If wonder how much the other BSD's (Net and Open) will improve because of this. Specifically, SMP would be the major concern. If this helps them, it would be perfect.
Since they use OpenBSD, there goes any chances of messing internally with the machine. If it were running RedHat, i could just find the Root-Exploit-Of-The-Day-Advisory warning and be on my way. Damn I love OpenBSD. Once SMP support is released, Its all over for everything else.
And where do these small independant broadcasters get the money to produce these shows and keep a station running? Good idea you have, except the whole idea of math and economics ruins it.
Heh thats funny. Im complimented and flamed in the same post. I am pretty snazzy with the arguments. Hell I think i caused atleast 25% of the posts for this article. Now thats funny. I think its even funnier that on the free-pc article, i have the highest moderated post. Now thats really funny.
Wow, that was really an interesting post. In regards to the Sony analogy, the dog is technical which is what sony specializes in. so its a little different. But i can see your point. I can see 2 sides of using a name for an unrelated product. I remember Nintendo making a zelda and mario bros. cereal. It wasn't half bad, but that was a long time ago and it was bought on the name, not the cereal's taste or whatnot. Which I think wasn't the most ethical idea and i doubt it had any other motive than money. On the other hand, Paul Newman has a brand of salad dressing, they are again unrelated, but I think (correct me if i am wrong) the majority of the profits (if not all?) goes to a certain charity. Certainly, people aren't buying it because it has Paul Newman's face on it, but maybe they try it for its cause and if they liked it, to continue buying and using it (continuing to buy it, without preference for it for the sake of charity is questionable though when a direct contribution would be better suited). I do think the quality of the burrito's contribute to my annoyance with it. But like you said...there's a reason that mass-produced frozen foods suck I do find it intersting that Dilbert is a comic about the stupidity encountered in life and the office. I would not be surprised if this was really a joke to him. (i.e. He could make a cartoon about doing something like this) If that was the case, I would really be impressed, because it would be making fun of his readers that buy into simple things like this. Perhaps he is using the name to promote this product that he thinks his readers will enjoy. I can see the possibility of that, but i think the money made from this and to whom it goes would clear things up a little better. Sure, he can want to introduce his readers to something new and make a buck at the same time, but its usually one or the other. So to end this, If i go to the store and they look good, i might try them, but it wouldnt have anything to do with the Dilbert aspect. Im just wondering how long till we have linux burrito's.
But low income persons still spend money. Why get a $1000 from all the millionaires when $1 from all the low income persons will give you so much more money? People will spend $3 dollars a day on cigarettes (~90 bucks a month) but not 14 bucks a month on internet because "they can't afford it." There is no way you will get money from people via online ads if they can't get online.
I agree with you entirely. You don't have a responsibilty to watch/.'s adds, but since I enjoy/. i will allow the ads to be there. Anyways, the/. ads are specifically chosen for the average/.'er, so everynow and then, i'll find something interesting, like a new O'Reilly book thats come out or something. Which spits a few cents to/. So ad's like/. uses are really personal preference, but like you said, contractual agreements should be honored.
Hey Brainiac, That offer wasn't free. You exchanged your time to watch ads and fill out a long survey for a monetarily free PC. If free software required me to watch ads, i probably wouldn't use it. Oh yea, bad software comes with a price too.
With that mentality, Its only a matter of time before the shows you watch incorperate the ads into the show itself (ok its already happening). I remember playing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on nintendo years ago and seeing Pizza Hut ads in the background. Imagine: Mulder, come over and look at this. Hold on Scully, Let me finish my tasty thrist quenching Diet Coke, it only has one calorie Scully...did you know that? Wow, i didn't know that, I better drink one too!
This is Dilbert we are talking about. If Dilbert is just a humorous cartoon, why use it to promote the cause? If the cause is good, it shouldn't need a cartoon's support. If he donate'd all the profits to a charity, then maybe I could take his "motivations" seriously. This is the real world, you have to be cynical. And from the earlier posts, it was argued that one of the ingredients wasn't really vegan. So ix-nay on that idea.
No, you are incorrect. The Advertisers paid to have their advertisements shown to the Free-PC users. Free-PC gives free pc's to users who will watch the ads. THAT IS ALL. There is no guarantee to Free-PC or the advertisers that you will buy their product. Only that you will see the ad. Look at/. they have banners. I don't have to click the banners, but i could also find a way to turn them off. But if I did that, as well as others, the advertisers would stop giving them money. I click on ads rarely as i would think others do as well. The advertisers know this and take the risks. Thats why commercials try to be exciting attention grabbers or use some other technique to sell us their products. But you touched on an interesting point. The fact that those who buy the products, effectively pay for the advertisements. You are correct there. And that is obviously why generic products are cheaper. I do see a point to buy a product if you support its cause. I bought the OpenBSD 2.6 cdrom even though i could easily ftp install it. I like OpenBSD so I contribute to it. Do i have to? of course not. If i did, it wouldnt be free.
I should have been more clear. I object to the commodification of it all. This product's value is more in it's Dilbert connection than the product's function itself. You could buy the product because you like the product, or like the fact that its related to dilbert. But does the fact that its related to Dilbert add anything to the product? Tommy Hilfiger clothing has become a status symbol. Are the Tommy Hilfiger clothes really worth the exorberant prices they charge? Obviously, i don't have to buy them (and i don't). Sure I'll agree that its an excellent marketing ploy, but I don't think its entierly ethical. When this occurs with children, its even worse. I saw 2 women fight over Pokemon children's slippers at christmas. They wern't fighting over slippers, since there were many non-pokemon slippers available, but the Pokemon logo on them. Maybe i am alone when i say that i'd prefer a good product with no brand name, over a not as good product with a popular brand name which was more expensive. SO....My whole point is I find a problem with placing the value of a product or service in something that isn't the function or ends of a product or service. Next time you buy something simple like salt, flour, or sugar..take notice as to whether you buy a brand name or the cheaper generic. Clearly, there is no difference in the two in terms of product.
I agree...Shareware is a great idea in theory. You get to try it before you buy it. It was true capitalism, you ideally buy the best products that you want. But, people act dishonestly and wonderful things like shareware die. Now you have to pay for Microsoft crap on your new PC if you want it or not. Its just like when you were a kid at halloween and you came to the infamous no light house with the "Please Take One" bucket. Its sad when people don't commit crimes for fear of getting caught, and not for the actually morality of such actions.
hmm i never really thought about it that way. Being a college student, i see ads everywhere i look on campus, even in the classrooms. But to extend what you said: The advertising industry is struggling because they got greedy, put ads everywhere, resulting in ad overload, and so people now tune the ads out They now have to come up with even more (sometimes not so) creative and unique ideas to sell their products. I guess thats why some people watch the SuperBowl just to watch the commercials. But with this Free-Pc, you had a choice to see the ads or not, in that you didnt have to take part in it if you didnt want to deal with the ads. Thats much better than having to see 4 credit card ad posters as well as 3 web site ads on the bulliten board in my philosophy class. I think im going to take those down monday...:)
Im not saying you can't go to the bathroom, but on the whole, you should watch the ads. I think HBO doesnt really have commercials (except for its own content, i don't have it, so i could be wrong about this) but you have to pay extra for it. If everyone stops watching commercials...the companies will say "why are we paying for commercials when people don't watch them?" Then they will stop paying for them, the networks will lose a lot of money, and charge more money for stations and cable providers to offer them, to recoupe their loses. Then guess where the money ends up coming from? I hate commercials, but i rarely watch tv. but when i do, i watch the stupid commercials.
Go to the site, read the "why" section. Then you'll understand hehe thats funny. And Microsoft integrated IE into 98 to make it easier to use. The candidates care about the issues. you are easily fooled. And those campaigns where they donate 2% of their profit to charity, is for charity only, not to sell more products...you are easily fooled.
If you were to get one of these free pc's, you should follow their wishes. By bypassing the ad's, you are effectively stealing from them. The only other moral option is to not take part in the promotion at all. But since morality is scarce in the world, the company goes under. Imagine how many people who couldn't afford a pc, being able to get one. They would simply have to trade their time to watch ads in return. Its a simple exchange. It's not "free" Its only an exchange of a different commodity. They also have the option not to take part in the offer. It's sad that an idea such as this goes down the toilet. I don't support it, but I think it should be available for those you do.
Maybe you should Go to The Coca-Cola First Baptist Church and pray to God (brought to you by outback steakhouse) then go in your Eddie Bauer Ford Explorer to Mc Donalds to get your Disney's Tarzan Extra Value Meal. I could keep on, but maybe you'll see my point.
I like your ideas, but i doubt it happened that way. in all practicallity, Some one came up to him with the idea of these burritos and said: "these would go perfectly with Dilbert, We could make a killing." Look at Commercials..they don't even have to make music anymore. They just pay popular artists to use their music in their commercial. If music is art, why cheapen it? Sure its money. They have all the right to do that. But, if i made music that I put a lot of work into, i wouldn't want to cheapen my work by having it sell cars. Sure its a great marketing idea, but there is a limit Its only a matter of time till you have such things as "The Coca-Cola First Baptist Church"
Slashdot Mirror
If wonder how much the other BSD's (Net and Open) will improve because of this. Specifically, SMP would be the major concern. If this helps them, it would be perfect.
finally.
Yup remember the stupid Dilberito crap? That gets main coverage, SMP for OpenBSD doesn't....go figure
Since they use OpenBSD, there goes any chances of messing internally with the machine. If it were running RedHat, i could just find the Root-Exploit-Of-The-Day-Advisory warning and be on my way. Damn I love OpenBSD. Once SMP support is released, Its all over for everything else.
Yea....Sure....beats that goddamn Dilberito crap we're getting lately.
And where do these small independant broadcasters get the money to produce these shows and keep a station running?
Good idea you have, except the whole idea of math and economics ruins it.
Heh thats funny. Im complimented and flamed in the same post.
I am pretty snazzy with the arguments. Hell I think i caused atleast 25% of the posts for this article.
Now thats funny.
I think its even funnier that on the free-pc article, i have the highest moderated post.
Now thats really funny.
Wow, that was really an interesting post.
In regards to the Sony analogy, the dog is technical which is what sony specializes in. so its a little different. But i can see your point.
I can see 2 sides of using a name for an unrelated product.
I remember Nintendo making a zelda and mario bros. cereal. It wasn't half bad, but that was a long time ago and it was bought on the name, not the cereal's taste or whatnot. Which I think wasn't the most ethical idea and i doubt it had any other motive than money.
On the other hand, Paul Newman has a brand of salad dressing, they are again unrelated, but I think (correct me if i am wrong) the majority of the profits (if not all?) goes to a certain charity. Certainly, people aren't buying it because it has Paul Newman's face on it, but maybe they try it for its cause and if they liked it, to continue buying and using it (continuing to buy it, without preference for it for the sake of charity is questionable though when a direct contribution would be better suited).
I do think the quality of the burrito's contribute to my annoyance with it. But like you said...there's a reason that mass-produced frozen foods suck
I do find it intersting that Dilbert is a comic about the stupidity encountered in life and the office. I would not be surprised if this was really a joke to him. (i.e. He could make a cartoon about doing something like this) If that was the case, I would really be impressed, because it would be making fun of his readers that buy into simple things like this.
Perhaps he is using the name to promote this product that he thinks his readers will enjoy. I can see the possibility of that, but i think the money made from this and to whom it goes would clear things up a little better. Sure, he can want to introduce his readers to something new and make a buck at the same time, but its usually one or the other.
So to end this, If i go to the store and they look good, i might try them, but it wouldnt have anything to do with the Dilbert aspect. Im just wondering how long till we have linux burrito's.
But low income persons still spend money.
Why get a $1000 from all the millionaires when $1 from all the low income persons will give you so much more money?
People will spend $3 dollars a day on cigarettes (~90 bucks a month) but not 14 bucks a month on internet because "they can't afford it."
There is no way you will get money from people via online ads if they can't get online.
I agree with you entirely. You don't have a responsibilty to watch /.'s adds, but since I enjoy /. i will allow the ads to be there. Anyways, the /. ads are specifically chosen for the average /.'er, so everynow and then, i'll find something interesting, like a new O'Reilly book thats come out or something. /. /. uses are really personal preference, but like you said, contractual agreements should be honored.
Which spits a few cents to
So ad's like
Hey Brainiac, That offer wasn't free.
You exchanged your time to watch ads and fill out a long survey for a monetarily free PC.
If free software required me to watch ads, i probably wouldn't use it.
Oh yea, bad software comes with a price too.
With that mentality, Its only a matter of time before the shows you watch incorperate the ads into the show itself (ok its already happening). I remember playing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on nintendo years ago and seeing Pizza Hut ads in the background.
Imagine: Mulder, come over and look at this.
Hold on Scully, Let me finish my tasty thrist quenching Diet Coke, it only has one calorie Scully...did you know that?
Wow, i didn't know that, I better drink one too!
This is Dilbert we are talking about. If Dilbert is just a humorous cartoon, why use it to promote the cause? If the cause is good, it shouldn't need a cartoon's support. If he donate'd all the profits to a charity, then maybe I could take his "motivations" seriously.
This is the real world, you have to be cynical. And from the earlier posts, it was argued that one of the ingredients wasn't really vegan. So ix-nay on that idea.
No, you are incorrect. The Advertisers paid to have their advertisements shown to the Free-PC users. /. they have banners. I don't have to click the banners, but i could also find a way to turn them off. But if I did that, as well as others, the advertisers would stop giving them money.
Free-PC gives free pc's to users who will watch the ads.
THAT IS ALL.
There is no guarantee to Free-PC or the advertisers that you will buy their product. Only that you will see the ad.
Look at
I click on ads rarely as i would think others do as well. The advertisers know this and take the risks.
Thats why commercials try to be exciting attention grabbers or use some other technique to sell us their products.
But you touched on an interesting point. The fact that those who buy the products, effectively pay for the advertisements. You are correct there. And that is obviously why generic products are cheaper.
I do see a point to buy a product if you support its cause. I bought the OpenBSD 2.6 cdrom even though i could easily ftp install it. I like OpenBSD so I contribute to it.
Do i have to? of course not. If i did, it wouldnt be free.
I should have been more clear. I object to the commodification of it all. This product's value is more in it's Dilbert connection than the product's function itself.
You could buy the product because you like the product, or like the fact that its related to dilbert.
But does the fact that its related to Dilbert add anything to the product?
Tommy Hilfiger clothing has become a status symbol. Are the Tommy Hilfiger clothes really worth the exorberant prices they charge? Obviously, i don't have to buy them (and i don't). Sure I'll agree that its an excellent marketing ploy, but I don't think its entierly ethical.
When this occurs with children, its even worse. I saw 2 women fight over Pokemon children's slippers at christmas. They wern't fighting over slippers, since there were many non-pokemon slippers available, but the Pokemon logo on them.
Maybe i am alone when i say that i'd prefer a good product with no brand name, over a not as good product with a popular brand name which was more expensive.
SO....My whole point is I find a problem with placing the value of a product or service in something that isn't the function or ends of a product or service.
Next time you buy something simple like salt, flour, or sugar..take notice as to whether you buy a brand name or the cheaper generic. Clearly, there is no difference in the two in terms of product.
I agree...Shareware is a great idea in theory. You get to try it before you buy it.
It was true capitalism, you ideally buy the best products that you want.
But, people act dishonestly and wonderful things like shareware die.
Now you have to pay for Microsoft crap on your new PC if you want it or not.
Its just like when you were a kid at halloween and you came to the infamous no light house with the "Please Take One" bucket.
Its sad when people don't commit crimes for fear of getting caught, and not for the actually morality of such actions.
Hehe, Its sad what people can say to get moderated up. Your idea to list the lowest scores ain't a bad idea at all.
hmm i never really thought about it that way. Being a college student, i see ads everywhere i look on campus, even in the classrooms. :)
But to extend what you said:
The advertising industry is struggling because they got greedy, put ads everywhere, resulting in ad overload, and so people now tune the ads out
They now have to come up with even more (sometimes not so) creative and unique ideas to sell their products.
I guess thats why some people watch the SuperBowl just to watch the commercials.
But with this Free-Pc, you had a choice to see the ads or not, in that you didnt have to take part in it if you didnt want to deal with the ads.
Thats much better than having to see 4 credit card ad posters as well as 3 web site ads on the bulliten board in my philosophy class.
I think im going to take those down monday...
Im not saying you can't go to the bathroom, but on the whole, you should watch the ads. I think HBO doesnt really have commercials (except for its own content, i don't have it, so i could be wrong about this) but you have to pay extra for it.
If everyone stops watching commercials...the companies will say "why are we paying for commercials when people don't watch them?"
Then they will stop paying for them, the networks will lose a lot of money, and charge more money for stations and cable providers to offer them, to recoupe their loses. Then guess where the money ends up coming from?
I hate commercials, but i rarely watch tv. but when i do, i watch the stupid commercials.
You tried it, you didn't like it. You were going to return it.
Thats what im advocating.
Go to the site, read the "why" section. Then you'll understand
hehe thats funny.
And Microsoft integrated IE into 98 to make it easier to use.
The candidates care about the issues.
you are easily fooled.
And those campaigns where they donate 2% of their profit to charity, is for charity only, not to sell more products...you are easily fooled.
If you were to get one of these free pc's, you should follow their wishes.
By bypassing the ad's, you are effectively stealing from them. The only other moral option is to not take part in the promotion at all. But since morality is scarce in the world, the company goes under. Imagine how many people who couldn't afford a pc, being able to get one. They would simply have to trade their time to watch ads in return. Its a simple exchange.
It's not "free"
Its only an exchange of a different commodity.
They also have the option not to take part in the offer.
It's sad that an idea such as this goes down the toilet.
I don't support it, but I think it should be available for those you do.
Maybe you should Go to The Coca-Cola First Baptist Church and pray to God (brought to you by outback steakhouse) then go in your Eddie Bauer Ford Explorer to Mc Donalds to get your Disney's Tarzan Extra Value Meal.
I could keep on, but maybe you'll see my point.
I like your ideas, but i doubt it happened that way.
in all practicallity, Some one came up to him with the idea of these burritos and said: "these would go perfectly with Dilbert, We could make a killing."
Look at Commercials..they don't even have to make music anymore. They just pay popular artists to use their music in their commercial.
If music is art, why cheapen it? Sure its money. They have all the right to do that.
But, if i made music that I put a lot of work into, i wouldn't want to cheapen my work by having it sell cars.
Sure its a great marketing idea, but there is a limit
Its only a matter of time till you have such things as "The Coca-Cola First Baptist Church"
hellifiknow.
Maybe i'll virtually buy one.
Maybe not.