MS tried the same thing with their "passport" single-sign-on-shopping system back in the dotcom boom days. It didn't work then either. People only used it for the money and ignored it otherwise. You would think they could learn from their own mistakes. I'm surprised it took them 2 years to figure it out this time around, it must have been a massive cash suck the way people like those on fatwallet have been milking it. Funny thing about that - the only reason I even knew about bing cashback is because of fatwallet. Whatever other means of advertising they used, it sure didn't make it to my ears.
The problem was the execution. If they wanted people to actually use it, then they needed to make the cashback completely random. Use it for a month and then perhaps you get a 12% cash back offer for a store of your choice. But that might NOT happen as well. So you'd have to keep using it until it did happen. As those familiar with the most effective methods of operant conditioning (psychology) will understand, this "random" nature (which mimics the "gambling" reward) is by far the most addictive.
So it would work like this-- 1). user uses google. 2). user decided they want to buy a laptop. But, they can't just go to bing and search for "tigerdirect" and get 12.1% cash back. 3). Instead, they have to begin using bing regularly for all their searches. Perhaps they set up a hotmail email account too. 4). Microsoft tracks this, and randomly starts putting cashback links on the side when they search for something like "netbook" or "laptop" 5). ??? 6). Profit! Microsoft has successfully gotten users to try out their search engine, daily, for several weeks. Long enough for them to figure out what they like/don't like about the search results.
it's more likely that it'll be they just decide to give everybody unlimited minutes for a flat rate, and sell you the data connection. as like $1/GB/month
man don't try to sugar coat it, we just want the movies for free. Slashdotters getting paid $7/hr to flip burgers and ask if you want fries with that don't want to spend $10 on a theater showing or rental that they're going to watch once. If they had a Redbox at every McDonalds I bet fewer would bother with pirating.
yet they continue to do it anyways, which proves that the market of people that do this just isn't that large, which means most people are casual downloaders, which means the lawsuits will probably work.
I thought it was 1.5x. That's what you're supposed to do anyhow so that the torrent can grow faster, and cause for every person that uploads it 1.5x there's probably several the only seed to 0.5 or something.
Maybe you are a model customer but the rest of us on slashdot just want the movies for free. We think we are somehow "owed" the movies and try to justify downloading it by saying it's not in the resolution we want or the medium we want, rather than admitting "I have no right to consume this, they have every right to deny it in the medium I want, because it makes more business sense for them".
Just as you have no right to demand 1). they give it to you in a format desire or else 2). you copy it. They are completely allowed to discriminate in the market and only provide it in certain mediums of consumption. If Coke won't sell you a 9oz bottle of Coke, does that give you the right to duplicate their formula and then make it and give it away to others for free because of your spite for them?
Nobody ever pretended copying songs off the radio was the moral or right thing to do, lol, yet you youngsters insist that it's your right to watch their productions. Look at it this way-- nobody owes you anything. You'll be a lot happier if you recognize this.
If everybody in the world downloaded the film instead of bought it, we could collectively be called thieves, because then the studio wouldn't get any money and wouldn't be able to keep creating films, and they would go away.
The main benefit to downloading is you don't have to have a car to run to Walmart to use Redbox. I think if everybody had a Redbox within a block of their house they would be a lot more willing to stop downloading. Why? Cause for $1 you get all the newest DVD releases. If it's right where I am to buy groceries, it's not even worth trying to track down a good version on bittorrent and then worrying about being caught or something.
That's a great idea, then it never comes to market because the university owns the patent and they want too much for the exclusive royalties, if you can even pin them down for such a contract. How are you going to come up with such a document anyways without coughing up all the dough to pay a patent lawyer to write the hundred++ page document? And how are you going to get that dough in the first place. It's much easier to magically wave your hand and say it can happen.
No, you do what we did, which is what all smart people do, and you write the research paper on something sufficiently interesting to get you grants, but you save the really good ideas for your own startup. We weren't about to give ours away. We'd already given the school 5 years of $30k+ tuition.
Actually, it goes like this: There is a demand for good actors, and good acting takes a lot of time and work. Because of that, the good actors charge money for what they do. Because of that, we have to pay to watch a movie. Because the work of acting is too much to do for free, they would not be actors if they were not getting paid. The only way they get paid is if the financers of the movie can guarantee a return on investment. They can't guarantee a return on investment without IP protection laws like copyright. No return on investment = no investment = no movies.
There is no such thing as morality, if the universe originated itself out of nothing and we just evolved to where we are. There is simple those with power, and those without. Any attempt to appeal to a higher "moral" code is illogical; because morality means nothing-- IE the universe doesn't care if we live or die-- so the morality is subjective, and if it's subjective then anything goes.
Who else can we think of that is free to do whatever they please with their time because they aren't working to survive?
The ones I'm thinking of watch TV all day and all night. Why do hard work to design stuff when you can just be entertained with media?
This is the difference between liberals and (conservatives). Liberals think people will just work for fun. Conservatives or other religious folk believe that people are inherently lazy, which is a manifestation of their inherent sin. The proof is in the pudding with the welfare retention rates. People don't just sit down and decide to teach themselves the structural mechanics and deformable bodies mathematics to be able to design a safe, sturdy vehicle. Duh. That people suggest otherwise is so stupidly naive....that if you can't see it there's really no hope. That math is hard shit, and few people are gifted enough (read: had good enough schooling all through their highschool) to do it without the blood sweat and tears that most people have to put into it to understand it well enough to be able to do it for a living, let alone to desire to do it for fun.
how many of us here have installed for friends or family because of features that likely appeal mostly or only to geeks? The vast majority of my extended family uses firefox right now because I put in on there and hid IE on them until they got used to it.
Market to the geeks, and the plebs will follow. If for nothing else than they don't want to seem out of the loop
That's a great point. Grandma texts me. Pretty cool.
Now open those same 20 pages in chrome and set them as the pages shown when you open a new instance of Chome.
Now close both of them. Now open Firefox. See how it lags your system and can only max out one of your processors? Now open Chrome. See how it pegs all 4 of your cores to 100% for about 2 seconds, and then is done rendering?
Firefox is so slow at opening my homepages, that it hangs the Windows 7 UI. And before you ask, yes, I have about 20 pages set to my homepage and visit them all multiple times/day-- market news blogs, forums, websites, etc-- most of which an RSS feed is not sufficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Because letting it occur in a controlled environment under a dictatorial regime is obviously better.
because that's pretty hilarious sir.
Only with ebay. When I bought my netbook, it was the same price between newegg and TigerDirect (the cashback store). Saved me $50.
MS tried the same thing with their "passport" single-sign-on-shopping system back in the dotcom boom days. It didn't work then either. People only used it for the money and ignored it otherwise. You would think they could learn from their own mistakes. I'm surprised it took them 2 years to figure it out this time around, it must have been a massive cash suck the way people like those on fatwallet have been milking it. Funny thing about that - the only reason I even knew about bing cashback is because of fatwallet. Whatever other means of advertising they used, it sure didn't make it to my ears.
The problem was the execution. If they wanted people to actually use it, then they needed to make the cashback completely random. Use it for a month and then perhaps you get a 12% cash back offer for a store of your choice. But that might NOT happen as well. So you'd have to keep using it until it did happen. As those familiar with the most effective methods of operant conditioning (psychology) will understand, this "random" nature (which mimics the "gambling" reward) is by far the most addictive.
So it would work like this--
1). user uses google.
2). user decided they want to buy a laptop. But, they can't just go to bing and search for "tigerdirect" and get 12.1% cash back.
3). Instead, they have to begin using bing regularly for all their searches. Perhaps they set up a hotmail email account too.
4). Microsoft tracks this, and randomly starts putting cashback links on the side when they search for something like "netbook" or "laptop"
5). ???
6). Profit! Microsoft has successfully gotten users to try out their search engine, daily, for several weeks. Long enough for them to figure out what they like/don't like about the search results.
ship all of our carbon dioxide there to make it warm enough to live on!
it's more likely that it'll be they just decide to give everybody unlimited minutes for a flat rate, and sell you the data connection. as like $1/GB/month
man don't try to sugar coat it, we just want the movies for free. Slashdotters getting paid $7/hr to flip burgers and ask if you want fries with that don't want to spend $10 on a theater showing or rental that they're going to watch once. If they had a Redbox at every McDonalds I bet fewer would bother with pirating.
yet they continue to do it anyways, which proves that the market of people that do this just isn't that large, which means most people are casual downloaders, which means the lawsuits will probably work.
wrong, it applies more and more every day in criminal cases, just not civil ones.
lol, because the entire film industry can make just as much money doing what that guy does. Right.
They have every right to deny you consumption in the format that you want.
I thought it was 1.5x. That's what you're supposed to do anyhow so that the torrent can grow faster, and cause for every person that uploads it 1.5x there's probably several the only seed to 0.5 or something.
Maybe you are a model customer but the rest of us on slashdot just want the movies for free. We think we are somehow "owed" the movies and try to justify downloading it by saying it's not in the resolution we want or the medium we want, rather than admitting "I have no right to consume this, they have every right to deny it in the medium I want, because it makes more business sense for them".
Just as you have no right to demand 1). they give it to you in a format desire or else 2). you copy it. They are completely allowed to discriminate in the market and only provide it in certain mediums of consumption. If Coke won't sell you a 9oz bottle of Coke, does that give you the right to duplicate their formula and then make it and give it away to others for free because of your spite for them?
Nobody ever pretended copying songs off the radio was the moral or right thing to do, lol, yet you youngsters insist that it's your right to watch their productions. Look at it this way-- nobody owes you anything. You'll be a lot happier if you recognize this.
If everybody in the world downloaded the film instead of bought it, we could collectively be called thieves, because then the studio wouldn't get any money and wouldn't be able to keep creating films, and they would go away.
The main benefit to downloading is you don't have to have a car to run to Walmart to use Redbox. I think if everybody had a Redbox within a block of their house they would be a lot more willing to stop downloading. Why? Cause for $1 you get all the newest DVD releases. If it's right where I am to buy groceries, it's not even worth trying to track down a good version on bittorrent and then worrying about being caught or something.
That's a great idea, then it never comes to market because the university owns the patent and they want too much for the exclusive royalties, if you can even pin them down for such a contract. How are you going to come up with such a document anyways without coughing up all the dough to pay a patent lawyer to write the hundred++ page document? And how are you going to get that dough in the first place. It's much easier to magically wave your hand and say it can happen.
No, you do what we did, which is what all smart people do, and you write the research paper on something sufficiently interesting to get you grants, but you save the really good ideas for your own startup. We weren't about to give ours away. We'd already given the school 5 years of $30k+ tuition.
neither does your brain, but it's clearly travelling _much_ slower than the speed of light too, lol.
nonsense, any random slashdotter is smarter than the average airline CEO.
Yay, conspiracy theories.
Actually, it goes like this:
There is a demand for good actors, and good acting takes a lot of time and work.
Because of that, the good actors charge money for what they do.
Because of that, we have to pay to watch a movie.
Because the work of acting is too much to do for free, they would not be actors if they were not getting paid.
The only way they get paid is if the financers of the movie can guarantee a return on investment.
They can't guarantee a return on investment without IP protection laws like copyright.
No return on investment = no investment = no movies.
There is no such thing as morality, if the universe originated itself out of nothing and we just evolved to where we are. There is simple those with power, and those without. Any attempt to appeal to a higher "moral" code is illogical; because morality means nothing-- IE the universe doesn't care if we live or die-- so the morality is subjective, and if it's subjective then anything goes.
Who else can we think of that is free to do whatever they please with their time because they aren't working to survive?
The ones I'm thinking of watch TV all day and all night. Why do hard work to design stuff when you can just be entertained with media?
This is the difference between liberals and (conservatives). Liberals think people will just work for fun. Conservatives or other religious folk believe that people are inherently lazy, which is a manifestation of their inherent sin. The proof is in the pudding with the welfare retention rates. People don't just sit down and decide to teach themselves the structural mechanics and deformable bodies mathematics to be able to design a safe, sturdy vehicle. Duh. That people suggest otherwise is so stupidly naive....that if you can't see it there's really no hope. That math is hard shit, and few people are gifted enough (read: had good enough schooling all through their highschool) to do it without the blood sweat and tears that most people have to put into it to understand it well enough to be able to do it for a living, let alone to desire to do it for fun.
episode title would be "Trouble with Replicators"
but that just doesn't have the same ring to it.
lol, I suppose you're right.
Nobody ever knows how to do a currency conversion.
It's 1GBP to 1.5USD.
What you are saying is that I can purchase 1 and a half GBP for 1 dollar. Which you cannot do.
how many of us here have installed for friends or family because of features that likely appeal mostly or only to geeks? The vast majority of my extended family uses firefox right now because I put in on there and hid IE on them until they got used to it.
Market to the geeks, and the plebs will follow. If for nothing else than they don't want to seem out of the loop
That's a great point. Grandma texts me. Pretty cool.
Set up 20 pages as your homepage in Firefox.
Now open those same 20 pages in chrome and set them as the pages shown when you open a new instance of Chome.
Now close both of them.
Now open Firefox. See how it lags your system and can only max out one of your processors?
Now open Chrome. See how it pegs all 4 of your cores to 100% for about 2 seconds, and then is done rendering?
Firefox is so slow at opening my homepages, that it hangs the Windows 7 UI. And before you ask, yes, I have about 20 pages set to my homepage and visit them all multiple times/day-- market news blogs, forums, websites, etc-- most of which an RSS feed is not sufficient.