then you need a mental institute more badly than an adblocker...