Jason Calacanis has a nice interview here. Very well thought out (ideas such as being able to turn ads off, or limiting the number of ads you see).
I'm still not sold. I know that most of the people on this site understand the difference between an ad and editorial content, but there are so many people who get confused, and advertisers always are looking for ways to covertly market to an audience.
I work at a newspaper. At least twice a month I get a call from a reader complaining about a "story" that turns out to be an ad. I'm not saying we should cater to the lowest common denominator, but we should at least recognize that the goal of every advertisement is to sell you something without making you feel like you've been sold on something.
This is the exact same thing as the MPAA. I prefer industry ratings to government ratings, but the secrecy and lack of accountability of some of these organizations makes me nervous. Go watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"
It was OK to take out loans a few years ago, when interest rates were under 3 percent, but they are high enough now to create headaches once you graduate. Having a few dollars (but zero debt) when you graduate will be more beneficial than being tens of thousands of dollars in the hole. I always recommend students wait as long as possible to take out loans so that interest doesn't have a chance to compound. (All that said, student loans are among the best to have -- tax deductible and among the lowest interest rates.)
In terms of investing, contributing $1,000 a year (less than $100 a month) into a Roth IRA will leave you with nearly $575,000 when you retire (depending on interest rates, inflation, etc.). Unless you are planning on investing more than $10,000, I wouldn't bother with the stock market, because maintenance fees will just eat away at your account, and you should be focusing on your studies, not reviewing companies' balance sheets. Wait until you are employed and try to invest in a 401(k) or 403(b) with a 70/30 stock-bond split.
Three-fourths of the population cares, I would guess.
"Hey grandma, the new iMac Core Duo 2.0 gigahertz hits 32.6 SPECint_rate-base2000 (integer calculation)! The iMac G5 2.1 GHz only scores 10.2! Isn't that great?"
"It sure is, Johnny. Now... where is that 'any' key..."
The New York Times doesn't write for slashdotters. It writes for my grandma.
But if your point is why is the story on/., you might be on to something.
I'll be curious to see how Mac users are able to deal with the Associated Press' upcoming Internet video network, which will be distributed to all AP's 3,500 newspaper and broadcast members in the U.S.
According to an MSN press release, the content will be delivered via Windows Media-based video player, and is scheduled to be launched Q1 2006.
Trademarks do not equal products
on
iCell in the Works?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
When you're going fishing, don't forget your pole.
Remember that trademark language is designed to avoid the possibility of other companies piggybacking on the term. "Mobile Me" could just be a suite of portable products that Apple is considering, but the company wants to avoid some cell phone-maker coining the term and creating brand confusion; thus it includes the language about telecommunication services.
Here is the actual excerpt from the trademark office about what Apple's filing covers. Notice how buried "cellular" is:
Computer services; computer data recovery; data analysis being computer services; computer programming; updating of computer software; maintenance of computer software, computer and communications networks, and computer systems; research and development of computer hardware and software; website design, creation, hosting services; customized imprinting and design of messages, correspondence and other written communication which are delivered by electronic transmission; computer on-line services for the search, retrieval, indexing and organization of data on computer and communication networks; providing use of on-line, non-downloadable software; providing use of on-line, non-downloadable software for communications via local or global communications networks, including the Internet, Intranets, Extranets, television, mobile communication, cellular, and satellite networks; analyzing data to detect, eradicate and prevent the occurrence of computer viruses; computer services relating to the protection of computer hardware, computer software, computer networks and computer systems against computer viruses, attacks, or failures; computer services for enhancing the performance, security and functionality of computer and communications networks; computer help-line services; technical support services relating to computers, computer software, telecommunications, and the Internet; consultancy and provision of information and advice relating to the aforesaid; all provided on-line from a computer database or provided from facilities on local or global communications networks, including the Internet, Intranets, Extranets, television, mobile communication, cellular, and satellite networks
I know there are plenty of 20- or 30-somethings who do not fit this trend, but I'm in Bialik's camp of those who jump on the console to escape. I tried an online game once and spent the rest of the week embarassed about being yelled at by an 8-year-old kid who was screaming about how much I sucked.
That said, it sure seems to me that there's room for both camps. Isn't that why we're drawn to video games in the first place, because it's customizable entertainment?
It sure didn't take long for Dhanjani to reconsider posting the e-mail. Does anyone have the original string to post?
I tend to agree with him that more choice in programming is usually better, but I guess I fear that opening up the environments will lead to less stability. In other words, is it better to use an inferior language really well, or use a lot of more "interesting and fun" languages haphazardly.
Not sure I really agree with that logic, but I can at least understand where Apple is coming from.
I, too, marvel at the depth of the Wikipedia, but I caution against using it as anything more than a background source for information. Why? Because you, at this point, have no real idea where the information came from. To me, saying that a bit of information is true "according to Wikipedia" is the same thing as saying that something is true "according to the Internet."
I think libel law is a great debate for Wikipedia. If Britannica had linked an innocent person to JFK's assassination, there would be lawsuits and firings. But because Wikipedia is so nebulous, you can't hold anyone responsible for it -- and Wikipedia admits to as much in its disclaimers:
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_dis claimer
Interestingly, at the bottom of Wikipedia's disclaimer page, it also takes a shot at Britannica, saying that the encyclopedia website's disclaimer uses the phrase "YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK." Unfortunately for Wikipedia, that phrase doesn't actually appear on the link provided. http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html
Finally, it's important to note what Wikipedia is really, really good at. From an Associated Press article on the report:
(Wikipedia founder Jimmy) Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.
The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year, Wales said.
Please don't think that I am making the case against Wikipedia as a useful tool. It's an amazing tool -- and an ingenious one. But I'd hate to start seeing newspaper articles or students' term papers use Wikipedia as a primary source.
I live in a rural area of Virginia and don't even have access to cable, so I use dish network http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/products/hdtv/i ndex.shtml. The problem: One of my TVs is HD ready, the other two aren't. That would mean I would have to have two different receivers, as well as two different dishes mounted to my house. It's a couple hundred in equipment and installation, plus extra monthly charges (not to mention the extra eyesore on the house). We considered it, but decided that we really didn't need to watch "Joey" http://www.nbc.com/Footer/HDTV/ in high definition.
Text-based, targeted ads seem to be the rage because of affordability and ease (you don't have to hire someone to create the ad), but you have to keep in mind the masses and masses of people who still muddle through the pop-ups. Sure, it's easy to look through slashdot and hear about people who are quick to turn pop-ups, but don't discount the millions of people who don't understand how to turn them off. (Generally, these are the same people who still have their homepages set to msn or apple, and still have 12:00 blinking on their VCR -- yes, people still have VCRs.) I would guess that these people are likely the most susceptible to advertising messages, too.
I am surprised by the success of advergaming http://www.naa.org/artpage.cfm?AID=6563&SID=103, which is probably most often identified with Orbitz. So popular were the games that Orbitz unveiled orbitzgames.com earlier this year http://pressroom.orbitz.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?Rele aseID=174773, after it says its own study found 78 percent of those who played Orbitz online games would play again in the future. I don't take too much stock in companies' internal studies that are announced in press releases, but I think advergaming has popularity for business folks who might feel guilty (or afraid of getting caught) if they seek out online games. (But hey, if one just opens up while I'm on this site, why not play, right?)
Quick question: What are the feelings on pop-up vs. pop-under ads? I block both, but before I did I tended to dislike the insidiousness of pop-under ads more than the annoyance of pop-up ads.
Great discussion on this, and while I question some of the points, it's obvious Roblimo put a lot of work into the piece.
What's frustrating is to see so many of the comments from people with such disdain for newspapers. I agree that arrogance, ego and laziness run rampant throughout the industry, but I'd much rather wade through 30 worthless stories in a newspaper to find two really strong pieces of journalism than wade through 50,000 worthless blog entries to find those two pieces of journalism. (Could you honestly say that you could read a newspaper and not learn something?)
And I tend to see all mass media as jumping boards. If I see an interesting topic in a newspaper, it usually leads me to go find out more online. I don't expect a newspaper to have the space, resources or time to report on every article to the depths that all of its readers would want (after all, what's important to me is very likely unimportant to you -- and vice versa). But nowhere other than mass media can I get the breadth of topics that I normally wouldn't be interested in, but that because of the news I suddenly am.
Newspapers fail to understand that. Many see themselves as guardians of information -- one-stop shops for all you need to know. While some are good about pointing out links or other places to go for information, many are hestitant to do this.
I don't have much love for people who get all of their information from mainstream media. But I also can't identify with people who are so closed-minded (or have the time) to get all of their information for niche-specific media.
As for journalists themselves -- I've known quite a few. Many are egocentric, hollier than thou folks who have their own agendas about the news. But most are curious people who have a passion for writing and love the little guy.
Why don't journalists have medical degrees, engineering degrees, law degrees, business degrees or art degrees? Answer me this: If you had your MD (and $100,000 in student debt) would sign on at your local paper for $22,000 a year or at the local hospital for $85,000? Besides, if you agree that newspapers should be launching pads for information, shouldn't stories be written for people who don't understand the latest medical breakthrough? Doctors don't hear about medicines from newspapers. But I'm not going to try to muddle through a medical journal to try to figure out how the new research into amino acids is going to affect me.
A closing thought: One poster made a great comment about a problem with newspapers being the low barriers to entry. I couldn't agree more. What do you think about creating some sort of licensing for journalists? Would that weed out the weak ones, or would it simply add to the air of arrogance that plagues many within the industry?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. You can't have both "confirmed" and a question mark in the headline.
Are those what qualify as celebrities in Britain?
I'm still not sold. I know that most of the people on this site understand the difference between an ad and editorial content, but there are so many people who get confused, and advertisers always are looking for ways to covertly market to an audience.
I work at a newspaper. At least twice a month I get a call from a reader complaining about a "story" that turns out to be an ad. I'm not saying we should cater to the lowest common denominator, but we should at least recognize that the goal of every advertisement is to sell you something without making you feel like you've been sold on something.
This is the exact same thing as the MPAA. I prefer industry ratings to government ratings, but the secrecy and lack of accountability of some of these organizations makes me nervous. Go watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"
In terms of investing, contributing $1,000 a year (less than $100 a month) into a Roth IRA will leave you with nearly $575,000 when you retire (depending on interest rates, inflation, etc.). Unless you are planning on investing more than $10,000, I wouldn't bother with the stock market, because maintenance fees will just eat away at your account, and you should be focusing on your studies, not reviewing companies' balance sheets. Wait until you are employed and try to invest in a 401(k) or 403(b) with a 70/30 stock-bond split.
"Hey grandma, the new iMac Core Duo 2.0 gigahertz hits 32.6 SPECint_rate-base2000 (integer calculation)! The iMac G5 2.1 GHz only scores 10.2! Isn't that great?"
"It sure is, Johnny. Now ... where is that 'any' key..."
The New York Times doesn't write for slashdotters. It writes for my grandma.
But if your point is why is the story on /., you might be on to something.
Disney already owned the rights to sequels under the old Pixar-Disney agreement.
If the partnership for AP's massive online video network is any indication.
According to an MSN press release, the content will be delivered via Windows Media-based video player, and is scheduled to be launched Q1 2006.
Remember that trademark language is designed to avoid the possibility of other companies piggybacking on the term. "Mobile Me" could just be a suite of portable products that Apple is considering, but the company wants to avoid some cell phone-maker coining the term and creating brand confusion; thus it includes the language about telecommunication services.
Here is the actual excerpt from the trademark office about what Apple's filing covers. Notice how buried "cellular" is:
Computer services; computer data recovery; data analysis being computer services; computer programming; updating of computer software; maintenance of computer software, computer and communications networks, and computer systems; research and development of computer hardware and software; website design, creation, hosting services; customized imprinting and design of messages, correspondence and other written communication which are delivered by electronic transmission; computer on-line services for the search, retrieval, indexing and organization of data on computer and communication networks; providing use of on-line, non-downloadable software; providing use of on-line, non-downloadable software for communications via local or global communications networks, including the Internet, Intranets, Extranets, television, mobile communication, cellular, and satellite networks; analyzing data to detect, eradicate and prevent the occurrence of computer viruses; computer services relating to the protection of computer hardware, computer software, computer networks and computer systems against computer viruses, attacks, or failures; computer services for enhancing the performance, security and functionality of computer and communications networks; computer help-line services; technical support services relating to computers, computer software, telecommunications, and the Internet; consultancy and provision of information and advice relating to the aforesaid; all provided on-line from a computer database or provided from facilities on local or global communications networks, including the Internet, Intranets, Extranets, television, mobile communication, cellular, and satellite networks
That said, it sure seems to me that there's room for both camps. Isn't that why we're drawn to video games in the first place, because it's customizable entertainment?
Was Google just the obvious choice because of its scope, or is there some flirting going on in the hopes of a more lasting relationship?
It sure didn't take long for Dhanjani to reconsider posting the e-mail. Does anyone have the original string to post? I tend to agree with him that more choice in programming is usually better, but I guess I fear that opening up the environments will lead to less stability. In other words, is it better to use an inferior language really well, or use a lot of more "interesting and fun" languages haphazardly. Not sure I really agree with that logic, but I can at least understand where Apple is coming from.
I think libel law is a great debate for Wikipedia. If Britannica had linked an innocent person to JFK's assassination, there would be lawsuits and firings. But because Wikipedia is so nebulous, you can't hold anyone responsible for it -- and Wikipedia admits to as much in its disclaimers:
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_dis claimer
Interestingly, at the bottom of Wikipedia's disclaimer page, it also takes a shot at Britannica, saying that the encyclopedia website's disclaimer uses the phrase "YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK." Unfortunately for Wikipedia, that phrase doesn't actually appear on the link provided. http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html
Finally, it's important to note what Wikipedia is really, really good at. From an Associated Press article on the report:
(Wikipedia founder Jimmy) Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.
The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year, Wales said.
Please don't think that I am making the case against Wikipedia as a useful tool. It's an amazing tool -- and an ingenious one. But I'd hate to start seeing newspaper articles or students' term papers use Wikipedia as a primary source.
I live in a rural area of Virginia and don't even have access to cable, so I use dish network http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/products/hdtv/i ndex.shtml. The problem: One of my TVs is HD ready, the other two aren't. That would mean I would have to have two different receivers, as well as two different dishes mounted to my house. It's a couple hundred in equipment and installation, plus extra monthly charges (not to mention the extra eyesore on the house). We considered it, but decided that we really didn't need to watch "Joey" http://www.nbc.com/Footer/HDTV/ in high definition.
For newspapers, at least, online ad revenue is growing quicker than print ads, but still makes up only a fraction of sales. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/art icle_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001570425
e aseID=174773, after it says its own study found 78 percent of those who played Orbitz online games would play again in the future. I don't take too much stock in companies' internal studies that are announced in press releases, but I think advergaming has popularity for business folks who might feel guilty (or afraid of getting caught) if they seek out online games. (But hey, if one just opens up while I'm on this site, why not play, right?)
Text-based, targeted ads seem to be the rage because of affordability and ease (you don't have to hire someone to create the ad), but you have to keep in mind the masses and masses of people who still muddle through the pop-ups. Sure, it's easy to look through slashdot and hear about people who are quick to turn pop-ups, but don't discount the millions of people who don't understand how to turn them off. (Generally, these are the same people who still have their homepages set to msn or apple, and still have 12:00 blinking on their VCR -- yes, people still have VCRs.) I would guess that these people are likely the most susceptible to advertising messages, too.
I am surprised by the success of advergaming http://www.naa.org/artpage.cfm?AID=6563&SID=103, which is probably most often identified with Orbitz. So popular were the games that Orbitz unveiled orbitzgames.com earlier this year http://pressroom.orbitz.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?Rel
Quick question: What are the feelings on pop-up vs. pop-under ads? I block both, but before I did I tended to dislike the insidiousness of pop-under ads more than the annoyance of pop-up ads.
Great discussion on this, and while I question some of the points, it's obvious Roblimo put a lot of work into the piece.
What's frustrating is to see so many of the comments from people with such disdain for newspapers. I agree that arrogance, ego and laziness run rampant throughout the industry, but I'd much rather wade through 30 worthless stories in a newspaper to find two really strong pieces of journalism than wade through 50,000 worthless blog entries to find those two pieces of journalism. (Could you honestly say that you could read a newspaper and not learn something?)
And I tend to see all mass media as jumping boards. If I see an interesting topic in a newspaper, it usually leads me to go find out more online. I don't expect a newspaper to have the space, resources or time to report on every article to the depths that all of its readers would want (after all, what's important to me is very likely unimportant to you -- and vice versa). But nowhere other than mass media can I get the breadth of topics that I normally wouldn't be interested in, but that because of the news I suddenly am.
Newspapers fail to understand that. Many see themselves as guardians of information -- one-stop shops for all you need to know. While some are good about pointing out links or other places to go for information, many are hestitant to do this.
I don't have much love for people who get all of their information from mainstream media. But I also can't identify with people who are so closed-minded (or have the time) to get all of their information for niche-specific media.
As for journalists themselves -- I've known quite a few. Many are egocentric, hollier than thou folks who have their own agendas about the news. But most are curious people who have a passion for writing and love the little guy.
Why don't journalists have medical degrees, engineering degrees, law degrees, business degrees or art degrees? Answer me this: If you had your MD (and $100,000 in student debt) would sign on at your local paper for $22,000 a year or at the local hospital for $85,000? Besides, if you agree that newspapers should be launching pads for information, shouldn't stories be written for people who don't understand the latest medical breakthrough? Doctors don't hear about medicines from newspapers. But I'm not going to try to muddle through a medical journal to try to figure out how the new research into amino acids is going to affect me.
A closing thought: One poster made a great comment about a problem with newspapers being the low barriers to entry. I couldn't agree more. What do you think about creating some sort of licensing for journalists? Would that weed out the weak ones, or would it simply add to the air of arrogance that plagues many within the industry?