It's not a marathon because there is no finish. It's bad not only that this first sprinter is suing this second sprinter; it's bad if either of those first 2 sue the 3rd, 4th or 60th sprinter. It's just not efficient or necessary.
It's unnecessary because the 2nd sprinter didn't stand on top of the 1st. They built their own stilts and started walking around, then some tall person walked up out of nowhere and chopped their legs off.
if you listened to the interview, Murdoch stated the unhappy truth: There are very few news websites making any serious money at it. The margins are too small, the costs too high, etc.
I'd argue that's not because there getting too much traffic, but because they haven't figured out how to make any money off that traffic.
If I open up a bar next to a college, targetting frat kids, and low and behold; I become an indie hipster hangout, then I'm going to start selling something those indie hipsters want (coffee / fancy drinks) rather than telling them to get the heck out of my store. I don't see how this is different.
Find out who your community is (whether it's a local community or a topical community or whatever). Find out what they might pay money for. Sell it to them (either via advertising / sponsorships / partnerings or directly yourself). Connect with your user base. Offer them value. Give them a reason to buy.
In the case of newspapers, I'd personally try something along the lines of what Mike often suggests, community building. I don't see how reducing traffic to your site, wherever that traffic comes from, does anything but hurt your community.
Agreed. Google's current search is suboptimal. I find a lot of Murdoch's content irrelevant, Fox News in particular. Although the keywords match and hence show up in my search results, the dribble that spews forth is offending to both the eyes and ears.
The advertisers for the most part don't want them, and especially when you consider regional news services, they don't particularly want or need people from the other half of the world using up bandwidth for nothing.
The costs of an individual hitting your web page approaches 0. The potential monetization is greater than that infitessimal number. The solution is not to reduce your traffic in attempts to filter out low value eyeballs, but to more effectively monetize every eyeball that you do get.
If every website in the world banned Googlebot tomorrow, google would cease to be relevant within days, and cease altogether within weeks. An out of date search engines isn't very powerful, is it?
This will never even come close to happening because there will always be some people that realize the value of eyeballs, and they will want them. It has nothing to do with Google or the mainstream media, but in the value of search engines and the value of those that create content and want to be searched and found.
Also I feel like you're extremely overvaluing the mainstream news content. There's a lot more out there besides the main stream press, and a lot of it may even qualify as providing relevant information on news that I care about.
That is so freaking awesome that he handed the domain over. I can't imagine how much better this whole thing could have gone. Talk about taking the high road and throwing salt in the wound. "Oh, yeah, that domain you wanted, here you go, it's meaningless. I win, the first amendment wins, you lose you pitiful excuse for human being."
Thanks for the tiny glimmer of hope before the weekend Isaac.
I'd argue this is a failure of government to actually use the private sector. There are multiple companies "out there" who could do this job, and bid it under 863 million, and provide adequate backups and redundancy.
Whatever means were used to select IBM and whatever requirements were not given (or given and not met) are clearly at least part of the problem here.
This is a point to few people touch on, the landscape has, is, and will continue to change. I don't want Comcast to lower their prices or give away their business for free. I want them to either die, get smaller, or grow up and focus on something that is sustainable (like I don't know, an internet connection).
What I don't want, as a participant in the ecosystem, is for them to keep mucking around with laws and "education" campaigns screwing things up for the rest of us.
There's a big difference between someone else "trading on the value you have built up" and doing harm to your business by falsely representing themselves as you. One actually causes you harm, the other might actually help you.
Oh noes, someone else also made a dollar using my idea, sue the crap out of 'em.
I guess what I'm arguing is that there are more hurdles to overcome in stealing the election with this system than there are in the pencil/paper system.
I've perused Schneier's essay, and I disagree with some major parts of it (a candidate still has to run a legitimate campaign to even fake a victory, and the money has to come from and go to somewhere, so there's a lot of hurdles to prevent just bam, campaign budget = steal election budget) - I don't think it's relevant.
Whether the money is there to steal that specific election or not, the best we can do is the best we can do. I don't see how pencil and paper provides a greater level of public scrutiny than this open system?
This seems strikingly similar to the Texas Instruments issues posted on here not that long ago.
Company realizes *GASP*, students can cheat using x
Use IP law to squash x, problem solved
Doesn't really matter because students can still cheat because your test was poorly designed to allow cheating in the first place
This and the TI case were about maintaining the value of these existing products by pretending that students can't cheat. Guess what? They can, they do - if you want to stop "cheating", build a better "test". HINT: It's not multiple choice.
It has no purpose on its own as it merely lays out a schedule with repeated references to the Manual ... The solutions, for their part, have no independent viability
The judgement seems to focus on the fact that the answers don't mean much without the questions, but why is that so important? My comment here doesn't mean much without Mike's post up above, does that mean my comment a derivative work that violates Techdirt's copyright?
I'm glad I'm not a lawyer, but I'd sure like one to explain this.
I agree on several of your points, but I think you missed a few key points about this solution. It does preserve anonymity AND allows individual verification (and mass verification). It allows you to verify that your vote is counted correctly in the total. The only caveat is you have to put faith both in the independent auditors and in the fact that the software who's source you can see and verify is in fact running on those machines and on the servers.
To steal an election with this system is more complex than pencil and paper, aside from bribing/switching the groups people counting the votes (auditors) you also have to somehow steal the votes in the first place, through complex replacement of the software.
The system provides the voter only with a 2 digit code, that they verify matches up with the 2 digit code that got counted. That code is unique to the voter, and not easily identifiable as a candidate.
The problem with that is of course how do you know your 2 digit code did go to your candidate, which is where the independent auditor part comes in.
It really is a pretty well thought out system, taking a lot of human error and laziness into account in its design. I really think the actual use of this system is the most promising news on voting I've heard in the last 10 years
These guys sound quite a bit like you Mike, I wonder if they've ever perused your blog. Refreshingly honest and transparent about their service, such a crazy business strategy I can't believe anyone actually implemented it. It's almost insane.
From their site (emphasis mine)
Why should I trust WiTopia?
... Keeping it real, compared to your ISP, a hotspot/network owner, or even a government, we have a vested interest in vigorously maintaining your data security and privacy.
After all, that is what you pay us to do.
Not to be too capitalistic or simplistic about it, but that really is quite an incentive. This is how we earn our livelihoods. We don't sell ads. We don't have side jobs. This is it. You pay us money and we do everything we can to provide you the best service and protection possible.
If we don't do it well, or somehow betrayed your trust, we'd guess you'd go elsewhere in an Internet minute. Knowing that, we will strive to earn your trust every single day and, hopefully, year after year....
I mean, I appreciate their honesty about the program, but the author seems to be taking a lot of pride in that fact.
Last night was probably the first time many Americans received such detailed information on digital piracy. And they got a very sympathetic portrayal in which no opposing opinions were presented.
I get a knot in my stomach reading those two sentences together, proud is not the emotion I would want to portray.
I don't understand your premise there on non buyers - why should they be excluded? I think the point being made is that file sharers spend more. The reasons that may spend more might include the fact that they do like music more than others.
There are plenty of correlations that could be presumed for why file shares spend more on music than everyone else, but does that mean it suddenly makes sense to fine and punish your biggest spenders?
That's kind of the point I'm trying to make, is the "Open Rights Group" average joe mainstream? Or are they a niche group that's heavily slanted against this sort of thing already?
I'm skeptical of how unpopular this really is. I know I think it's insane, and others that I pay attention too think it is, but the layman is blissfully unaware as usual, perhaps?
"Oh, he supported that 'Help Music/The Arts' bill, good for him, I'll vote for him." - Average Stupid Twat
On the post: Clear And Concise Explanation For Why Software Patents Harm Innovation
Re: Re: Re: giggles
Man, I really like this analogy stuff ...
On the post: Clear And Concise Explanation For Why Software Patents Harm Innovation
Re: Re: Re: giggles
It's not a marathon because there is no finish. It's bad not only that this first sprinter is suing this second sprinter; it's bad if either of those first 2 sue the 3rd, 4th or 60th sprinter. It's just not efficient or necessary.
It's unnecessary because the 2nd sprinter didn't stand on top of the 1st. They built their own stilts and started walking around, then some tall person walked up out of nowhere and chopped their legs off.
On the post: Clear And Concise Explanation For Why Software Patents Harm Innovation
Re: Re: giggles
And it's not just "blocking certain paths", it's land mines in the middle of the interstate that no one can see.
On the post: Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google
Re: Re: Re:
if you listened to the interview, Murdoch stated the unhappy truth: There are very few news websites making any serious money at it. The margins are too small, the costs too high, etc.
I'd argue that's not because there getting too much traffic, but because they haven't figured out how to make any money off that traffic.
If I open up a bar next to a college, targetting frat kids, and low and behold; I become an indie hipster hangout, then I'm going to start selling something those indie hipsters want (coffee / fancy drinks) rather than telling them to get the heck out of my store. I don't see how this is different.
Find out who your community is (whether it's a local community or a topical community or whatever). Find out what they might pay money for. Sell it to them (either via advertising / sponsorships / partnerings or directly yourself). Connect with your user base. Offer them value. Give them a reason to buy.
In the case of newspapers, I'd personally try something along the lines of what Mike often suggests, community building. I don't see how reducing traffic to your site, wherever that traffic comes from, does anything but hurt your community.
On the post: Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google
Re: And Texas will secede from the USA
Here's an idea, let's start a petition to show how much we appreciate and support his efforts: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/MurdochGoogleBan
On the post: Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google
Re:
The advertisers for the most part don't want them, and especially when you consider regional news services, they don't particularly want or need people from the other half of the world using up bandwidth for nothing.
The costs of an individual hitting your web page approaches 0. The potential monetization is greater than that infitessimal number. The solution is not to reduce your traffic in attempts to filter out low value eyeballs, but to more effectively monetize every eyeball that you do get.
If every website in the world banned Googlebot tomorrow, google would cease to be relevant within days, and cease altogether within weeks. An out of date search engines isn't very powerful, is it?
This will never even come close to happening because there will always be some people that realize the value of eyeballs, and they will want them. It has nothing to do with Google or the mainstream media, but in the value of search engines and the value of those that create content and want to be searched and found.
Also I feel like you're extremely overvaluing the mainstream news content. There's a lot more out there besides the main stream press, and a lot of it may even qualify as providing relevant information on news that I care about.
On the post: Glenn Beck Not Allowed To Rape And Murder An Internet Meme
Hooray
Thanks for the tiny glimmer of hope before the weekend Isaac.
On the post: Texas Pulls Voting Reg System From IBM After Multimillion System Can't Recover Lost Data
Re: Figures...
Whatever means were used to select IBM and whatever requirements were not given (or given and not met) are clearly at least part of the problem here.
On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model
Re: Maybe its just too late
What I don't want, as a participant in the ecosystem, is for them to keep mucking around with laws and "education" campaigns screwing things up for the rest of us.
On the post: Answers To Textbook Questions: Copyright Violation?
Re: Re: Unauthorized Guides
Oh noes, someone else also made a dollar using my idea, sue the crap out of 'em.
On the post: Maryland Testing E-Voting System That Lets People Verify Their Votes Counted
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's the solution
I guess what I'm arguing is that there are more hurdles to overcome in stealing the election with this system than there are in the pencil/paper system.
I've perused Schneier's essay, and I disagree with some major parts of it (a candidate still has to run a legitimate campaign to even fake a victory, and the money has to come from and go to somewhere, so there's a lot of hurdles to prevent just bam, campaign budget = steal election budget) - I don't think it's relevant.
Whether the money is there to steal that specific election or not, the best we can do is the best we can do. I don't see how pencil and paper provides a greater level of public scrutiny than this open system?
On the post: Answers To Textbook Questions: Copyright Violation?
The real problem
This and the TI case were about maintaining the value of these existing products by pretending that students can't cheat. Guess what? They can, they do - if you want to stop "cheating", build a better "test". HINT: It's not multiple choice.
On the post: Answers To Textbook Questions: Copyright Violation?
So Confused
It has no purpose on its own as it merely lays out a schedule with repeated references to the Manual ... The solutions, for their part, have no independent viability
The judgement seems to focus on the fact that the answers don't mean much without the questions, but why is that so important? My comment here doesn't mean much without Mike's post up above, does that mean my comment a derivative work that violates Techdirt's copyright?
I'm glad I'm not a lawyer, but I'd sure like one to explain this.
On the post: Maryland Testing E-Voting System That Lets People Verify Their Votes Counted
Re: Re: Re: Here's the solution
To steal an election with this system is more complex than pencil and paper, aside from bribing/switching the groups people counting the votes (auditors) you also have to somehow steal the votes in the first place, through complex replacement of the software.
On the post: Maryland Testing E-Voting System That Lets People Verify Their Votes Counted
It does not allow vote selling
The problem with that is of course how do you know your 2 digit code did go to your candidate, which is where the independent auditor part comes in.
It really is a pretty well thought out system, taking a lot of human error and laziness into account in its design. I really think the actual use of this system is the most promising news on voting I've heard in the last 10 years
On the post: Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal
WiTopia
These guys sound quite a bit like you Mike, I wonder if they've ever perused your blog. Refreshingly honest and transparent about their service, such a crazy business strategy I can't believe anyone actually implemented it. It's almost insane.
From their site (emphasis mine)
Why should I trust WiTopia?
... Keeping it real, compared to your ISP, a hotspot/network owner, or even a government, we have a vested interest in vigorously maintaining your data security and privacy.
After all, that is what you pay us to do.
Not to be too capitalistic or simplistic about it, but that really is quite an incentive. This is how we earn our livelihoods. We don't sell ads. We don't have side jobs. This is it. You pay us money and we do everything we can to provide you the best service and protection possible.
If we don't do it well, or somehow betrayed your trust, we'd guess you'd go elsewhere in an Internet minute. Knowing that, we will strive to earn your trust every single day and, hopefully, year after year....
On the post: 60 Minutes Puts Forth Laughable, Factually Incorrect MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy
Re: Re: Billboard's take on the story
I mean, I appreciate their honesty about the program, but the author seems to be taking a lot of pride in that fact.
Last night was probably the first time many Americans received such detailed information on digital piracy. And they got a very sympathetic portrayal in which no opposing opinions were presented.
I get a knot in my stomach reading those two sentences together, proud is not the emotion I would want to portray.
On the post: Yet Another (Yes, Another) Study Shows File Sharers Buy More
Re:
There are plenty of correlations that could be presumed for why file shares spend more on music than everyone else, but does that mean it suddenly makes sense to fine and punish your biggest spenders?
On the post: Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?
Re: Re: Skeptical
On the post: Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?
Skeptical
I'm skeptical of how unpopular this really is. I know I think it's insane, and others that I pay attention too think it is, but the layman is blissfully unaware as usual, perhaps?
"Oh, he supported that 'Help Music/The Arts' bill, good for him, I'll vote for him." - Average Stupid Twat
Next >>