Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation. Just because they spent X on ads and got Y, does not mean that the ads were the main cause.
My Intent behind stating those numbers ((4)Microsoft recieved $23.68 in sales...) was not to link this Corralate with Causation, rather to get you to think about why that time is worth so much.
Look at it this way, When a sales person is selling time on her medium, she will often blab about how much influence her medium has, how many people she can reach, and why someone should pay a lot to reach all those people with their message.
When someone complains about the content in the same medium, the same sales person blabs about how little influence her medium has, how few people realy listen, and never mentions the hundreds of thousands people pay to access it.
..... Non-Open-Source software, if we ever deal with any, will be represented honestly. I won't claim that something is Open Source when it's not.
IMHO
Bruce plans to "embrace and extend" the existing code base of open source, with proprietary software. Nobody can obtain a CEO title without entertaining the thought of protecting the trust that other investors put into the VC brand.
This is probably to late to get moderated up, but I'de like to take issue with the "The media doesn't influence me" point of view.
People pay good money to get their message (even product placement in 3D shoot-em-ups) out. Have you heard many.com adds lately? Have you tried punching in a domain name your heard/read in the media? Yes you have. This is just one example of how the media influences the people exposed to it. Many people in many differant walks of life pay good money to get their message out to the people. Why do they pay this kind of money to advertise? Because they know that the message has influence. Consider this: (1)Ford Motor Company recieved $66.15 in sales for every $1.00 they spent on ads in 1998. (2)Anheuser-Busch recieved $17.83 in sales for every $1.00 they spent on ads in 1998. (3)Dell Computer recieved $54.68 in sales for every $1.00 they spent on ads in 1998. (4)Microsoft recieved $23.68 in sales for every $1.00 they spent on ads in 1998. (5)Time Warner recieved $19.686in sales for every $1.00 they spent on ads in 1998. (source)
So we have Ford spending $1,150,700,000 a year telling people to buy cars. Dell spending $227,100,000 a year telling people their computers are cool. Walmart spends $404,500,000 into telling you how warm and fuzzy they are. They do this, because it influences people exposed to the medium.
Now, when people sugest that perhaps the media may have a negative impact on society, the standard response seems to be "We're not telling people to do this or that"' "The media didn't tell that kid to do this or that". Then why do people pay so much for influence in that same medium?
So before you say that the media doesn't influence you think again. It does. (The test: What bands logo was on the nail box in Quake 1?):)
A Genetic Engineer dies and goes to heaven to meet God. Genetic Engineer: So tell me God, what does a guy have to do to run this place? GOD: Can you create life? Genetic Engineer:Yes!, I can, can you? God:With that God picks up a pile of dirt and with a little of this and a little of that....presto!..creates life! Genetic Engineer: Not to be out done, the Genetic Engineer bends over to pick up some dirt and god stops him and says:
A Genetic Engineer dies and goes to heaven to meet God. Genetic Engineer So tell me God, what does a guy have to do to run this place? GOD Can you create life? Genetic EngineerYes!, I can, can you? GodWith that God picks up a pile of dirt and with a little of this and a little of that....presto!..creates life! Genetic Engineer Not to be out done, the GE bends over to pick up some dirt and god stops him and says: God no.. no ..get your own dirt.
You bring up an interesting point about alternatives to Cookies. My view on the matter is that HTTP looks kinda like this: Connect-Get-Disconnect Untill that changes, cookies will be used as a way of maintaining state over multiple connections. With HTTP 1.1 in broad deployment, it's going to a be an incrimental change rather than a radicle one. The best proposition on the table right now is RFC2109 (at:http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2109/rfc 2109) Also there's more about HTTP at:http://www.w3.org/Protocols/Specs.html#RFC
In case you hadn't noticed, that's the motivation behind a lot of tort suits, and it's one of the reasons that the court system is overflowing with them.
You bring up a very good point behind to many lawsuits today. Moreover, I think there is an even larger sociological force at work here. People that always view differences with strong duality and think of differences of opinion as solved via 'confrontation'. There is a serious lack of respect for skills that bring people together, skills that foster a solution, appreciation for the beauty of a ompromise.
Slashdot doesn't moderate, people who are viewing the content moderate.
You bring up an interesting point about liability for moderators. I wonder if it will become necisary to make moderators aware of the fact that *they* could be accused of censoring/obstructing/supressing information when they use the moderation tool?
Is the party that provides the tool (/.) liable or is the user of that tool liable? (there's a parelell to the gun issue here, but that would be pulling this debate offtopic...blah blah blah moderation doesn't kill comments, people kill comments..blah blah blah)
(I can see it now... 50k of text in an 8 point font with an I AGREE button down at the bottom just to moderate 5 articles)
Censor : Function: transitive verb - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. It can be (validly) argued that moderating a post down due to objectionable is supressing it. Just a thought.
You bring up an interesting point regarding the strict definition of the meaning of the word Censor and what it means to be "suppressed or deleted".
I believe that a very strong argument could be made for 'suppressed' information if the default setting on the 'Threshhold' was 0 or higher.
However, I think making the deleted argument would be almost imposible.
Either way,/. assumes no Editoral responsibility for content in the posts submited, and that was pivitol in this case.
..Now I ask you, where else can a band attract over-weight white guys from another time zone to come to a club, buy some some bad haiku books, and read it over the DJs microphone untill every last suburban-wannabe screams.
Once you "edit" comments, you take over liability for the content of that article. Is the moderatrion system currently in use here on slashdot/. the same as editing content?
Do Moderators have "Editoral Control"?
From the article:
Describing e-mail as "the day's evolutionary hybrid of traditional telephone line communications and regular postal service mail," the Court noted that while commercial on-line services like Prodigy transmit electronic mail, they do not exercise any editorial control. It evaluated Mr. Lunney's claim in the context of existing tort precedents, and found that "these settled doctrines accommodate the technology comfortably."
ALBANY - In its first major ruling on privacy and defamation in cyberspace, the Court of Appeals on Thursday held that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) is merely a conduit for information, as opposed to a publisher, and consequently is no more responsible than a telephone company for defamatory materials transmitted over its lines.
Also:
"We are unwilling to deny Prodigy the common-law qualified privilege accorded to telephone and telegraph companies," Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt
Uh.. I think you completely missed what that paragraph was about. At that point, the author was merely providing examples of how national governments don't always comply with international organizations - thus the inclusion of an example (which even the author says is "a more trivial" one) shows that these disagreements can occur over less than a government's military decisions.
You are correct, and your point is well taken.
This is not the first time protestors (on both sides of this argument) have lumped trade negotiations together with military conflict.
The point behind my post was to point out how wrong this kind of equating is, even in a trivial light. Be wary of anyone making an argument, that ties together loss of life with loss of lifestyle.
loss of life != loss of lifestyle
on
WTO + SDMI = NWO
·
· Score: 2
One is worth fighting for, and the other is worth working for.
An apology to Wingdings Inc. (if you exist)
on
WTO + SDMI = NWO
·
· Score: 1
any resemblance to actual persons or company, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; do not remove this disclaimer under penalty of law; hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; your mileage may vary; no substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; this message is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; caveat emptor; message is provided "as is" without any warranties; reader assumes full responsibility; an equal opportunity message; no shoes, no shirt, no message; quantities are limited while supplies last; if any defects are discovered, do not attempt to read them yourself, but return to an authorized service center; read at your own risk; parental advisory - explicit lyrics; text may contain explicit materials some readers may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; keep away from sunlight; keep away from pets and small children; limit one-per-family please; no money down; no purchase necessary; you need not be present to win; some assembly required; batteries not included; instructions are included; action figures sold separately; no preservatives added; slippery when wet; safety goggles may be required during use; sealed for your protection, do not read if safety seal is broken; call before you dig; not liable for damages arising from use or misuse; for external use only; if rash, irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue reading; read only with proper ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool dry place; keep away from open flames; avoid contact with eyes and skin and avoid inhaling fumes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store above 120 degrees Fahrenheit; do not place near a flammable or magnetic source; smoking this message could be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second only to abstinence; no salt, MSG, artificial color or flavoring added; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, and if symptoms persist, consult a physician; possible penalties for early withdrawal; offer valid only at participating sites; slightly higher west of the Rockies; allow four to six weeks for delivery; must be 18 to read; disclaimer does not cover misuse, accident, lightning, flood, tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, hurricanes and other Acts of God, neglect, damage from improper reading, incorrect line voltage, improper or unauthorized reading, broken antenna or marred cabinet, missing or altered serial numbers, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts, sonic boom vibrations, customer adjustments that are not covered in this list, and incidents owing to an airplane crash, ship sinking or taking on water, motor vehicle crashing, dropping the item, falling rocks, leaky roof, broken glass, mud slides, forest fire, or projectile (which can include, but not be limited to, arrows, bullets, shot, BB's, shrapnel, lasers, napalm, torpedoes, or emissions of X-rays, Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays, knives, stones, etc.); other restrictions may apply.
Plenty of times, a national government has reacted to an intergovernmental organization by ignoring it, stonewalling it in court, or even threatening its continued existence by withdrawing funds. While the United States is the most common rebel, there are others as well. Israel has no intention of obeying U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding the Palestinian Arabs. Russia has told the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to bug off and let Russia fight its Chechen war the way it wants. As a more trivial example, France refused to lift a ban on British beef when ordered to earlier this month by the European Commission.
I think it's pretty pathetic when an author lumps in trade conflict with military conflict. They are not even in the same domain when people decide to protest. When inosent people are being killed, and a governement is asking it's young people to go kill them, then the people should rise up in oposition.
However, when Wingdings Inc. can't sell "New and Improved Coochie-Koos" to the Hoo-too market, I hardly think it's an issue that required the people to rise up and rebel. Don't lump the loss of life together with the loss of market share.
...Now I ask you, where else can a band attract over-weight white guys from another time zone to come to a club, buy some drinks, and pick up 1/2 the bartending staff to take home?
Slashdot Mirror
My Intent behind stating those numbers ((4)Microsoft recieved $23.68 in sales ...) was not to link this Corralate with Causation, rather to get you to think about why that time is worth so much.
Look at it this way, When a sales person is selling time on her medium, she will often blab about how much influence her medium has, how many people she can reach, and why someone should pay a lot to reach all those people with their message.
When someone complains about the content in the same medium, the same sales person blabs about how little influence her medium has, how few people realy listen, and never mentions the hundreds of thousands people pay to access it.
Do you see the discrepency here?
. . .It's amazing how little hackers have to say after working so hard to say it.
IMHO
Bruce plans to "embrace and extend" the existing code base of open source, with proprietary software. Nobody can obtain a CEO title without entertaining the thought of protecting the trust that other investors put into the VC brand.
People pay good money to get their message (even product placement in 3D shoot-em-ups) out. Have you heard many .com adds lately? Have you tried punching in a domain name your heard/read in the media? Yes you have.
This is just one example of how the media influences the people exposed to it. Many people in many differant walks of life pay good money to get their message out to the people.
Why do they pay this kind of money to advertise? Because they know that the message has influence.
Consider this:
(1)Ford Motor Company recieved $66.15 in sales for every $1.00 they spent on ads in 1998.
(2)Anheuser-Busch recieved $17.83 in sales for every $1.00 they spent on ads in 1998.
(3)Dell Computer recieved $54.68 in sales for every $1.00 they spent on ads in 1998.
(4)Microsoft recieved $23.68 in sales for every $1.00 they spent on ads in 1998.
(5)Time Warner recieved $19.686in sales for every $1.00 they spent on ads in 1998.
(source)
So we have Ford spending $1,150,700,000 a year telling people to buy cars. Dell spending $227,100,000 a year telling people their computers are cool. Walmart spends $404,500,000 into telling you how warm and fuzzy they are. They do this, because it influences people exposed to the medium.
Now, when people sugest that perhaps the media may have a negative impact on society, the standard response seems to be "We're not telling people to do this or that"' "The media didn't tell that kid to do this or that". Then why do people pay so much for influence in that same medium?
So before you say that the media doesn't influence you think again. It does. :)
(The test: What bands logo was on the nail box in Quake 1?)
A Genetic Engineer dies and goes to heaven to meet God.
Genetic Engineer: So tell me God, what does a guy have to do to run this place?
GOD: Can you create life?
Genetic Engineer:Yes!, I can, can you?
God:With that God picks up a pile of dirt and with a little of this and a little of that....presto!..creates life!
Genetic Engineer: Not to be out done, the Genetic Engineer bends over to pick up some dirt and god stops him and says:
God: no .. no . .get your own dirt.
A Genetic Engineer dies and goes to heaven to meet God. .. no . .get your own dirt.
Genetic Engineer So tell me God, what does a guy have to do to run this place?
GOD Can you create life?
Genetic EngineerYes!, I can, can you?
GodWith that God picks up a pile of dirt and with a little of this and a little of that....presto!..creates life!
Genetic Engineer Not to be out done, the GE bends over to pick up some dirt and god stops him and says:
God no
You bring up an interesting point about alternatives to Cookies. My view on the matter is that HTTP looks kinda like this:
Connect-Get-Disconnect
Untill that changes, cookies will be used as a way of maintaining state over multiple connections. With HTTP 1.1 in broad deployment, it's going to a be an incrimental change rather than a radicle one.
The best proposition on the table right now is RFC2109 (at:http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2109/rfc 2109)
Also there's more about HTTP at:http://www.w3.org/Protocols/Specs.html#RFC
Great Minds Think Alike :)
You bring up a very good point behind to many lawsuits today. Moreover, I think there is an even larger sociological force at work here. People that always view differences with strong duality and think of differences of opinion as solved via 'confrontation'. There is a serious lack of respect for skills that bring people together, skills that foster a solution, appreciation for the beauty of a ompromise.
This case is all about people willing to stand up for there actions and facing the other person face to face.
Not to confront that person, but to have a dialog about *there* personal responsibility.
What's even more interesting is, can MODERATORS be held liable for taking "Editoral responsibility". ?
You bring up an interesting point about liability for moderators. I wonder if it will become necisary to make moderators aware of the fact that *they* could be accused of censoring/obstructing/supressing information when they use the moderation tool?
Is the party that provides the tool (/.) liable or is the user of that tool liable? (there's a parelell to the gun issue here, but that would be pulling this debate offtopic...blah blah blah moderation doesn't kill comments, people kill comments..blah blah blah)
(I can see it now... 50k of text in an 8 point font with an I AGREE button down at the bottom just to moderate 5 articles)
Censor : Function: transitive verb - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. It can be (validly) argued that moderating a post down due to objectionable is supressing it. Just a thought.
You bring up an interesting point regarding the strict definition of the meaning of the word Censor and what it means to be "suppressed or deleted".
I believe that a very strong argument could be made for 'suppressed' information if the default setting on the 'Threshhold' was 0 or higher.
However, I think making the deleted argument would be almost imposible.
Either way, /. assumes no Editoral responsibility for content in the posts submited, and that was pivitol in this case.
..Now I ask you, where else can a band attract over-weight white guys from another time zone to come to a club, buy some some bad haiku books, and read it over the DJs microphone untill every last suburban-wannabe screams.
It's a good thing there's no censorship here.
Once you "edit" comments, you take over liability for the content of that article. /. the same as editing content?
Is the moderatrion system currently in use here on slashdot
Do Moderators have "Editoral Control"?
From the article:
Describing e-mail as "the day's evolutionary hybrid of traditional telephone line communications and regular postal service mail," the Court noted that while commercial on-line services like Prodigy transmit electronic mail, they do not exercise any editorial control. It evaluated Mr. Lunney's claim in the context of existing tort precedents, and found that "these settled doctrines accommodate the technology comfortably."
ALBANY - In its first major ruling on privacy and defamation in cyberspace, the Court of Appeals on Thursday held that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) is merely a conduit for information, as opposed to a publisher, and consequently is no more responsible than a telephone company for defamatory materials transmitted over its lines.
Also:
"We are unwilling to deny Prodigy the common-law qualified privilege accorded to telephone and telegraph companies," Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt
Then we could use the night vision for what it was originally intended...
...targeting :)
Brings new fun to "Dear Hunting" . .
Now if they would only put them on tanks . .er ummm I mean SUVs. :)
http://www.cadillac.com/te ch/nightmoves/see/shocked.html
and enjoy!
You are correct, and your point is well taken.
This is not the first time protestors (on both sides of this argument) have lumped trade negotiations together with military conflict.
The point behind my post was to point out how wrong this kind of equating is, even in a trivial light.
Be wary of anyone making an argument, that ties together loss of life with loss of lifestyle.
One is worth fighting for, and the other is worth working for.
any resemblance to actual persons or company, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; do not remove this disclaimer under penalty of law; hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; your mileage may vary; no substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; this message is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; caveat emptor; message is provided "as is" without any warranties; reader assumes full responsibility; an equal opportunity message; no shoes, no shirt, no message; quantities are limited while supplies last; if any defects are discovered, do not attempt to read them yourself, but return to an authorized service center; read at your own risk; parental advisory - explicit lyrics; text may contain explicit materials some readers may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; keep away from sunlight; keep away from pets and small children; limit one-per-family please; no money down; no purchase necessary; you need not be present to win; some assembly required; batteries not included; instructions are included; action figures sold separately; no preservatives added; slippery when wet; safety goggles may be required during use; sealed for your protection, do not read if safety seal is broken; call before you dig; not liable for damages arising from use or misuse; for external use only; if rash, irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue reading; read only with proper ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool dry place; keep away from open flames; avoid contact with eyes and skin and avoid inhaling fumes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store above 120 degrees Fahrenheit; do not place near a flammable or magnetic source; smoking this message could be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second only to abstinence; no salt, MSG, artificial color or flavoring added; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, and if symptoms persist, consult a physician; possible penalties for early withdrawal; offer valid only at participating sites; slightly higher west of the Rockies; allow four to six weeks for delivery; must be 18 to read; disclaimer does not cover misuse, accident, lightning, flood, tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, hurricanes and other Acts of God, neglect, damage from improper reading, incorrect line voltage, improper or unauthorized reading, broken antenna or marred cabinet, missing or altered serial numbers, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts, sonic boom vibrations, customer adjustments that are not covered in this list, and incidents owing to an airplane crash, ship sinking or taking on water, motor vehicle crashing, dropping the item, falling rocks, leaky roof, broken glass, mud slides, forest fire, or projectile (which can include, but not be limited to, arrows, bullets, shot, BB's, shrapnel, lasers, napalm, torpedoes, or emissions of X-rays, Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays, knives, stones, etc.); other restrictions may apply.
Hmmmm 4.01 is new to me, thanks for pointing out the link to the new draft of HTML 4.01
I'm here because it's Trendy. [coff]
Plenty of times, a national government has reacted to an intergovernmental organization by ignoring it, stonewalling it in court, or even threatening its continued existence by withdrawing funds. While the United States is the most common rebel, there are others as well. Israel has no intention of obeying U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding the Palestinian Arabs. Russia has told the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to bug off and let Russia fight its Chechen war the way it wants. As a more trivial example, France refused to lift a ban on British beef when ordered to earlier this month by the European Commission.
I think it's pretty pathetic when an author lumps in trade conflict with military conflict.
They are not even in the same domain when people decide to protest.
When inosent people are being killed, and a governement is asking it's young people to go kill them, then the people should rise up in oposition.
However, when Wingdings Inc. can't sell "New and Improved Coochie-Koos" to the Hoo-too market, I hardly think it's an issue that required the people to rise up and rebel.
Don't lump the loss of life together with the loss of market share.
Of, by, and for, the people. Not Wingdings Inc.
...Now I ask you, where else can a band attract over-weight white guys from another time zone to come to a club, buy some drinks, and pick up 1/2 the bartending staff to take home?