Can we just go ahead and admit that the broken windows economy doesn't work.
I jest of course. We really should tell them that the one that works is Linux, and the one that looks like it but doesn't work is Windows 7.
Define "work". Unfortunately there is still software (i.e. games, but also other very specialized software) that only works on windows.
I work on Macs and yet I have a Windows (XP) machine in my office and at home which only gets turned on if a certain program refuses to work on OS X. Running Cedega/Wine/etc. is often just too much of a hassle and/or doesn't work well enough.
Or take Office programs for example - you can't honestly expect all office assistants to learn to use something else than Word. I know a lot of assistants that had a hard time even learning that and still take MS Office classes every 2 years. Learning a new OS AND a new word processing program is going to confuse the hell out of a lot of people.
This isn't trolling and it doesn't make Windows appear better than it is of course, nor is it a justification for a broken OS. I'm merely saying that Windows will be around for several more years because of the software that exclusively exists for Windows.
caffeine tablets contain between 30 and 100mg of caffeine. So even if he took the strongest ones, that would still require him to eat 30 tables within a few hours.
In fact, the LD50 is about 200mg per kilo of body mass. If you weigh 90kg, that means the LD50 is about 18g which is an awful lot. You'd probably have to drink 150-200 cups of coffee in a very short time. The time is dependent on the half-life of caffeine, which, in a health adult is around 3 hours.
So, basically you'd have to drown more than 50 cups of coffee every hour for 3 hours straight to reach the LD50 limit. That's nearly one cup every minute.
In other words, drink as much as you want, you'll be fine*.
Also, assuming 100mg of caffeine in a large cup of drip coffee (and 100mg is a DAMN lot, most coffees usually have 40-60mg), you claim to have had 30 large cups of coffee in less than 3 hours? That's nearly 10 liters of coffee.
I see you have NO idea about basic electricity concepts.
Power lines loose more electricity than your home internal wiring.
Yes they do. They also transmit more power. If you wanted to say that they lose more power relative to your home wiring system, then you you are either very, very wrong or your home wiring is made with gold cables and plugs.
The general idea why electricity is transmitted at 110kV to 200kV is that the loss of energy is minimized. If it wasn't, we would transmit the power at 110V/230V (there is no 250V line by the way) and save the converters.
maybe you'll answer equally forthrightly and reasonably.
I actually read your entire post and it's going to be pretty difficult to argue my point with you. First and foremost, I don't have a job in IT, as most of the/. readers do. In fact (*cringe*) I work for a marketing/advertising agency. We don't do web banner ads, though. Most of our clients are local businesses with a mid-range to high-range budget. My father also used to run a marketing agency, so, as you can see, I'm biased.
How many ads do/you/ know that have concise well reasoned explanations of why I should spend my hard earned money on their product?
A lot. As stated above, I'm not into web banner ads and personally have to agree that there aren't a lot of good banner type ads. But the regular
Instead, most are flashy "programming" ads aimed at the "programmable zombie"
To clarify: I only run AdSense text ads on my websites (the ones that are Adsense sponsored). So no images/flash for you.
Even more damning, experience suggests that any brand spending money on ads is in general going to be a relatively low value-for-money proposition, since they both are spending all that money on ads rather than directly increasing value for money, and tend to demand higher margins, than the generic alternatives that do NOT spend money on ads.
If by brand you also mean businesses, you are severely misled. If, say, a local hotel would not invest in advertising, they would be bankrupt within half a year. This is no overdramatization, it's a simple fact.
Also, generic alternative brands can only get away without advertising because the advertising for the basic product they sell is already done by another company. There are two types of advertising. Either you want to market/promote a product (say Aspirin), or you want to promote and increase the awareness of your company brand/name (in this case Bayer). Most Aspirin ads you see increase product awareness, not brand awareness. So what Bayer does at the same time, is making it easier for producers of Aspirin genericas.
I don't buy new cars and pay good money as a down payment for the "privilege" of having my car drop in value immediately as I drive it off the lot, to the point I only catch up to it a year or two later
I only buy new cars (in fact, I just did buy one two weeks ago). I can see why someone would only buy used cars but I want the comfort (no service for 2-3 years) and reliability (can't argue that) of a new car. I'm aware of the fact that I pay a prime price for this.
But I'm not normal (whew! relief!). I at least/hope/ the zombie programming method doesn't work so well on me -- and/know/ I take insult at it, and feel/far/ better when people appeal to reason to sell me on something.
I earn my money based on the fact that people like you (and I include myself, to a degree) are very, very, very rare.
Right. I'm simply lowering the click-thru and conversion-to-sale rate of the entire thing. Better I not even download the ad in the first place, so I don't unfavorably distort the statistics. People like me are a cost of business in terms of bandwidth, just as the people that come into a store and use the rest room or get water without buying anything are a cost of business.
This is true, and I'm glad if people like you block the ads on my sites. I'm also making it easy for the adblockers by calling the divs that contain the ads "ad" and making the whole layout collapsible, so nothing looks weird when the ads are gone.
But if Firefox and Internet Explorer both came with an adblocker preloaded, I couldn't pay for the hosting any more. Well, Google would also have a problem in this case I guess.
Ah, this is a good recommendation. In fact, I already did that on the largest of my pages (the one with the 200k users). The problem I found with alternative ad providers was their requirements. The ad provider I'm using now is only for websites with 10.000 unique users a day! It took my site quite a while to reach that amount of users.
The good thing with Google AdSense is that everyone can implement ads on their site, no matter how small.
But I don't want to turn that into a discussion about Ad providers. My point was that not all ads are disruptive and evil if they are well placed. And they help keep websites alive.
I run a few websites with services for certain groups of people. I support these websites with ads.
You see, as a webmaster, I basically have two options. After I developed the site for free in my spare time (it was fun!), I have to keep it running. This includes writing content, updating stuff, managing the user database (one of the sites has over 200.000 users). Which I also do in my spare time because it's still fun and doesn't cost me money.
That's not everything, though. At the end of every month, my hoster sends me a bill for each of my websites. Those bills are between 100$ and 250$ for each of those sites.
Frankly, while spending my spare time building websites is enjoyable, spending 500$-1000$ a month (!) to keep them running, is not.
I rely on people to click my ads. I place my ads carefully so they don't interrupt users reading, I blacklist bad ads and I only run AdSense ads. Currently, the revenue is about 20% more than what I have to pay for the servers. However, if 50% of my users would block ads or simply not click on them, I would have to shut down my websites.
Bottom line: Ads are a great way to fund websites run by small businesses and one-man-shows. If you think those websites are unnecessary and the internet would be better off without them and only big businesses should have the right to have a website, by all means block the ads!
Clarification: I do use Firefox with Adblock but I allow AdSense ads and ads from a few other publishers I trust enough not to show some ugly flash overlays/popunders/music playing ads etc. I also whitelist all websites I visit regularly where the ads don't bother me.
MarioMax was pointing out that Blizzard was planning to implement a micro transaction model.
*I* was pointing out, that they already *did* implement such a microtransaction model (realm change, name change). I was *also* pointing out that this is *not* game changing.
Basically my point was/is, that Blizzard did implement it in a non-harmful way, whereas Sony screwed up (they tend to do that quite often).
In fact, Blizzard already DID what you're mentioning there. You can transfer your character for 20$ or you can change the character name for 8$.
However, I'm not sure anyone complains about Sony selling vanity pets or vanity armor. Personally I don't care whether anyone is running around in a black dress they bought for 10$. I also couldn't care less if someone changed their hair style or color for 20$.
I DO care though when some player is able to get better gear or progress faster. A new hairstyle doesn't destroy PvP. A new, better armor, attainable only through micro transactions, DOES destroy PvP and with it the game for a lot of people.
Um. Yes it is. I can go to any branch of my local bank any time, tell them my name and account number and withdraw up to EUR 5000,-- with just a signature.
But the onus is on the bank to ensure the signature is legitimate. If the owner of the account contests the withdrawal and the bank can't show an accurate signature then the bank will have to refund the withdrawal. So the account owner is protected.
... which has nothing to do with me being 5000 Euro richer:)
Um. Yes it is. I can go to any branch of my local bank any time, tell them my name and account number and withdraw up to EUR 5000,-- with just a signature.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we just go ahead and admit that the broken windows economy doesn't work.
I jest of course. We really should tell them that the one that works is Linux, and the one that looks like it but doesn't work is Windows 7.
Define "work". Unfortunately there is still software (i.e. games, but also other very specialized software) that only works on windows.
I work on Macs and yet I have a Windows (XP) machine in my office and at home which only gets turned on if a certain program refuses to work on OS X. Running Cedega/Wine/etc. is often just too much of a hassle and/or doesn't work well enough.
Or take Office programs for example - you can't honestly expect all office assistants to learn to use something else than Word. I know a lot of assistants that had a hard time even learning that and still take MS Office classes every 2 years. Learning a new OS AND a new word processing program is going to confuse the hell out of a lot of people.
This isn't trolling and it doesn't make Windows appear better than it is of course, nor is it a justification for a broken OS. I'm merely saying that Windows will be around for several more years because of the software that exclusively exists for Windows.
You must be new h
something else, like sleep or bathe...
You must be new here.
We only shower. With coffee.
Now do it in English measurements.
Why would I? I could also do it in Sumerian measurements but they are equally obsolete. Go find some converter...
Starbucks' drip (16 oz.): 400 mg (f*ck me!)
Then again, that's half a liter... but still an awful lot.
I have a Nespresso machine at home and the typical Nespresso capsule contains between 55 and 65 mg of caffeine, so that's what I'm used to.
You could also just shoot 10g of pure caffeine IV ;) Then chance of dying is only 50% after all :>
caffeine tablets contain between 30 and 100mg of caffeine. So even if he took the strongest ones, that would still require him to eat 30 tables within a few hours.
You'd have to be insane to do that.
In fact, the LD50 is about 200mg per kilo of body mass. If you weigh 90kg, that means the LD50 is about 18g which is an awful lot. You'd probably have to drink 150-200 cups of coffee in a very short time. The time is dependent on the half-life of caffeine, which, in a health adult is around 3 hours.
So, basically you'd have to drown more than 50 cups of coffee every hour for 3 hours straight to reach the LD50 limit. That's nearly one cup every minute.
In other words, drink as much as you want, you'll be fine*.
Also, assuming 100mg of caffeine in a large cup of drip coffee (and 100mg is a DAMN lot, most coffees usually have 40-60mg), you claim to have had 30 large cups of coffee in less than 3 hours? That's nearly 10 liters of coffee.
*) fine meaning you won't die :>
I see you have NO idea about basic electricity concepts.
Power lines loose more electricity than your home internal wiring.
Yes they do. They also transmit more power. If you wanted to say that they lose more power relative to your home wiring system, then you you are either very, very wrong or your home wiring is made with gold cables and plugs.
The general idea why electricity is transmitted at 110kV to 200kV is that the loss of energy is minimized. If it wasn't, we would transmit the power at 110V/230V (there is no 250V line by the way) and save the converters.
I'm not saying you shouldn't do that. I'm only against a broad-band banning of all ads as a default feature in a web browser.
As with everything, there are legitimate uses and honest people not exploiting the options.
Unfortunately this discussion is about how ads are blocked, not about how crappy ads are.
maybe you'll answer equally forthrightly and reasonably.
I actually read your entire post and it's going to be pretty difficult to argue my point with you. First and foremost, I don't have a job in IT, as most of the /. readers do. In fact (*cringe*) I work for a marketing/advertising agency. We don't do web banner ads, though. Most of our clients are local businesses with a mid-range to high-range budget. My father also used to run a marketing agency, so, as you can see, I'm biased.
How many ads do /you/ know that have concise well reasoned explanations of why I should spend my hard earned money on their product?
A lot. As stated above, I'm not into web banner ads and personally have to agree that there aren't a lot of good banner type ads. But the regular
Instead, most are flashy "programming" ads aimed at the "programmable zombie"
To clarify: I only run AdSense text ads on my websites (the ones that are Adsense sponsored). So no images/flash for you.
Even more damning, experience suggests that any brand spending money on ads is in general going to be a relatively low value-for-money proposition, since they both are spending all that money on ads rather than directly increasing value for money, and tend to demand higher margins, than the generic alternatives that do NOT spend money on ads.
If by brand you also mean businesses, you are severely misled. If, say, a local hotel would not invest in advertising, they would be bankrupt within half a year. This is no overdramatization, it's a simple fact.
Also, generic alternative brands can only get away without advertising because the advertising for the basic product they sell is already done by another company. There are two types of advertising. Either you want to market/promote a product (say Aspirin), or you want to promote and increase the awareness of your company brand/name (in this case Bayer). Most Aspirin ads you see increase product awareness, not brand awareness. So what Bayer does at the same time, is making it easier for producers of Aspirin genericas.
I don't buy new cars and pay good money as a down payment for the "privilege" of having my car drop in value immediately as I drive it off the lot, to the point I only catch up to it a year or two later
I only buy new cars (in fact, I just did buy one two weeks ago). I can see why someone would only buy used cars but I want the comfort (no service for 2-3 years) and reliability (can't argue that) of a new car. I'm aware of the fact that I pay a prime price for this.
But I'm not normal (whew! relief!). I at least /hope/ the zombie programming method doesn't work so well on me -- and /know/ I take insult at it, and feel /far/ better when people appeal to reason to sell me on something.
I earn my money based on the fact that people like you (and I include myself, to a degree) are very, very, very rare.
Right. I'm simply lowering the click-thru and conversion-to-sale rate of the entire thing. Better I not even download the ad in the first place, so I don't unfavorably distort the statistics. People like me are a cost of business in terms of bandwidth, just as the people that come into a store and use the rest room or get water without buying anything are a cost of business.
This is true, and I'm glad if people like you block the ads on my sites. I'm also making it easy for the adblockers by calling the divs that contain the ads "ad" and making the whole layout collapsible, so nothing looks weird when the ads are gone.
But if Firefox and Internet Explorer both came with an adblocker preloaded, I couldn't pay for the hosting any more. Well, Google would also have a problem in this case I guess.
Me
Ah, this is a good recommendation. In fact, I already did that on the largest of my pages (the one with the 200k users). The problem I found with alternative ad providers was their requirements. The ad provider I'm using now is only for websites with 10.000 unique users a day! It took my site quite a while to reach that amount of users.
The good thing with Google AdSense is that everyone can implement ads on their site, no matter how small.
But I don't want to turn that into a discussion about Ad providers. My point was that not all ads are disruptive and evil if they are well placed. And they help keep websites alive.
I run a few websites with services for certain groups of people. I support these websites with ads.
You see, as a webmaster, I basically have two options. After I developed the site for free in my spare time (it was fun!), I have to keep it running. This includes writing content, updating stuff, managing the user database (one of the sites has over 200.000 users). Which I also do in my spare time because it's still fun and doesn't cost me money.
That's not everything, though. At the end of every month, my hoster sends me a bill for each of my websites. Those bills are between 100$ and 250$ for each of those sites.
Frankly, while spending my spare time building websites is enjoyable, spending 500$-1000$ a month (!) to keep them running, is not.
I rely on people to click my ads. I place my ads carefully so they don't interrupt users reading, I blacklist bad ads and I only run AdSense ads. Currently, the revenue is about 20% more than what I have to pay for the servers. However, if 50% of my users would block ads or simply not click on them, I would have to shut down my websites.
Bottom line: Ads are a great way to fund websites run by small businesses and one-man-shows. If you think those websites are unnecessary and the internet would be better off without them and only big businesses should have the right to have a website, by all means block the ads!
Clarification: I do use Firefox with Adblock but I allow AdSense ads and ads from a few other publishers I trust enough not to show some ugly flash overlays/popunders/music playing ads etc. I also whitelist all websites I visit regularly where the ads don't bother me.
http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/
Um. Wine doesn't get better with age. It is *aged* but beyond a certain time it goes bad...
Actually it does. I have bottles here that are over 20 years old and they keep on getting better (at least I hope they do ÃO).
The oldest red wines are over 50 years old but yes, after a certain age, the wine goes bad.
The "Real Genius" and "sharks" jokes you're about to post are less than 1% as funny and clever as you think they are.
And we still keep them coming. This is Slashdot after all...
So, about those sharks...
... and VIOLA!
Is that your wife or a musical instrument?
test whether sharks enjoy listening to Christmas pop songs
No. They don't.
They enjoy lasers as christmas presents though...
Well, it certainly would be available to me too, if I played that game.
And I certainly wouldn't buy it! So yes, it would destroy PvP for me...
Maybe you didn't read my post thoroughly enough.
MarioMax was pointing out that Blizzard was planning to implement a micro transaction model.
*I* was pointing out, that they already *did* implement such a microtransaction model (realm change, name change). I was *also* pointing out that this is *not* game changing.
Basically my point was/is, that Blizzard did implement it in a non-harmful way, whereas Sony screwed up (they tend to do that quite often).
In fact, Blizzard already DID what you're mentioning there. You can transfer your character for 20$ or you can change the character name for 8$.
However, I'm not sure anyone complains about Sony selling vanity pets or vanity armor. Personally I don't care whether anyone is running around in a black dress they bought for 10$. I also couldn't care less if someone changed their hair style or color for 20$.
I DO care though when some player is able to get better gear or progress faster. A new hairstyle doesn't destroy PvP. A new, better armor, attainable only through micro transactions, DOES destroy PvP and with it the game for a lot of people.
Um. Yes it is. I can go to any branch of my local bank any time, tell them my name and account number and withdraw up to EUR 5000,-- with just a signature.
But the onus is on the bank to ensure the signature is legitimate. If the owner of the account contests the withdrawal and the bank can't show an accurate signature then the bank will have to refund the withdrawal. So the account owner is protected.
... which has nothing to do with me being 5000 Euro richer :)
Um. Yes it is. I can go to any branch of my local bank any time, tell them my name and account number and withdraw up to EUR 5000,-- with just a signature.
Baby Banger
They should really consider getting a new name for their app...