Perhaps you're forgetting the fundamental law of free markets: The customer is always right.
That's not the fundamental law of free markets. That's the fundamental law of customer service.
The fundamental law of free markets is: there is no such thing as an ideal free market.
But that's semantics, the meat of your post is:
As the vendor, you either offer what the customer wants, at the price they want it, or you go out of business.
And the foundation of TFA is that it's possible to change what the customer wants. This is what marketing is all about.
The big 3 automakers were successful at this for a very long time. When they were no longer able to shape demand, then they failed because they were unprepared for what people actually wanted to buy. But it amazes me that they were so successful for so long.
Mind sharing your Pandora UID so I can check them out? (Mine's the same as here... but my station list is currently full of crap as I've been trying to show my wife the possibilities).
It's exactly algorithms like the one used by Pandora that make me agree with the viewpoint that it's not possibly to calculate what "other music" I like based upon the "known music" that I like.
But that's not the point of the algorithm. The point is to generate a playlist of songs that share some characteristics with criteria you have specified via examples (seeds for a station, and up/down votes on songs in the playlist). It's not about your personal likes and dislikes, it;s about songs that are similar.
My personal experience: Don't use downvotes until the station is somewhat mature. Use upvotes only, so the algorithm can find the common ground basis for the station. Then, after 10-20 hours of playtime, use downvotes to start eliminating unwanted characteristics.
One last point: Pandora is good for general tastes. As your wants get very specific within a genre, as you point out, it starts to fail. My general advice for you is to not try to use Pandora to create a pseudo-random playlist of only songs you know you like. After tailoring your station, buy the songs you like. Then you can create a playlist in your preferred audio-file management software, and listen to only the songs you like. Revisit Pandora or elsewhere to expand your collection as needed. I think this is the only way you'll be really satisified.
Hmm, isn't this tangentially related to the whole discussion a few years ago about ref=nofollow in blog links on slashdot to prevent SEO by blogwhore submitters?
If submitter registered slashdot, and is getting some kind of benefit from it, that's in poor taste. Boo!
If slashdot registered slashdot, and is getting some kind of benefit from it, that's also in bad taste. But whatever, we expect that from slashdot:)
I love music, but, alas...I'm getting older, and am stuck in classic rock. Funny...they weren't classic when I started listening to them..haha.
I've recently discovered Pandora on the iPhone...I have started finding things like that I like from that.
Same experience here (except Pandora on the PC, not iPhone).
Best part -- not only am I continually discovering new music, I'm rediscovering classic rock I'd forgotten all about.
I really love any kind of good guitar driven, bluesy, riff-laden rock. Guitar blues...etc.
Try adding David Grisman to a station you've created based on classic rock. Might not rock out as much as you're used to (almost 100% acoustic, since he's a mandoline player), but the man is a genius. I've gotten into bluegrass (especially "modern" bluegrass like Supergrass from the 80s) because of him... and one of the stations I listen to most on Pandora is Led Zep + David Grisman. Nice variety, and great guitar/mandoline/banjo all around.
Now I've tried all possible music sites and playlist generators, but at the end of the day I simply never really agree with the correlation they see between song one and song two.
I know you say you've tried all possible music sites... but on Pandora if you create a new station from an artist or song, they'll give you the criteria they use to populate the playlist.
Set up stations based on enough songs, and it's pretty easy to understand at least part of how their algorithm works. A big problem, of course, is that some of the criteria are somewhat subjective, which is why you may disagree with them. I find this especially true when creating stations based on artists, not songs.
I just wish I could tweak the individual conditions to see where it'd get me... like having all criteria match except genre.
We're talking about ISPs with government-granted monopolies supported by the restriction against the creation of competition.
And the alternatives to government-authorized and strictly-regulated monopolies in a market with natural monopoly tendencies are...
1. No service provider 2. Unregulated monopolies.
Maybe you weren't around when telephone and/or cable infrastructure was being built out. The choice was: license a monopoly, or get no service.
Even now, these markets tend to natural monopolies due to high overhead and infrastructure costs. So if we deregulate, we'll still end up with a monopoly... but it'll be less regulated one. Yay.
That's rectal prolapse, you asshole. The anus cannot prolapse.
And if you want to search around for more info, beware! There be dragons:
Rectal prolapse is a condition routinely identified in pigs on farms and at slaughterhouses. If not reduced quickly, prolapses in pigs become necrotic and infected, plus the additional risk of cannibalization by other pen mates. If the latter happens it normally results in death of the animal by septicemia, shock or faecal peritonitis.
Let me ask you a question... did you tell yourself to be more witty so that you could come up with that? Or does that only work for "fighting off the intruders"?
No hard feelings... but the using the cream caused the subjects to have fewer pain signals transmitted. The cream didn't cause it by itself, and the mind didn't cause the placebo effect by itself. You may not need an indirect object to induce the placebo effect in yourself, since you believe you don't need one... but most people do.
Oh, so now your proposed mechanism is changing? That is, instead of ignoring and deciding not to process the pain signal (which is what was originally proposed), now the brain is telling the spinal nerves to stop?
Seems to me like you don't have an understanding of pain physiology, and you're making things up as you go along...
Common sense is just reason applied to every day life.
It's much more than that, IMO. All the logical ability in the world won't help you if you have incomplete inputs into your decision-making process.
Common sense, to me, is the ability to accurately project likely outcomes of various choices, and then to make the optimal choice based on the expected values of the choices.
Lack of common sense can arise from poor outcome projection, poor valuation of the results, or failure to consider other options. IMO, it's the last one that is hardest to overcome.
The cream did no such thing, the people's minds did this. It's quite unsurprising that as the brain processes pain (which is just information about damage to tissue), that the brain can also switch it (the processing, i.e. feeling) off.
Did you read TFA, or even the summary?
What they've confirmed is that the pain signal doesn;t even make it to the brain for processing. There is no pain signal when the placebo effect is working.
It's quite unsurprising that as the brain processes pain (which is just information about damage to tissue), that the brain can also switch it (the processing, i.e. feeling) off.Oh, I see... you have very limited knowledge of the physiology of pain response. It's not "just information about damage to tissue". That oversimplification is fine for you; but for people who actually want to discuss the mechanisms, it's both somewhat incorrect and useless.
We've dealt with rat problems before. and we can do it again if necessary
You mean, we're constantly fighting a war against rats in urban and rural areas. The suburbs tend not to have rat problems (you get skunks, opossums, and raccoons, though).
Do you know how much we spend in the US on rat remediation? And how much damage is caused by rats? Total economic cost of alien-species rats in the US is (a href="http://people.hws.edu/bshelley/Teaching/PimentelEtal00CostExotics.pdf">estimated to be $19 Billion.
Just saying... just because we CAN do it, doesn't mean it's not expensive and wasteful to actually do it, when the need for expensive action can be averted.
To me, it's very simple. When the experiment is over, slaughter the rats. Conduct the experiments in a secure enough facility that the rats can;t escape from it.
I think a widespread retrenchment in the service offering shouldn't really be an option.
Well then we've either got to far higher costs for sending mail (more on that below), or we've got to fund it from the general treasury. There's only so much waste that can realistically be cut to reduce costs.
As for higher costs for sending mail, this only works so much. When prices are increased, there is a resulting decrease in mail volume -- increase prices too high, and the resulting volume drop-off erases the potential increased revenues.
I believe we should take several actions, including funding from the general treasury, consolidating post offices, and reducing service levels. The second two can limit the amount of funding needed.
Just to give an anecdote... I live in the most densely populated state in the nation. I live less than a mile from a post office, but am served by another, larger, post office two or three miles away. The only reason for the smaller post office to exist is for people and merchants in town to hold PO Boxes, and for retail service at high demand times like April 15th and late December -- yet there are three (maybe four) full-time employees there. Surely the two post offices can be consolidated to cut costs, without a very large cost to the community -- especially if the county's shuttle system (free of cost to seniors and the disabled) adds the larger post office to its route.
A problem with your attack is that standard economic theory works the same way.
That's a straw man, really -- it doesn't excuse Objectivism.
Separate from the economics, I'd note that those who adhere to Objectivism tend to turn a blind eye to suffering, which in my book is an inexcusable failure of compassion. I know that Randites have an excuse for it (namely, that compassion rewards and encourages ineptitude), but I feel that is a morally abject stance -- there is plenty of suffering not caused by the personal action or inaction of the sufferer.
Yeah, too bad the federal budget includes a hundred million dollars or more each year for payments to the USPS.
This payment is to cover the costs of the USPS for sending absentee ballots to troops overseas, to cover the costs associated with the discounted rates for non-profits, etc.
But it IS funding from the federal government. And that doesn't include moneys allocated to the USPS for anti-terrorism, etc, which they get to class as a non-operating expense.
I support the USPS, but in the long term, I think the model needs to change. Volume will continue to retreat due to online bill-paying, email, etc. The USPS needs to retrench -- close a ton of Post Offices, reduce deliveries, etc.
I never said it was evil (a concept can't be evil, IMO, only people can). I said it needs to be taken out to the woodshed and shot. Objectivism as a foundation for economic systems is a failure, since it fails to accurately reflect the fact that actors can be, and often are, irrational.
There you go.
And FWIW, I believe that many Objectivists are indeed evil, as many of them value their personal gain over the suffering of others to a ridiculous degree.
Vox Day is an idiot. He makes the same mistakes Rand did... Objectivism needs to be taken out to the woodshed and shot, because it quite simply does not match up with reality.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the fundamental law of free markets. That's the fundamental law of customer service.
The fundamental law of free markets is: there is no such thing as an ideal free market.
But that's semantics, the meat of your post is:
And the foundation of TFA is that it's possible to change what the customer wants. This is what marketing is all about.
The big 3 automakers were successful at this for a very long time. When they were no longer able to shape demand, then they failed because they were unprepared for what people actually wanted to buy. But it amazes me that they were so successful for so long.
Yeah, except not all debts are dischargeable via bankruptcy.
Not sure about court-levied fines in relation to civil cases like the RIAA's, but IIRC court judgments are not dischargeable.
Got any stations you'd like to share?
Mind sharing your Pandora UID so I can check them out? (Mine's the same as here... but my station list is currently full of crap as I've been trying to show my wife the possibilities).
But that's not the point of the algorithm. The point is to generate a playlist of songs that share some characteristics with criteria you have specified via examples (seeds for a station, and up/down votes on songs in the playlist). It's not about your personal likes and dislikes, it;s about songs that are similar.
My personal experience: Don't use downvotes until the station is somewhat mature. Use upvotes only, so the algorithm can find the common ground basis for the station. Then, after 10-20 hours of playtime, use downvotes to start eliminating unwanted characteristics.
One last point: Pandora is good for general tastes. As your wants get very specific within a genre, as you point out, it starts to fail. My general advice for you is to not try to use Pandora to create a pseudo-random playlist of only songs you know you like. After tailoring your station, buy the songs you like. Then you can create a playlist in your preferred audio-file management software, and listen to only the songs you like. Revisit Pandora or elsewhere to expand your collection as needed. I think this is the only way you'll be really satisified.
Hmm, isn't this tangentially related to the whole discussion a few years ago about ref=nofollow in blog links on slashdot to prevent SEO by blogwhore submitters?
:)
If submitter registered slashdot, and is getting some kind of benefit from it, that's in poor taste. Boo!
If slashdot registered slashdot, and is getting some kind of benefit from it, that's also in bad taste. But whatever, we expect that from slashdot
Same experience here (except Pandora on the PC, not iPhone).
Best part -- not only am I continually discovering new music, I'm rediscovering classic rock I'd forgotten all about.
Try adding David Grisman to a station you've created based on classic rock. Might not rock out as much as you're used to (almost 100% acoustic, since he's a mandoline player), but the man is a genius. I've gotten into bluegrass (especially "modern" bluegrass like Supergrass from the 80s) because of him... and one of the stations I listen to most on Pandora is Led Zep + David Grisman. Nice variety, and great guitar/mandoline/banjo all around.
Doh. Thanks for the polite correction.
I know you say you've tried all possible music sites... but on Pandora if you create a new station from an artist or song, they'll give you the criteria they use to populate the playlist.
Set up stations based on enough songs, and it's pretty easy to understand at least part of how their algorithm works. A big problem, of course, is that some of the criteria are somewhat subjective, which is why you may disagree with them. I find this especially true when creating stations based on artists, not songs.
I just wish I could tweak the individual conditions to see where it'd get me... like having all criteria match except genre.
Plow your *what* out? Because if it's what I'm thinking, I'm sure we could come to some kind of arrangement...
Except for one light in Buffalo, NY.
The folklore is that the Irish workmen thought that green should always be on the top.
The light has been reaplced, IIRC, several times, but remains the only inverted traffic light in the US.
And the alternatives to government-authorized and strictly-regulated monopolies in a market with natural monopoly tendencies are...
1. No service provider
2. Unregulated monopolies.
Maybe you weren't around when telephone and/or cable infrastructure was being built out. The choice was: license a monopoly, or get no service.
Even now, these markets tend to natural monopolies due to high overhead and infrastructure costs. So if we deregulate, we'll still end up with a monopoly... but it'll be less regulated one. Yay.
You're welcome.
And BTW, I don't think you're an asshole. The words just flow well with the subject matter.
That's rectal prolapse, you asshole. The anus cannot prolapse.
And if you want to search around for more info, beware! There be dragons:
Oooh... an attempt at a witty retort!
Let me ask you a question... did you tell yourself to be more witty so that you could come up with that? Or does that only work for "fighting off the intruders"?
No hard feelings... but the using the cream caused the subjects to have fewer pain signals transmitted. The cream didn't cause it by itself, and the mind didn't cause the placebo effect by itself. You may not need an indirect object to induce the placebo effect in yourself, since you believe you don't need one... but most people do.
Oh, so now your proposed mechanism is changing? That is, instead of ignoring and deciding not to process the pain signal (which is what was originally proposed), now the brain is telling the spinal nerves to stop?
Seems to me like you don't have an understanding of pain physiology, and you're making things up as you go along...
It's much more than that, IMO. All the logical ability in the world won't help you if you have incomplete inputs into your decision-making process.
Common sense, to me, is the ability to accurately project likely outcomes of various choices, and then to make the optimal choice based on the expected values of the choices.
Lack of common sense can arise from poor outcome projection, poor valuation of the results, or failure to consider other options. IMO, it's the last one that is hardest to overcome.
My question is, is being a millionaire enough to make you "rich"?
A million dollars ain't what it used to be.
What about the people who are worth 10 million dollars? What percentage of them are first-generation rich? How about 100 million?
$1 million isn't "rich" anymore.
Did you read TFA, or even the summary?
What they've confirmed is that the pain signal doesn;t even make it to the brain for processing. There is no pain signal when the placebo effect is working.
You mean, we're constantly fighting a war against rats in urban and rural areas. The suburbs tend not to have rat problems (you get skunks, opossums, and raccoons, though).
Do you know how much we spend in the US on rat remediation? And how much damage is caused by rats? Total economic cost of alien-species rats in the US is (a href="http://people.hws.edu/bshelley/Teaching/PimentelEtal00CostExotics.pdf">estimated to be $19 Billion.
Just saying... just because we CAN do it, doesn't mean it's not expensive and wasteful to actually do it, when the need for expensive action can be averted.
To me, it's very simple. When the experiment is over, slaughter the rats. Conduct the experiments in a secure enough facility that the rats can;t escape from it.
Well then we've either got to far higher costs for sending mail (more on that below), or we've got to fund it from the general treasury. There's only so much waste that can realistically be cut to reduce costs.
As for higher costs for sending mail, this only works so much. When prices are increased, there is a resulting decrease in mail volume -- increase prices too high, and the resulting volume drop-off erases the potential increased revenues.
I believe we should take several actions, including funding from the general treasury, consolidating post offices, and reducing service levels. The second two can limit the amount of funding needed.
Just to give an anecdote... I live in the most densely populated state in the nation. I live less than a mile from a post office, but am served by another, larger, post office two or three miles away. The only reason for the smaller post office to exist is for people and merchants in town to hold PO Boxes, and for retail service at high demand times like April 15th and late December -- yet there are three (maybe four) full-time employees there. Surely the two post offices can be consolidated to cut costs, without a very large cost to the community -- especially if the county's shuttle system (free of cost to seniors and the disabled) adds the larger post office to its route.
That's a straw man, really -- it doesn't excuse Objectivism.
Separate from the economics, I'd note that those who adhere to Objectivism tend to turn a blind eye to suffering, which in my book is an inexcusable failure of compassion. I know that Randites have an excuse for it (namely, that compassion rewards and encourages ineptitude), but I feel that is a morally abject stance -- there is plenty of suffering not caused by the personal action or inaction of the sufferer.
It's almost as easy to click the link and RTFA as it is to complain about the summary...
The extra $150,000 was awarded to one of the companies for their completion of an earlier phase.
Yeah, too bad the federal budget includes a hundred million dollars or more each year for payments to the USPS.
This payment is to cover the costs of the USPS for sending absentee ballots to troops overseas, to cover the costs associated with the discounted rates for non-profits, etc.
But it IS funding from the federal government. And that doesn't include moneys allocated to the USPS for anti-terrorism, etc, which they get to class as a non-operating expense.
I support the USPS, but in the long term, I think the model needs to change. Volume will continue to retreat due to online bill-paying, email, etc. The USPS needs to retrench -- close a ton of Post Offices, reduce deliveries, etc.
I never said it was evil (a concept can't be evil, IMO, only people can). I said it needs to be taken out to the woodshed and shot. Objectivism as a foundation for economic systems is a failure, since it fails to accurately reflect the fact that actors can be, and often are, irrational.
There you go.
And FWIW, I believe that many Objectivists are indeed evil, as many of them value their personal gain over the suffering of others to a ridiculous degree.
Vox Day is an idiot. He makes the same mistakes Rand did... Objectivism needs to be taken out to the woodshed and shot, because it quite simply does not match up with reality.