The reason why girls are less attracted to sciences is not some god-given natural fact.
Actually, it is. It's based on evolution.
It's how boys and girls are raised and possibly lots of prejudices and sexist comments from science teachers etc.
No, that's wrong. There is an element of basic evolution at work here. Back in caveman times, the men hunted, and the women tended the caves.
The women fed the children, monitored them during naps, cleaned the cave, prepared the food, tended the fire, mended clothing, cooked and served the food, and a number of other tasks.
The man hid silently and still in a tree, with his spear, waiting for the prey to get just a little closer. Sometimes, this took hours.
So women evolved to be very effective multitaskers, and men evolved to be very good at focusing on a single, monotonous task, for extended periods of time without interruption.
Like, say, oh I don't know, programming?
Men are more effective programmers. We can focus on a single task for an extended period of time, much longer than women can (in general). It's not something we can argue about, it's just a fact. It's not something we can change in our kids, it goes beyond that, it's in our genes.
A business of just hoarding ideas and extracting patents, while not producing any real products is really not a business. My opinion (and a few million others) is just shut them down, dammit.
Doesn't that seem a little extreme? I mean, what's wrong with a group of extremely talented, intelligent, and innovative researchers forming a company (like, say, PARC) and inventing something really cool and useful (like, say, a computer mouse), but never really intending to take care of the boring details like actually manufacturing it? What's wrong with them selling that idea to someone who agrees that it's a cool idea, and actually has the facilities, intent, and means to mass-produce their invention? They then take that money, pay their power bill, then go back into their think-tank to come up with another good idea.
Why is that such a bad thing? Isn't that what "R & D" is all about?
there is also a prevalent notion that women just suck at anything having to do with math, science, or logic. [...] Having a difficult math section is considered sexist by many because "women are no good at math"
Uhm, I'm not sure where you're getting this, but I recall reading studies, reports, and even news articles stating that studies show that females hit puberty before males, mature faster and earlier than males, and are better at math than males. This has been known for several years. It's pretty common knowledge that women in general are better at math than men.
Where in the heck are you hearing that "women are no good at math?" I assert that that stereotype doesn't exist, and you made it up to prove some kind of non-existent point. It's pretty widely known that women are better at math than men.
How many people are named Ford? Does that give them rights to infringe on a legal trademark?
Funny you should choose such a high-profile example that actually disproves your argument. Or perhaps you've never heard of the Ford Modeling Agency?
Surnames are not fair game for trademarking, except under the most identical of circumstances. For example, I cannot call my underwear company "Hanes", but I can call my apple orchard "Hanes." Heck, I could even call it "Fruit of the Hanes." Not a darn thing anyone could do about it.
I can read the first method really well since you just line up the } however I spit fire at seeing the 2nd method.
Then you're a poor coder. The second method is 28% more efficient (8 lines vs. 11 lines). Thus, if someone coded using the first convention instead of the second, I might have to scroll the page to see the entire method. Using the second convention, the entire method might fit on one screen, making it easier to read.
What is gained by putting a '{' on a line all by itself? Does it really need to be on a line all by itself, several times in a given class? What is lost by pulling that '{' up onto the parent line?
The second convention is clearly superior, due to its easily-calculable enhanced efficiency, and is (in my opinion) easier to read.
In Java, it bar() appears on line 2 of both methods. Line numbers in Java refer to the line on which a statement starts, irrespective of how many lines the statement happens to span.
We can sit around and make analogies all day. For example, I liken web ads to newspaper or magazine ads.
Bad analogy. You're not a slashdot subscriber, and you haven't paid anything for Slashdot. You wouldn't see the magazine ads unless you were a subscriber or bought the magazine.
No, it's like going to the coffee house, covering up all the posters on the walls for 3nlarg!ng ur pen|s and PUNCHING THE MONKEY!!!, and then sitting down and having a cup of coffee while listening to the music.
Not exactly. Take the cup of coffee out of the deal, because in the web examples, you haven't actually bought *anything*. For example, I notice you are NOT a Slashdot subscriber. So here you are, taking up a seat (bandwidth), enjoying the music (the content), but without buying a cup of coffee (subscribing). If you cover up the posters (the ads), then NOW we've got an analogy.
If a website is offering a product, they should expect to derive their revenues from selling that product.
But for sites like Slashdot, the content is the product, and it has long been established that people won't pay for stuff on the web. People expect stuff on the web to be free. Sure, there are a few exceptions (Slashdot subscribers), but for the most part, people refuse to pay for web stuff. Neither your nor I are Slashdot subscribers.
The fundamental purpose of the World Wide Web is sharing information.
Uhm... says who?
Really... what almighty power decreed from mountaintop on high that thou Internet shall only be used for spreading thou word of information, and shall not be used in the name of profit?
At one time, radio, television, and books' sole purpose was "sharing of information." Are you suggesting that we undue all the profiteering that has evolved in those media? Do you claim that books, television, newspapers, and radio should not exist to make a profit, but rather, simply to spread information for the good of mankind?
If not, then get over it. Like every other medium, yes, the Internet was invented to share info, and originally only shared info, but it has evolved into a profitable medium (NOT, I might highlight, at the expense of sharing of info. That still goes on alongside the profit-driven sites).
Bob picked a business model to make sure he could continue to give out those pictures. He could have picked many, but he picked advertising.
Hahah! "Many," eh? Let's see, advertising or subscription. That's "many?" LOL! Great options there. Why do so many sites use the crappy "advertising" model, when there is the clearly superior model of "subscription" available, as well as... uhm.... did I already say "subscription?"
It amazes me how you smartypants criticise business models, and vaguely suggest that there are others, but when pressed, you never seem to be able to articulate any.
With every page load of Slashdot. I notice you're not a subscriber. Why do you feel OSDN is obligated to provide you this entertainment for free?
Every time you go to CNN.com or IMDB.com, you're implicitly agreeing to consume some ad content in exchange for the free content you're requesting.
Do you really not see this? The bottom line is, someone's gotta pay the bills, and by refusing to pay for sites you like (such as Slashdot), you're forcing them to rely on advertisers to foot the bill for your freeloading. Now there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you abide by your end of the deal (that is, allow them to show you the ads).
If you don't like the deal, buddy, then either subscribe, or stop visiting those sites.
where was I warned that the site needs me to view ads to stay in business?
Are you capable of basic math? It costs $n to provide you with entertaining content, such as the kind found on Slashdot. If everybody who views the site refuses to pay more than $0 to consume that content, then in order to continue operating, the site owners must find another source to make up that $n - $0 difference (that is to say, the entire cost of running the website).
where was I given the choice before the full page ad came screaming down my monitor
The instant you decided to click on that link, bookmark, or type in the URL, while in the back of your head saying to yourself, "this better be worth my time, and by the way, I'm not paying 1 cent for this." Also, every moment that you choose not to subscribe to Slashdot, you're choosing to accept the ads.
they are using the opportunity to make EXTRA cash.
Uh, this is simply false. It is a pretty commonly-known fact that ad revenue doesn't amount to very much. Slashdot used to be paid for entirely with ad revenue, but rather than swimming in a pool of their "EXTRA cash", they had to resort to a subscription model, just to keep the doors open. Just look at all the websites that have collapsed into bankruptcy, even though they had this ad revenue that you assert should have been burying them in "EXTRA cash".
You're simply wrong, if you think there are any websites out there basking in the windfall of web-based ad revenue.
if they depend on the ads as business model, then their business model is flawed.
Ugh, it really bugs me when people say stupid things like that. OK then, smartypants, what's a better model? I dare you to describe for me a business model in which a website, frequented by readers who refuse to pay for any content, can create a revenue stream sufficient to break even, without resorting to ad revenue?
If it were so easy, don't you think there'd be a ton of sites out there doing it? The only sites that don't have ads are ones in which the users pay for stuff, like eBay. Even our beloved Google has to rely on ad revenue to survive.
Come on, genius, what's the superior business model? How would you run a content-driven website with 100,000 readers sucking down multimedia content through your high-bandwidth connection, none of whom are willing to pay for any of it?
Bah, I've already wasted too much time on your post. How old are you, 14? You can't even bother to capitalize. People like you bug me so much, because not only are you part of the problem and you don't even know it, you critisize the very system that is allowing you to enjoy your leeched content free of charge, without providing any supposedly superior alternatives! You act like the current system sucks, but you don't have any suggestions for a better system.
Nope, but it is unethical to download tv shows with the ads stripped out. Something I do on a regular basis, I might mention... just because it's not ethical doesn't mean I don't do it. I download mp3s, too. I just don't say it's right. Easy, but not right.
You know, this may sound strage, but thanks to that paragraph, I have about 10 times more respect for you than for those other weasly IP thieves who squirm around when confronted with the immorality of their actions, and squeal, "It's not stealing! Stop calling it stealing! Get a dictionary, n00b! It's 'Infringement', and they shouldn't charge money for stuff people want anyway!"
At least you're honest about it.:) I appreciate that you're straightforward about it. I can at least hold a little respect for a person who does unethical things, but recognizes it, admits it, and just plain doesn't care. There's a refreshing breath of sincerity in that.:)
Do you consider it unethical to read a newspaper without reading their ads?
No. You pay for newspapers. You don't pay for (most) web content. I notice you are not a Slashdot subscriber. Therefore, you are consuming Slashdot's content for free.
Record a TV show and then fast forward through the commercials later? Get up and get food/go to the bathroom during commercials?
No. You pay for cable subscriptions. I repeat: You do not pay for most web content. Personally, I don't pay for any web content. I don't subscribe to any websites at all. Do you?
Throw away mail flyers for products?
Of course not. In that case, there is no content at all - merely ads, shoved in our faces. It would be ludicrous to suggest we are obligated to pay attention to ad content when no real informational or entertainment content is being provided in return, particularly in a "push" model where we haven't actually requested any such content in the first place.
Use a text based browser?
Stop fooling around, nobody uses those anymore, do they?:) But no, that would not be unethical, because those users could still be targeted by the ads. That's what the "ALT" property of IMG tags is for. Instead of seeing the ad for the new Subaru, the user would simply see an area of the screen encouraging them to "Test drive the new 2005 Subarus!" Unless, of course, they're blocking ads.
we can't seem to go five years without dropping bombs on somebody
5 years??? Assuming you're talking about the USA, you'd better set your sights a little lower, partner. The US hasn't gone more than a few days without dropping bombs on someone for at least a decade, unless my history is way off. The US has been constantly bombing Iraq ever since the Gulf War. Even in that supposed "quiet period" after the Gulf War, while the US was patrolling the "No-Fly Zone," they were dropping bombs and firing upon Iraqi soldiers on a daily basis. From cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan to bombing alleged chemical factories in Sudan (under Clinton's watch), the US has made dropping bombs and firing missiles part of its weekly (if not daily) routine.
So basically, the US has been dropping bombs and firing missiles constantly since 1992.
Actually, if you look at the old westerns a bit closer, you'd see that it is the BAD GUYS who "shoot the people who disagree". The Good Guys(tm) seemed to do their shooting in the context of self-defense, and defense of others (you could always count on Our Hero (tm) to blow away the Bad Guy(tm) who was threatening a woman.
This is rather interesting. It almost seems as if the show were scripted with the intent to give the protaganist an excuse to shoot someone. Like, the show knows that it's viewers will live vicariously through the hero, so if the here has an excuse to shoot someone, then the viewers get to pretend they're shooting someone, but in the context of "self-defense," so it's OK.
Then you get all these people running around with guns, talking about how it's a "means of last resort," or whatever. They'll talk openly, sterilely (is that a word?), and graphically about what they'd do if they ever had to use their gun in self-defense. But I often wonder if, deep down, these people actually secretely hope that someday, some nameless, faceless punk will give them an excuse to pull their gun and shoot a "bad guy" in self-defense, and thus get that exhilarating rush that they think comes with shooting another human being, but without all the baggage of guilt that comes with it (because, after-all, he was a "bad guy"). It feeds there immature, macho ego.
I could be way off base here, but it is interesting food for thought, don't you think?
Uhm, what? There are so many things wrong with this, I'm not sure where to start.
First of all, it's not the fast-food companies that are cutting down forests, it's lumber companies. If a beef farmer needs some space for his cows, he cuts down a field, and then he's done, that's it. The next year, he doesn't need to cut down another field, he can simply use the same field. Lumber companies, on the other hand, are constantly trying to feed North America's voracious appetite for lumber. Every travel to Europe? Do a little digging and learn how houses are constructed in areas without such an abundant supply of lumber. What kind of house do you live in? Unless it's steel/concrete, guess what: You're part of the problem.
Secondly, McDonald's doesn't chop down any rainforests at all. Why would they? "For grazing land for their beef", you say? But McDonald's doesn't actually own any cows. Do you really think fast food chains farm their own animals? McDonald's isn't in the business of raising cows, they're in the business of selling shitty hamburgers. They outsource their beef production. Do you think KFC has a massive chain of chicken farms somewhere? Nope. In order to be competitive, fast food chains focus solely on their "core business", that is, the actual cooking and delivery of the food.
It is probably likely that some of the suppliers McDonald's uses may chop down some rainforests for land, but you can hardly blame McDonald's for that.
And finally, there's nothing wrong with chopping down forests anyway! Forests are a renewable resource. They'll grow back. This is a natural part of the cycle. There's no problem here.
You want to worry about something, worry about the companies that are wasting oil. Now that's something that won't grow back.
How is it ambiguous? What definition of "well-regulated militia" puts the definition of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in question?
Because you can't take the second fragment out of context. You're trying to treat them as two separate clauses, but that's not how they were written. It is written as one, big, long sentence. The "well regulated militia" part is a qualifier for the "right to bear arms" part.
I'm don't want to debate the issue with you, I simply wanted to simply point out the fact that there is room for debate. It is in fact ambiguous, as evidenced by the enormous amount of debate over this very issue. If it were really as clear-cut as the first amendment, then there wouldn't be so much debate about it. It would be an open-and-shut case. But that's not the case with the second.
How is child pornography a clear-cut free speech issue? Free speech, like all of our rights, ends where it harms others:
How does a fictional story about paedophilia "harm others?" How do CGI-rendered, pornographic photos of children "harm others?" Again, don't misunderstand my position - I'm disgusted by the material. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is the law, and if the material isn't actually harming anyone, then it shouldn't be illegal.
The only part of child porn that "harms" others is the actual taking of the photos, and there are already tons of laws making that activity illegal (taking advantage of minors, underage sexual behaviour, child abuse, neglect, assault, forcible confinement, take your pick). We don't need a law that makes the pictures themselves illegal, or you get into situations like this.
When you have the ACLU arguing against the outlawing of child pornography, yet agreeing with Reno that gun ownership is not an individual human right, what is going on here?
One is a clear-cut case of free speech rights, and the other is a constitutionally-ambiguous issue of gun ownership, and the definition of a "well-regulated militia."
no counting of 60 million objects is ever going to be perfect or precise. Every time you recount you will get a different answer.
Really? Banks seem to have no problem counting millions, and even billions. Think people complain when their vote goes missing? Try seeing what they do when their paycheck goes missing.
Maybe we should be getting the banks to handle the elections?
About 50% of the population doesn't vote in most elections.
I'm not sure if you meant to highlight this as a problem, or simply an interesting fact, but I always cringe whenever I see people pressuring the public to get out and vote. Stuff like this can even be dangerous:
"Did you know that only 50% of the population voted in the last election? That's outrageous! We MUST increase that number to AT LEAST 80%, preferably 100%! It doesn't matter who you vote for, just get out and vote!
Such advice is dangerous, because it encourages everyone to get out and vote. Now, on the face of it, that may not sound like a bad thing. However, "everyone" isn't informed. "Everyone" hasn't been paying attention to the issues, the candidates, and the platforms. That 50% who don't vote were busy watching Survivor and Friends instead of the Presidential debates.
What possible benefit is there to having those people show up and randomly select a name on their ballot? They know nothing about the issues. They're not making an informed vote. At best, they make a lucky guess. At worst, their vote cancels out the vote of another citizen who actually invested the time to read up on the platforms and get informed about the candidates.
What I'm saying is, if you get that other 50% out to vote, they'll pollute the pool. You can lead a horse to water (force people to vote), but you can't make him drink (force people to get informed on the issues and make an informed vote).
It is best to leave things the way they are. Leave the voting to that 50% that actually cared enough about the election to get informed. That's still 150 million people, that's a reasonable cross-section of the USA. Chances are, they'll pick the right candidate.
If you can't even name 4 of the candidates that will be on the ballot you will be given, then it's better to just stay home and leave the important stuff (democracy) to those who actually give a shit. Besides, you wouldn't want to miss Big Brother - it might be a new one.
Exactly what message do you think is sent by: voting for some other candidate that cannot possibly win?
Because I think there isn't one, I think the one of the two potential winners looking at your vote will say: Damn, why can't they see voting for x is a waste of time?? But do your really think it will change their behaviour? More than voting for them?
The fact that they didn't get the message doesn't mean the message wasn't sent.
Here in Canada, we recently had a federal election. The Liberals have been in power for 12 years, and people are sick of the lying and corruption that has been borne of more than a decade of getting comfortable and arrogant with power. However, the principle alternative, the Conservative party, was widely regarded as too right-wing, too young, and not ready for power. So a lot of people voted for the next party on the list, the New Democratic Party (NDP), who is usually considered a "third party" with no real shot at winning overall control of the country (think: Ralph Nader). The NDP enjoyed their strongest numbers ever, winning more seats than they have in decades (ever? Sorry, I didn't look it up).
Now, the Liberals still won the election, but they lost "majority" control, meaning they can no longer just do whatever they want. They now have to work with other parties to support their legislation in order to get the votes needed to pass it. Fortunately, the Liberals got the message, and the leader (Paul Martin) appears to recognize that Canadians were not happy with the way they'd been running things.
The NDP, on the other hand, mistakenly believes that their results mean that more Canadians than ever before support their platform and politics (which is untrue).
My point with all this is that yes, you can "send a message" by voting for another party, although sometimes the parties might not get the message, and may mistakenly believe that you are actually a Nader supporter, when in fact, you're simply a Bush/Kerry opponent, and Nader happened to be the only other name on your ballot.
Well, as a Canadian who lives in Toronto (one of the country's largest population centres), I haven't heard ANYONE say 'aboot', EVER
Yes you have, you just didn't realize it because the difference isn't as pronounced as the parady in the South Park movie. I too, used to think it was just an old wive's tale, and that the pronounciation was identical, but a couple of months ago, there was a special on CBC called "Talking Canadian," which examined the regional dialects, inflections, and differences in our language.
They demonstrated the slightly different pronounciation of several words, most famously, "about." Like you, I used to think that the joke was that Canadians said "aboot", as in, "look at my foot, I'm wearing a boot." Since I personally don't pronounce it that way, and have never heard anyone else say it like that, I thought it was just a myth. But in fact, we do pronounce it differently than USAmericans, just not that strongly. If you listen, you can hear it.
Canadians pronounce it as "a-bout," like a wrestling "bout". Think of how you'd say, "I'm going out." That's the sound Canadians (and me too, I realized" employ when we way "about." I incorrectly assumed that that was how USAmericans say it, too. But the CBC special opened my eyes, and now I notice it when watching USAmerican media, too. They don't say it like we do. They say it like "a-bowt." The sound is more like we'd say if we stubbed our toe: "Ow!" Say it to yourself, "Today, the US President talked abowt the upcoming election..." Doesn't it sound surprisingly accurate?
There were other fascinating differences they highlighted, too. Like "stocking/stalking." Canadians pronounce them identically, but USAmericans put more of an "aw" sound in "stalking" than they do in "stocking." It was a pretty cool special.:)
What I'm trying to say is that if artists have it tough, it's their problem -- they chose to be artists; they brought it on themselves!
People could say the exact same thing about programmers complaining about outsourcing to India.
It makes absolutely no sense to have to pay for, say, "Imagine," even though John Lennon is dead.
It makes perfect sense, when you stop for a moment and realize that John Lennon didn't singlehandled write, produce, perform, record, mix, manufacture, and market the song. There were a lot more people involved than just John Lennon, and he's not the one who fronted the money to create the work. A record label did. They invested money in an asset - an asset that happens to still be popular enough to generate revenue. So I don't see why it is unreasonable for the label to continue to demand compensation for a product/asset that is still marketable, and that cost them money to create, just because one person who happened to be the voice in the song died.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason why girls are less attracted to sciences is not some god-given natural fact.
Actually, it is. It's based on evolution.
It's how boys and girls are raised and possibly lots of prejudices and sexist comments from science teachers etc.
No, that's wrong. There is an element of basic evolution at work here. Back in caveman times, the men hunted, and the women tended the caves.
The women fed the children, monitored them during naps, cleaned the cave, prepared the food, tended the fire, mended clothing, cooked and served the food, and a number of other tasks.
The man hid silently and still in a tree, with his spear, waiting for the prey to get just a little closer. Sometimes, this took hours.
So women evolved to be very effective multitaskers, and men evolved to be very good at focusing on a single, monotonous task, for extended periods of time without interruption.
Like, say, oh I don't know, programming?
Men are more effective programmers. We can focus on a single task for an extended period of time, much longer than women can (in general). It's not something we can argue about, it's just a fact. It's not something we can change in our kids, it goes beyond that, it's in our genes.
A business of just hoarding ideas and extracting patents, while not producing any real products is really not a business. My opinion (and a few million others) is just shut them down, dammit.
Doesn't that seem a little extreme? I mean, what's wrong with a group of extremely talented, intelligent, and innovative researchers forming a company (like, say, PARC) and inventing something really cool and useful (like, say, a computer mouse), but never really intending to take care of the boring details like actually manufacturing it? What's wrong with them selling that idea to someone who agrees that it's a cool idea, and actually has the facilities, intent, and means to mass-produce their invention? They then take that money, pay their power bill, then go back into their think-tank to come up with another good idea.
Why is that such a bad thing? Isn't that what "R & D" is all about?
there is also a prevalent notion that women just suck at anything having to do with math, science, or logic. [...] Having a difficult math section is considered sexist by many because "women are no good at math"
Uhm, I'm not sure where you're getting this, but I recall reading studies, reports, and even news articles stating that studies show that females hit puberty before males, mature faster and earlier than males, and are better at math than males. This has been known for several years. It's pretty common knowledge that women in general are better at math than men.
Where in the heck are you hearing that "women are no good at math?" I assert that that stereotype doesn't exist, and you made it up to prove some kind of non-existent point. It's pretty widely known that women are better at math than men.
How many people are named Ford? Does that give them rights to infringe on a legal trademark?
Funny you should choose such a high-profile example that actually disproves your argument. Or perhaps you've never heard of the Ford Modeling Agency?
Surnames are not fair game for trademarking, except under the most identical of circumstances. For example, I cannot call my underwear company "Hanes", but I can call my apple orchard "Hanes." Heck, I could even call it "Fruit of the Hanes." Not a darn thing anyone could do about it.
I can read the first method really well since you just line up the } however I spit fire at seeing the 2nd method.
Then you're a poor coder. The second method is 28% more efficient (8 lines vs. 11 lines). Thus, if someone coded using the first convention instead of the second, I might have to scroll the page to see the entire method. Using the second convention, the entire method might fit on one screen, making it easier to read.
What is gained by putting a '{' on a line all by itself? Does it really need to be on a line all by itself, several times in a given class? What is lost by pulling that '{' up onto the parent line?
The second convention is clearly superior, due to its easily-calculable enhanced efficiency, and is (in my opinion) easier to read.
On what lines does bar() appear in both?
In Java, it bar() appears on line 2 of both methods. Line numbers in Java refer to the line on which a statement starts, irrespective of how many lines the statement happens to span.
We can sit around and make analogies all day. For example, I liken web ads to newspaper or magazine ads.
Bad analogy. You're not a slashdot subscriber, and you haven't paid anything for Slashdot. You wouldn't see the magazine ads unless you were a subscriber or bought the magazine.
No, it's like going to the coffee house, covering up all the posters on the walls for 3nlarg!ng ur pen|s and PUNCHING THE MONKEY!!!, and then sitting down and having a cup of coffee while listening to the music.
Not exactly. Take the cup of coffee out of the deal, because in the web examples, you haven't actually bought *anything*. For example, I notice you are NOT a Slashdot subscriber. So here you are, taking up a seat (bandwidth), enjoying the music (the content), but without buying a cup of coffee (subscribing). If you cover up the posters (the ads), then NOW we've got an analogy.
If a website is offering a product, they should expect to derive their revenues from selling that product.
But for sites like Slashdot, the content is the product, and it has long been established that people won't pay for stuff on the web. People expect stuff on the web to be free. Sure, there are a few exceptions (Slashdot subscribers), but for the most part, people refuse to pay for web stuff. Neither your nor I are Slashdot subscribers.
The fundamental purpose of the World Wide Web is sharing information.
Uhm... says who?
Really... what almighty power decreed from mountaintop on high that thou Internet shall only be used for spreading thou word of information, and shall not be used in the name of profit?
At one time, radio, television, and books' sole purpose was "sharing of information." Are you suggesting that we undue all the profiteering that has evolved in those media? Do you claim that books, television, newspapers, and radio should not exist to make a profit, but rather, simply to spread information for the good of mankind?
If not, then get over it. Like every other medium, yes, the Internet was invented to share info, and originally only shared info, but it has evolved into a profitable medium (NOT, I might highlight, at the expense of sharing of info. That still goes on alongside the profit-driven sites).
Bob picked a business model to make sure he could continue to give out those pictures. He could have picked many, but he picked advertising.
... uhm.... did I already say "subscription?"
Hahah! "Many," eh? Let's see, advertising or subscription. That's "many?" LOL! Great options there. Why do so many sites use the crappy "advertising" model, when there is the clearly superior model of "subscription" available, as well as
It amazes me how you smartypants criticise business models, and vaguely suggest that there are others, but when pressed, you never seem to be able to articulate any.
where did I agree to being bombarded with ads?
With every page load of Slashdot. I notice you're not a subscriber. Why do you feel OSDN is obligated to provide you this entertainment for free?
Every time you go to CNN.com or IMDB.com, you're implicitly agreeing to consume some ad content in exchange for the free content you're requesting.
Do you really not see this? The bottom line is, someone's gotta pay the bills, and by refusing to pay for sites you like (such as Slashdot), you're forcing them to rely on advertisers to foot the bill for your freeloading. Now there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you abide by your end of the deal (that is, allow them to show you the ads).
If you don't like the deal, buddy, then either subscribe, or stop visiting those sites.
where was I warned that the site needs me to view ads to stay in business?
Are you capable of basic math? It costs $n to provide you with entertaining content, such as the kind found on Slashdot. If everybody who views the site refuses to pay more than $0 to consume that content, then in order to continue operating, the site owners must find another source to make up that $n - $0 difference (that is to say, the entire cost of running the website).
where was I given the choice before the full page ad came screaming down my monitor
The instant you decided to click on that link, bookmark, or type in the URL, while in the back of your head saying to yourself, "this better be worth my time, and by the way, I'm not paying 1 cent for this." Also, every moment that you choose not to subscribe to Slashdot, you're choosing to accept the ads.
they are using the opportunity to make EXTRA cash.
Uh, this is simply false. It is a pretty commonly-known fact that ad revenue doesn't amount to very much. Slashdot used to be paid for entirely with ad revenue, but rather than swimming in a pool of their "EXTRA cash", they had to resort to a subscription model, just to keep the doors open. Just look at all the websites that have collapsed into bankruptcy, even though they had this ad revenue that you assert should have been burying them in "EXTRA cash".
You're simply wrong, if you think there are any websites out there basking in the windfall of web-based ad revenue.
if they depend on the ads as business model, then their business model is flawed.
Ugh, it really bugs me when people say stupid things like that. OK then, smartypants, what's a better model? I dare you to describe for me a business model in which a website, frequented by readers who refuse to pay for any content, can create a revenue stream sufficient to break even, without resorting to ad revenue?
If it were so easy, don't you think there'd be a ton of sites out there doing it? The only sites that don't have ads are ones in which the users pay for stuff, like eBay. Even our beloved Google has to rely on ad revenue to survive.
Come on, genius, what's the superior business model? How would you run a content-driven website with 100,000 readers sucking down multimedia content through your high-bandwidth connection, none of whom are willing to pay for any of it?
Bah, I've already wasted too much time on your post. How old are you, 14? You can't even bother to capitalize. People like you bug me so much, because not only are you part of the problem and you don't even know it, you critisize the very system that is allowing you to enjoy your leeched content free of charge, without providing any supposedly superior alternatives! You act like the current system sucks, but you don't have any suggestions for a better system.
Nope, but it is unethical to download tv shows with the ads stripped out. Something I do on a regular basis, I might mention... just because it's not ethical doesn't mean I don't do it. I download mp3s, too. I just don't say it's right. Easy, but not right.
:) I appreciate that you're straightforward about it. I can at least hold a little respect for a person who does unethical things, but recognizes it, admits it, and just plain doesn't care. There's a refreshing breath of sincerity in that. :)
You know, this may sound strage, but thanks to that paragraph, I have about 10 times more respect for you than for those other weasly IP thieves who squirm around when confronted with the immorality of their actions, and squeal, "It's not stealing! Stop calling it stealing! Get a dictionary, n00b! It's 'Infringement', and they shouldn't charge money for stuff people want anyway!"
At least you're honest about it.
Do you consider it unethical to read a newspaper without reading their ads?
:) But no, that would not be unethical, because those users could still be targeted by the ads. That's what the "ALT" property of IMG tags is for. Instead of seeing the ad for the new Subaru, the user would simply see an area of the screen encouraging them to "Test drive the new 2005 Subarus!" Unless, of course, they're blocking ads.
No. You pay for newspapers. You don't pay for (most) web content. I notice you are not a Slashdot subscriber. Therefore, you are consuming Slashdot's content for free.
Record a TV show and then fast forward through the commercials later? Get up and get food/go to the bathroom during commercials?
No. You pay for cable subscriptions. I repeat: You do not pay for most web content. Personally, I don't pay for any web content. I don't subscribe to any websites at all. Do you?
Throw away mail flyers for products?
Of course not. In that case, there is no content at all - merely ads, shoved in our faces. It would be ludicrous to suggest we are obligated to pay attention to ad content when no real informational or entertainment content is being provided in return, particularly in a "push" model where we haven't actually requested any such content in the first place.
Use a text based browser?
Stop fooling around, nobody uses those anymore, do they?
Not everyone that lives in poor neighborhoods are crooks or on welfare!
The media and people's naiveness is to blame for this stereotype.
Well, that, and the fact that almost all crime is commited by poor people (that is, people living at or below the poverty line).
we can't seem to go five years without dropping bombs on somebody
5 years??? Assuming you're talking about the USA, you'd better set your sights a little lower, partner. The US hasn't gone more than a few days without dropping bombs on someone for at least a decade, unless my history is way off. The US has been constantly bombing Iraq ever since the Gulf War. Even in that supposed "quiet period" after the Gulf War, while the US was patrolling the "No-Fly Zone," they were dropping bombs and firing upon Iraqi soldiers on a daily basis. From cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan to bombing alleged chemical factories in Sudan (under Clinton's watch), the US has made dropping bombs and firing missiles part of its weekly (if not daily) routine.
So basically, the US has been dropping bombs and firing missiles constantly since 1992.
"5 years" indeed! *scoff*
Actually, if you look at the old westerns a bit closer, you'd see that it is the BAD GUYS who "shoot the people who disagree". The Good Guys(tm) seemed to do their shooting in the context of self-defense, and defense of others (you could always count on Our Hero (tm) to blow away the Bad Guy(tm) who was threatening a woman.
This is rather interesting. It almost seems as if the show were scripted with the intent to give the protaganist an excuse to shoot someone. Like, the show knows that it's viewers will live vicariously through the hero, so if the here has an excuse to shoot someone, then the viewers get to pretend they're shooting someone, but in the context of "self-defense," so it's OK.
Then you get all these people running around with guns, talking about how it's a "means of last resort," or whatever. They'll talk openly, sterilely (is that a word?), and graphically about what they'd do if they ever had to use their gun in self-defense. But I often wonder if, deep down, these people actually secretely hope that someday, some nameless, faceless punk will give them an excuse to pull their gun and shoot a "bad guy" in self-defense, and thus get that exhilarating rush that they think comes with shooting another human being, but without all the baggage of guilt that comes with it (because, after-all, he was a "bad guy"). It feeds there immature, macho ego.
I could be way off base here, but it is interesting food for thought, don't you think?
McDonalds (cutting down rainforests),
Uhm, what? There are so many things wrong with this, I'm not sure where to start.
First of all, it's not the fast-food companies that are cutting down forests, it's lumber companies. If a beef farmer needs some space for his cows, he cuts down a field, and then he's done, that's it. The next year, he doesn't need to cut down another field, he can simply use the same field. Lumber companies, on the other hand, are constantly trying to feed North America's voracious appetite for lumber. Every travel to Europe? Do a little digging and learn how houses are constructed in areas without such an abundant supply of lumber. What kind of house do you live in? Unless it's steel/concrete, guess what: You're part of the problem.
Secondly, McDonald's doesn't chop down any rainforests at all. Why would they? "For grazing land for their beef", you say? But McDonald's doesn't actually own any cows. Do you really think fast food chains farm their own animals? McDonald's isn't in the business of raising cows, they're in the business of selling shitty hamburgers. They outsource their beef production. Do you think KFC has a massive chain of chicken farms somewhere? Nope. In order to be competitive, fast food chains focus solely on their "core business", that is, the actual cooking and delivery of the food.
It is probably likely that some of the suppliers McDonald's uses may chop down some rainforests for land, but you can hardly blame McDonald's for that.
And finally, there's nothing wrong with chopping down forests anyway! Forests are a renewable resource. They'll grow back. This is a natural part of the cycle. There's no problem here.
You want to worry about something, worry about the companies that are wasting oil. Now that's something that won't grow back.
How is it ambiguous? What definition of "well-regulated militia" puts the definition of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in question?
Because you can't take the second fragment out of context. You're trying to treat them as two separate clauses, but that's not how they were written. It is written as one, big, long sentence. The "well regulated militia" part is a qualifier for the "right to bear arms" part.
I'm don't want to debate the issue with you, I simply wanted to simply point out the fact that there is room for debate. It is in fact ambiguous, as evidenced by the enormous amount of debate over this very issue. If it were really as clear-cut as the first amendment, then there wouldn't be so much debate about it. It would be an open-and-shut case. But that's not the case with the second.
How is child pornography a clear-cut free speech issue? Free speech, like all of our rights, ends where it harms others:
How does a fictional story about paedophilia "harm others?" How do CGI-rendered, pornographic photos of children "harm others?" Again, don't misunderstand my position - I'm disgusted by the material. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is the law, and if the material isn't actually harming anyone, then it shouldn't be illegal.
The only part of child porn that "harms" others is the actual taking of the photos, and there are already tons of laws making that activity illegal (taking advantage of minors, underage sexual behaviour, child abuse, neglect, assault, forcible confinement, take your pick). We don't need a law that makes the pictures themselves illegal, or you get into situations like this.
When you have the ACLU arguing against the outlawing of child pornography, yet agreeing with Reno that gun ownership is not an individual human right, what is going on here?
One is a clear-cut case of free speech rights, and the other is a constitutionally-ambiguous issue of gun ownership, and the definition of a "well-regulated militia."
no counting of 60 million objects is ever going to be perfect or precise. Every time you recount you will get a different answer.
Really? Banks seem to have no problem counting millions, and even billions. Think people complain when their vote goes missing? Try seeing what they do when their paycheck goes missing.
Maybe we should be getting the banks to handle the elections?
I'm not sure if you meant to highlight this as a problem, or simply an interesting fact, but I always cringe whenever I see people pressuring the public to get out and vote. Stuff like this can even be dangerous:
Such advice is dangerous, because it encourages everyone to get out and vote. Now, on the face of it, that may not sound like a bad thing. However, "everyone" isn't informed. "Everyone" hasn't been paying attention to the issues, the candidates, and the platforms. That 50% who don't vote were busy watching Survivor and Friends instead of the Presidential debates.
What possible benefit is there to having those people show up and randomly select a name on their ballot? They know nothing about the issues. They're not making an informed vote. At best, they make a lucky guess. At worst, their vote cancels out the vote of another citizen who actually invested the time to read up on the platforms and get informed about the candidates.
What I'm saying is, if you get that other 50% out to vote, they'll pollute the pool. You can lead a horse to water (force people to vote), but you can't make him drink (force people to get informed on the issues and make an informed vote).
It is best to leave things the way they are. Leave the voting to that 50% that actually cared enough about the election to get informed. That's still 150 million people, that's a reasonable cross-section of the USA. Chances are, they'll pick the right candidate.
If you can't even name 4 of the candidates that will be on the ballot you will be given, then it's better to just stay home and leave the important stuff (democracy) to those who actually give a shit. Besides, you wouldn't want to miss Big Brother - it might be a new one.
Exactly what message do you think is sent by: voting for some other candidate that cannot possibly win?
Because I think there isn't one, I think the one of the two potential winners looking at your vote will say: Damn, why can't they see voting for x is a waste of time?? But do your really think it will change their behaviour? More than voting for them?
The fact that they didn't get the message doesn't mean the message wasn't sent.
Here in Canada, we recently had a federal election. The Liberals have been in power for 12 years, and people are sick of the lying and corruption that has been borne of more than a decade of getting comfortable and arrogant with power. However, the principle alternative, the Conservative party, was widely regarded as too right-wing, too young, and not ready for power. So a lot of people voted for the next party on the list, the New Democratic Party (NDP), who is usually considered a "third party" with no real shot at winning overall control of the country (think: Ralph Nader). The NDP enjoyed their strongest numbers ever, winning more seats than they have in decades (ever? Sorry, I didn't look it up).
Now, the Liberals still won the election, but they lost "majority" control, meaning they can no longer just do whatever they want. They now have to work with other parties to support their legislation in order to get the votes needed to pass it. Fortunately, the Liberals got the message, and the leader (Paul Martin) appears to recognize that Canadians were not happy with the way they'd been running things.
The NDP, on the other hand, mistakenly believes that their results mean that more Canadians than ever before support their platform and politics (which is untrue).
My point with all this is that yes, you can "send a message" by voting for another party, although sometimes the parties might not get the message, and may mistakenly believe that you are actually a Nader supporter, when in fact, you're simply a Bush/Kerry opponent, and Nader happened to be the only other name on your ballot.
Well, as a Canadian who lives in Toronto (one of the country's largest population centres), I haven't heard ANYONE say 'aboot', EVER
:)
Yes you have, you just didn't realize it because the difference isn't as pronounced as the parady in the South Park movie. I too, used to think it was just an old wive's tale, and that the pronounciation was identical, but a couple of months ago, there was a special on CBC called "Talking Canadian," which examined the regional dialects, inflections, and differences in our language.
They demonstrated the slightly different pronounciation of several words, most famously, "about." Like you, I used to think that the joke was that Canadians said "aboot", as in, "look at my foot, I'm wearing a boot." Since I personally don't pronounce it that way, and have never heard anyone else say it like that, I thought it was just a myth. But in fact, we do pronounce it differently than USAmericans, just not that strongly. If you listen, you can hear it.
Canadians pronounce it as "a-bout," like a wrestling "bout". Think of how you'd say, "I'm going out." That's the sound Canadians (and me too, I realized" employ when we way "about." I incorrectly assumed that that was how USAmericans say it, too. But the CBC special opened my eyes, and now I notice it when watching USAmerican media, too. They don't say it like we do. They say it like "a-bowt." The sound is more like we'd say if we stubbed our toe: "Ow!" Say it to yourself, "Today, the US President talked abowt the upcoming election..." Doesn't it sound surprisingly accurate?
There were other fascinating differences they highlighted, too. Like "stocking/stalking." Canadians pronounce them identically, but USAmericans put more of an "aw" sound in "stalking" than they do in "stocking." It was a pretty cool special.
What I'm trying to say is that if artists have it tough, it's their problem -- they chose to be artists; they brought it on themselves!
People could say the exact same thing about programmers complaining about outsourcing to India.
It makes absolutely no sense to have to pay for, say, "Imagine," even though John Lennon is dead.
It makes perfect sense, when you stop for a moment and realize that John Lennon didn't singlehandled write, produce, perform, record, mix, manufacture, and market the song. There were a lot more people involved than just John Lennon, and he's not the one who fronted the money to create the work. A record label did. They invested money in an asset - an asset that happens to still be popular enough to generate revenue. So I don't see why it is unreasonable for the label to continue to demand compensation for a product/asset that is still marketable, and that cost them money to create, just because one person who happened to be the voice in the song died.
Your hypocratic disdain for artists was very poorly veiled:
"Artists" are no different than scientists, engineers, or programmers.
Really? Then how come a couple of paragraphs later, you said
In a sane world, artists would either live on whatever they can make on performances [...], or get a real job
A "real job?" But I thought they were no different than scientists, engineers, and programmers? Aren't those real jobs?
Which is it?