The problem is that this model doesn't work. Which is contrary to what the OP claimed. Just because you can get a movie fast, doesn't mean it works. I can get the latest hollywood flick off The Pirate Bay fast, doesn't mean it "works".
A real advertising budget would increase the overhead. It would require they spend more money not just on advertising but production to justify it. Unless we're hoping that advertising this is suddenly going to spur a ton of money where they couldn't get out of 250,000 people, it won't do anything. We're still dealing with the fact that all the people who worked on this project could have gone out and taken a minimum wage job for a week and paid for the entire project.
It's extremely unlikely that they'll maintain that pace for a month. They're unlikely to even maintain it over the next week.
Look at pioneer 1 and how long it's been out.
Episode 2 was released December 16. That's over 3 months ago, and they still haven't hit their funding goal for the second episode. Who knows if they made their goal for the first one (couldn't find that data).
A resume is nice, food on the table is even better.
it's nice you're optimistic, but the fact remains that this model certainly doesn't work. 3 months in and pioneer one hasn't broken even. That's a long time to go without a paycheque.
a quarter million people and not 10% of their goal. It wasn't just one person making the money either. How many people worked on that project? To operate all the equipment, edit it, etc. According to IMDB I'm seeing over 120 names on the list. If 120 people can't make $3300 in 2 days, they're fairly incompetent. They could have done better at McDonalds.
$13.75/day/person wow.. huge. an hour and a half at most McDonald's will get you that.
No, nothing about this remotely works. Let's look at pioneer 1. Downloads this episode: 964912 Donations this episode $16335
As a running total for the series: Downloads: 1900646 Donations: 917
0.04% of all people donated.
But the reality is, if these people had worked at a minimum wage job, they'd have more to show for their efforts. In fact if those 120 people had worked about a week's shift at a McDonald's they could have bankrolled the entire project.
You can say whatever you want, you're free to. But the OP had a specific point about stings and teens agreeing to meet 40 year olds off the internet.
If you want to disagree with that, you'll have to actually address it which you've been attempting to dance around post after post.
People != teens. There is a large difference between an adult meeting someone age appropriate online and a 14 year old picking up a 40 year old for a random lay.
So again, this is irrelevant.
While it has occurred in the past that older people have tried to groom and meet younger teens over time, the kind of meet-ups that happen in these stings certainly are almost always law enforcement. These law enforcement stings usually happen in a very short time, like over a weekend. The kind of relationship you're talking about would take a very long time, and even still you probably wouldn't find a lot of teens who actually want to get into those kinds of extended discussions and relationships with 40 year olds. Your experience with a few teens acting out in a public chat not withstanding.
I would suggest that almost all the teens who would very quickly agree to meet a 40 year old off the net for sex in 2 days or less are likely law enforcement/perverted justice.
If they could act, write, direct, produce, etc at the level of hollywood, or other professional media producers (including independents that make it big), they'd be there and wouldn't be making this stuff for free.
inevitable bashing of hollywood media quality in 3....2...1....
Unfortunately that's a load of shit. That and the whole "violence doesn't solve anything" rhetoric is garbage. There are times when violence is completely appropriate, unless your plan is to lay down and die.
When the enemy won't talk or is unreasonable, the only solution is to fight or die.
The number of decoys certainly pales in comparison to the number of actual teens curious to discover what's going on in taboo adult sex chat rooms.
You're still not comparing the right things. Teens interested in sex and teens willing to meet a random 40 year old off the internet are not the same thing. Even those stats you present aren't relevant because they don't address the particular context. I'd stay until you can grasp this seemingly very straightforward basis for the debate, stop wasting everyone's time.
The question was teens up for meeting random 40 year olds off the internet vs stings would be an interesting comparison. When you want to look at that feel free
if you want to speed up the counting of a non-technical solution, using something that has heft to it, like a pokerchip or marble might be the way to go. 3 containers for votes, whichever is the heaviest wins.
There is a big difference between a teen flirting online and actually agreeing to meet an older person offline. While you could probably find one who'd agree to do it if you poked around, the actual amount is very low compared to all the other behaviours teens might exhibit.
I never wondered if there were any of the 5a,b, and C. What the OP said and what I was trying to clarify was the clarify since people seemed to be not following it was whether or not the Ds were more numerous than the Cs. Between Chris Hansen, perverted justice and all the other law enforcement agencies out there, there are a lot of fake teenagers who will say yes to a meeting. How many real teens would agree to meet a 40 year old so fast?
I never said puberty doesn't exist, but if you need to make up arguments, whatever.
That has absolutely zero relevance to what I was discussing.
We were discussing what teens are doing, when they're on the internet
Then why bring up statutory rape at all? I didn't bring it into the discussion. The reference was made for shock value, but it was an ignorant claim.
But they're not all running around actively looking for 1 night stands online. That was what he was getting at. He was talking about how cops stings usually involve teens who invite strangers over to their house for sex. The amount of real teens that do that vs cops might be an interesting comparison.
Pull your head out of your ass and that might actually be offensive. Honest to god, you need clarification on how having a feeling and acting on it in a socially frowned upon manner are different things? There is no defence for asking that question other than brain trauma.
I hear there is a band out there that has trouble comprehending magnets. Maybe you'd like to join them and explore the mysteries of the universe together.
In other words, you acknowledge that he's correct: more than half of us loose our virginity before we're legally allowed to consent to sex.
Wow.. you really are that clueless. No. They are legally allowed to consent to sex, just with someone who is 2-3 years age different from them.
How so?
How so? how is simply having a feeling and going out and actively acting on the feeling and looking for random strangers to bed different? Clueless might be a step up for you.
If you can quote some studies, I'd LOVE to see them. Unfortunately, the taboo around teen-sexuality means that nobody is going to even TRY to do an actual scientific study about it, let alone succeed in getting any solid data. As sad as it is, anecdotes are the best we have - from both sides of the argument.
There are plenty of studies done on teen sexuality. Whether or not there is one specifically done on online behaviour, I don't know right off the top of my head, but if all we have is anecdotal evidence, we don't really have anything at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States you can find several cited studies on adolescent sexuality in that article for example. You can skip the page entirely and go right to the studies if you don't want to read what wikipedians have written about them.
You seem to be suffering some kind of episode. When it's over feel free to come back and give us some kind of genuine input.
Fact: the MAJORITY of the population lose their virginity at an age that qualifies as statutory rape.
Are you really that clueless? It's only statutory rape if the other party is over the age of consent and more than 2-3 years older than the other party, and that only applies in the US.
Being horny and actively looking for sex with random strangers online are two different things. and as usual your own personal experience is hardly an unbiased and sufficient sample set on which to base a conclusion.
You're missing the point. He didn't say "kids online" he said "horny kids online". The ones who seem to be out looking for something.
That's a much smaller percentage of the youth population, and there are a lot of law enforcement agencies out faking it in chat rooms which leads us to wonder just how many of those "horny kids" are just law enforcement and are there any actual horny kids left.
What's incredible about a lot of those stories is when you contrast it to disaster in other places in the world, like those in western countries. Police often have to spend a lot of man-hours combating looters, or people push/shove/etc to get somewhere.
I don't know about Mostly. Getting to websites outside of Korea has been a very slow and arduous process since the quake hit. It's 3 days in and a good number of sites are still crawling.
Which is irrelevant to the discussion here. The discussion here was about claiming what Wikipedia's stated objective is. Citing Jimbos fundraising claim isn't it. Jimbo can say whatever he wants, what matters is what is on the policy and guideline pages, which don't claim wikipedia is a repository of all human knowledge. However, many people seem to think it is which is what often leads to these kinds of stories.
Even the wikipedia page says "Summary of" not "repository of" those are two entirely different things.
But deletionists are always going to vote "delete".
No, they don't, and they only get called that because something doesn't meet the policies and guidelines on wikipedia and that something is something you happen to like. I've seen very few, if any, people who vote delete on everything without merit. And even if they did, if there are actual valid sources, then the admin would close the discussion as a keep. People who watch AfD are not automatically "deletionists" however the kind of meat puppets we are talking about are 100% of the time inclusionists, at least for their special little snowflake.
It's a GOOD thing to bring knowledgeable people into the discussions.
It's not a good thing to intentionally rile up a mob and send them half-cocked into a discussion. It does nothing to benefit the article you're trying to save.
Oh boo hoo. If an admin can't ignore 23 irrelevant comments to sift out the pearl that saves an article, they have no business being a forum/wiki admin.
Except they shouldn't have to do that. That's the problem. If there is a genuine quality argument to be made, make it. If an admin has to climb over a bunch of disruptive users just to try and find the point one side is trying to make, they may end up simply ignoring it for the trouble they've caused. May not seem fair, but they brought it upon themselves for violating the guidelines and rules. If you have someone who is a genuinely knowledgeable person, have that 1 person put together a genuine argument citing policy and guidelines and make it, that's all you need. If the article meets those things, 100 people could vote delete and it will be kept.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently he's already got his resume in for Maitre'D in the 9th circle of hell.
The problem is that this model doesn't work.
Which is contrary to what the OP claimed.
Just because you can get a movie fast, doesn't mean it works. I can get the latest hollywood flick off The Pirate Bay fast, doesn't mean it "works".
A real advertising budget would increase the overhead. It would require they spend more money not just on advertising but production to justify it. Unless we're hoping that advertising this is suddenly going to spur a ton of money where they couldn't get out of 250,000 people, it won't do anything. We're still dealing with the fact that all the people who worked on this project could have gone out and taken a minimum wage job for a week and paid for the entire project.
It's extremely unlikely that they'll maintain that pace for a month. They're unlikely to even maintain it over the next week.
Look at pioneer 1 and how long it's been out.
Episode 2 was released December 16. That's over 3 months ago, and they still haven't hit their funding goal for the second episode. Who knows if they made their goal for the first one (couldn't find that data).
A resume is nice, food on the table is even better.
it's nice you're optimistic, but the fact remains that this model certainly doesn't work. 3 months in and pioneer one hasn't broken even. That's a long time to go without a paycheque.
Yes, and still not even 10% of their goal.
a quarter million people and not 10% of their goal.
It wasn't just one person making the money either. How many people worked on that project? To operate all the equipment, edit it, etc.
According to IMDB I'm seeing over 120 names on the list.
If 120 people can't make $3300 in 2 days, they're fairly incompetent.
They could have done better at McDonalds.
$13.75/day/person wow.. huge.
an hour and a half at most McDonald's will get you that.
No, nothing about this remotely works.
Let's look at pioneer 1.
Downloads this episode: 964912
Donations this episode $16335
As a running total for the series:
Downloads: 1900646
Donations: 917
0.04% of all people donated.
But the reality is, if these people had worked at a minimum wage job, they'd have more to show for their efforts. In fact if those 120 people had worked about a week's shift at a McDonald's they could have bankrolled the entire project.
Ok
Downloads: 251627
Donations so far: $3312
You're right. They're really raking it in.
You can say whatever you want, you're free to. But the OP had a specific point about stings and teens agreeing to meet 40 year olds off the internet.
If you want to disagree with that, you'll have to actually address it which you've been attempting to dance around post after post.
People != teens. There is a large difference between an adult meeting someone age appropriate online and a 14 year old picking up a 40 year old for a random lay.
So again, this is irrelevant.
While it has occurred in the past that older people have tried to groom and meet younger teens over time, the kind of meet-ups that happen in these stings certainly are almost always law enforcement. These law enforcement stings usually happen in a very short time, like over a weekend. The kind of relationship you're talking about would take a very long time, and even still you probably wouldn't find a lot of teens who actually want to get into those kinds of extended discussions and relationships with 40 year olds. Your experience with a few teens acting out in a public chat not withstanding.
I would suggest that almost all the teens who would very quickly agree to meet a 40 year old off the net for sex in 2 days or less are likely law enforcement/perverted justice.
And that happens in a lot of countries where the standard of living is supposedly higher.
You didn't, I was just saying if it was of truly great quality, it wouldn't be given away for free and donation begging.
If they could act, write, direct, produce, etc at the level of hollywood, or other professional media producers (including independents that make it big), they'd be there and wouldn't be making this stuff for free.
inevitable bashing of hollywood media quality in 3....2...1....
Downloads: 146939
Donations so far: $246
Sure does.
Unfortunately that's a load of shit. That and the whole "violence doesn't solve anything" rhetoric is garbage. There are times when violence is completely appropriate, unless your plan is to lay down and die.
When the enemy won't talk or is unreasonable, the only solution is to fight or die.
You're still not comparing the right things. Teens interested in sex and teens willing to meet a random 40 year old off the internet are not the same thing. Even those stats you present aren't relevant because they don't address the particular context. I'd stay until you can grasp this seemingly very straightforward basis for the debate, stop wasting everyone's time.
The question was teens up for meeting random 40 year olds off the internet vs stings would be an interesting comparison. When you want to look at that feel free
if you want to speed up the counting of a non-technical solution, using something that has heft to it, like a pokerchip or marble might be the way to go. 3 containers for votes, whichever is the heaviest wins.
There is a big difference between a teen flirting online and actually agreeing to meet an older person offline. While you could probably find one who'd agree to do it if you poked around, the actual amount is very low compared to all the other behaviours teens might exhibit.
I never wondered if there were any of the 5a,b, and C. What the OP said and what I was trying to clarify was the clarify since people seemed to be not following it was whether or not the Ds were more numerous than the Cs. Between Chris Hansen, perverted justice and all the other law enforcement agencies out there, there are a lot of fake teenagers who will say yes to a meeting. How many real teens would agree to meet a 40 year old so fast?
I never said puberty doesn't exist, but if you need to make up arguments, whatever.
Then why bring up statutory rape at all? I didn't bring it into the discussion. The reference was made for shock value, but it was an ignorant claim.
But they're not all running around actively looking for 1 night stands online. That was what he was getting at. He was talking about how cops stings usually involve teens who invite strangers over to their house for sex. The amount of real teens that do that vs cops might be an interesting comparison.
Pull your head out of your ass and that might actually be offensive.
Honest to god, you need clarification on how having a feeling and acting on it in a socially frowned upon manner are different things?
There is no defence for asking that question other than brain trauma.
I hear there is a band out there that has trouble comprehending magnets. Maybe you'd like to join them and explore the mysteries of the universe together.
Wow.. you really are that clueless. No. They are legally allowed to consent to sex, just with someone who is 2-3 years age different from them.
How so? how is simply having a feeling and going out and actively acting on the feeling and looking for random strangers to bed different?
Clueless might be a step up for you.
There are plenty of studies done on teen sexuality. Whether or not there is one specifically done on online behaviour, I don't know right off the top of my head, but if all we have is anecdotal evidence, we don't really have anything at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States you can find several cited studies on adolescent sexuality in that article for example. You can skip the page entirely and go right to the studies if you don't want to read what wikipedians have written about them.
You seem to be suffering some kind of episode. When it's over feel free to come back and give us some kind of genuine input.
Are you really that clueless? It's only statutory rape if the other party is over the age of consent and more than 2-3 years older than the other party, and that only applies in the US.
Being horny and actively looking for sex with random strangers online are two different things. and as usual your own personal experience is hardly an unbiased and sufficient sample set on which to base a conclusion.
Yes it does happen. There are stories sometimes about youths who run off (usually girls) to be with an older guy they met online.
You're missing the point. He didn't say "kids online" he said "horny kids online". The ones who seem to be out looking for something.
That's a much smaller percentage of the youth population, and there are a lot of law enforcement agencies out faking it in chat rooms which leads us to wonder just how many of those "horny kids" are just law enforcement and are there any actual horny kids left.
What's incredible about a lot of those stories is when you contrast it to disaster in other places in the world, like those in western countries. Police often have to spend a lot of man-hours combating looters, or people push/shove/etc to get somewhere.
It's been here for years. Huge step. Thanks for keeping up western cell phone companies.
I don't know about Mostly. Getting to websites outside of Korea has been a very slow and arduous process since the quake hit. It's 3 days in and a good number of sites are still crawling.
Which is irrelevant to the discussion here. The discussion here was about claiming what Wikipedia's stated objective is. Citing Jimbos fundraising claim isn't it. Jimbo can say whatever he wants, what matters is what is on the policy and guideline pages, which don't claim wikipedia is a repository of all human knowledge.
However, many people seem to think it is which is what often leads to these kinds of stories.
Even the wikipedia page says "Summary of" not "repository of" those are two entirely different things.
No, they don't, and they only get called that because something doesn't meet the policies and guidelines on wikipedia and that something is something you happen to like. I've seen very few, if any, people who vote delete on everything without merit. And even if they did, if there are actual valid sources, then the admin would close the discussion as a keep. People who watch AfD are not automatically "deletionists" however the kind of meat puppets we are talking about are 100% of the time inclusionists, at least for their special little snowflake.
It's not a good thing to intentionally rile up a mob and send them half-cocked into a discussion. It does nothing to benefit the article you're trying to save.
Except they shouldn't have to do that. That's the problem. If there is a genuine quality argument to be made, make it. If an admin has to climb over a bunch of disruptive users just to try and find the point one side is trying to make, they may end up simply ignoring it for the trouble they've caused. May not seem fair, but they brought it upon themselves for violating the guidelines and rules. If you have someone who is a genuinely knowledgeable person, have that 1 person put together a genuine argument citing policy and guidelines and make it, that's all you need. If the article meets those things, 100 people could vote delete and it will be kept.