That was exactly what the study proposed - I read up on it from a different news source.
It wasn't the commercials THEMSELVES, but rather the break from the story arc that the viewers enjoy. It allows the brain to relax a bit. Commercials just utilize that period of relaxation to plug their product while keeping the viewer entertained.
A good counter study could check the effects of movies adapted for television, viewing them with and without the commercials. Since cinema is designed to be seen in one shot, it would be interesting to see if the same situation applies: that people prefer TV-adapted movies with the commercials/breaks inserted rather than removed.
Anybody up for writing up a grant and arranging that study?
"I can guarantee you the phone company's going to charge you whether you're making money or not."
Uhmn, this actually seems to be a reference to the fact that you used to RENT the phone itself directly from the phone companies. Company. Only one existed at the time.
Emphasis on USED TO -- this was how many decades ago? and how much innovation and expansion occurred in the communications sector AFTER they broke it into the Baby Bells?
Wow.
A dusty old reference that actually proves the OPPOSITE of what was actually being said.
Most impressive.
While I would love to read all the expansive comments posted, there is just one thing I would like to point out as an economist -
In manufacturing markets such as th3e automotive one, the fixed cost of entry into the market is quite substantial. The reason why the relative numbers of competing companies is so low compared to, say, grocery stores (or any chain store for that matter) is because entry into the market is highly restricted and competitive participation in the market requires a serious level of resources.
Part of the problem is that these companies failed to be competitive in production costs relative to their foreign counterparts. American automobiles have very little market overseas, so their native production is a MUST for them - Toyota, Honda, and the rest are global manufacturers with products in circulation everywhere - they can sustain a smaller presence in America because it is only a cog in the larger machine.
Breaking up a titan into smaller companies makes sense when there are inefficiencies of scale at work: unfortunately, I'm not sure that there are any efficiencies to be had.
By breaking up these companies, it may doom them to certain failure when they cannot keep even the barest margins to maintain their factories.
Let's make this clear- I don't like the bailout - ANY of them - but I'm not sure that breaking up these companies will actually HELP the automotive sector. It may simply concentrate it further and DECREASE competition as the smaller companies fail.
AT&T as a counterexample is problematic - for one, they were a company that provided data TRANSFER over the medium of phone lines. They weren't manufacturers, they WERE the network. Interoperability was a must.
How could a Mustang be "interoperable" with a Civic?
I think the problem is that these companies MUST die, and be replaced bo ones that are internationally competitive. The problem is, they can't manage something like that on American soil, and they will be destroyed financially and politically if they try to shunt themselves into foreign ground. I was actually AT the Senate hearing a week ago when they warned the companies that any attempt at opening a foreign plant now in Mexico would be seen as highly offensive.
The question becomes one of economics vs. politics/social conscience;
Do we shut them down - the appropriate economic route - or do we let them slowly die?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I blame movies like Ocean's Eleven
"Too early to tell with Obama? Nah, he's a liberal and that's really all you need to know."
Okay.
Bigotry? certainly. Judging someone purely by a label makes you a bigot.
Fortunately, you can just ignore them because, hey, Hard Core GOPers don't care about any other opinion and CERTAINLY won't listen to anyone rebutting them.
Oh, and Clinton? What was that? We actually had an effective budget SURPLUS and LESS GOVERNMENT under a DEMOCRAT than the REPUBLICAN Bush Jr.?
Really. Moral objections are only that - moral - and don't determine how good of a president he was.
And don't get me started about the whole "terrorist" connection.
By-the-by; Before you start with the mud-slinging and Hitler calling (i did it first), I am actually a registered Independant.
Have we hit Godwin's law yet?
Obama is the next Hitler?
Anais is the next Hitler?
We're ALL Hitler? And I'm Jewish!
Maybe we're only spectres in the Furher's dream...
Terrorist president.
Please.
The world did not end on Tuesday.
Every Democrat the wins suddenly becomes "the end of America," and Repubs as well.
Hasn't happened yet.
Please leave your revolting alarmism at home.
Oh, and Crabby?
Disagreeing with the president or disliking him is not bigotry. I can respect those who just don't like him or disagree with his policies. That's fine.
Since when is calling someone a terrorist "disagreeing" though? I guess Obama disagrees with that assesment - He doesn't think he's a terrorist?!
Feel free to disagree. Please don't blatantly offend and insult. THAT's bigotry at work.
If ALL newspapers charged for archives, people wouldn't be able to get the information unless they paid ANYHOW!
So why stop?
This is the theory behind DRM and all the other annoyoing trends we've been seeing -
Movie and Music (and even some internet) companies are trying to get EVERYONE to block content, and if EVERYONE does it, they can FORCE the traffic to funnel through their pockets.
There is a word for this:
Cartel.
The music and movie industries are essentially attempting to create a legal cartel in order to control the supply of content and block competition.
Anyone ever think we could bring the MPAA and RIAA to court on these grounds? control of supply, rigging of prices, all of it in ADDITION to anti-competitive moves.
I hate all of this alarmism.
" a steady drop in the rate of online ad spending growth"
So advertising is not declining, and even the title is incorrect: "Online Ad Growth Declines in First Half 2008"
How about a new terminology? or rather, an older one:
When dealing with actual VOLUME of a market, use decreasing/declining. (like the relationship between velocity and speed)
When talking about GROWTH RATES of a market, use the term ACCELERATE and DECCELERATE.
The market isn't falling, the rate of change of interyear growth is slowing.
The market is still increasing, just not as fast as it was.
guess what?
That is a FUNDAMENTAL REALITY of a saturated [or near saturated] market. You can expect that it will slow down in growth at some point - it's when it doesn't that you have to start fearing for the bubble and bust.
Sorry to rant, but reporting idiocy such as this annoys the heck out of me all the time. It creates alarmist reactions and wreaks havoc on markets by playing on ingrained responses to language.
You'd think that someone who is a WRITER would understand such things and know how to properly and accurately express themselves.
Here's to hoping someone out there who gives a hoot will read this and restylize their writing.
If there's one thing we've seen with government programs over the years, such attempts to actually review something they've put in place to see if it actually worked are almost never done.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised the general public doesn't know this, but the OIG and GAO are institutions created to specifically perform such reviews on a constant basis.
And I assure you, they are VERY thorough. In my agency, the operating budget is less than 2% of our total outlays, basically unheard of anywhere, government or private, except for some non-profit orgs. Efficiency? Large government may not be the MOST efficient method, but a large part of the cost is the intervening layers filtering from a national system down to the local level. And that is where most of the problems, trickery, etc. come into play.
All-in-all, I agree though; it would be very hard to determine the effectiveness of such a data filtration system.
If test returns a negative result, it might just be that the data you are looking for doesn't exist, rather than a problem with the aggregator/filter.
If you noticed, he said that selling short ALONE will not cause a company to go under IF there is someone who is willing to buy the stock.
That's the point - not that the stock dropped to something more appropriate to it's worth, but that NO ONE WAS WILLING TO BUY THEM AT ANY PRICE, under the expectation of market failure, thus forcing the stock to drop further.
The problem wasn't short selling alone, it was the pre-emptive selling with no one wanting to buy, because you are leveraged against the stock and the more it drops, the more you make.
I'm calling you out on that one there;
I find that the MMO player has the same age spread as the average Halo player.
Unless you want to include seven year old girls playing with their Nintendogs as "gamers"
Most avid gamers now run the gamut of middle-high school to mid-thirties, and I have seen no difference between those who play MMOs and those who don't. I personally fall into the latter group, but have associations with many WoW players and the like.
Again, this is based on my experience, but I don't see how randomly assuming a different age variance counts as an attempt to invalidate the data.
Huh? this is a site for larger-than-small bands? that can become commercially successful giving away their music???
BUT IT WOULD NEVER WORK FOR THE MEDIUM LARGE BANDS, OR POSSIBLY THE MEDIUM SMALL ONES. IMPOSSIBLE. BLAH BLAH BLAH EXCEPTION BLAH BLAH SEMANTICS BLAH CLOSED OPINION.
Sorry guys, just had to get that one out there before anyone else did.
PLEASE, somebody find that "middle-ground artist" example so these people will just have to SHUT UP and quit messing around with the Masnick Law!! :plead:
sorry. boycott Jones Day - try to get it delinked from any site you can! This is ludicrous! If they don't like people linking to them, let's see what kind of traffic they get when no one knows they exist!!!
either that, or bomb them with a DoS?
dunno, take your pick.
Just an additional comment:
Third, why do site-owner feel the need to sue Google when their "click pass-through" site no longer makes money? How about suing Firefox for allowing users to block ads? How about suing users for having sense to avoid ad-covered sites? How about suing themselves for almost training users to ignore ad-laden sites?
I agree except for one thing: the sole reason that this person is failing to make money is because Google CHOSE TO RAISE HIS MINIMUM BID in such a manner that he is UNABLE to make money. Google directly acted against HIM personally and HIS MODEL to EXCLUDE HIM from being able to post ads. That is what worries me from an economic perspective, as this DOES smack of monopolistic power.
Honestly; This is similar to the AppStore delisting the iamrich program. It might not DO anything for the user, but if people WANT to use it, then let them. It doesn't harm apple (google) and in fact generates MONEY for them, but they decided to exercise their prerogative for "quality control" and remove it (apple) or modify it's terms (google)
On the post: Commercials Increase Enjoyment Of TV Shows?
Actually...
It wasn't the commercials THEMSELVES, but rather the break from the story arc that the viewers enjoy. It allows the brain to relax a bit. Commercials just utilize that period of relaxation to plug their product while keeping the viewer entertained.
A good counter study could check the effects of movies adapted for television, viewing them with and without the commercials. Since cinema is designed to be seen in one shot, it would be interesting to see if the same situation applies: that people prefer TV-adapted movies with the commercials/breaks inserted rather than removed.
Anybody up for writing up a grant and arranging that study?
On the post: An Outsider Gets A Peek Behind The Scenes Of The Music Industry's Mindset: Optimism Into Denial
Re: A fix
:)
On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers
The relevance
Uhmn, this actually seems to be a reference to the fact that you used to RENT the phone itself directly from the phone companies. Company. Only one existed at the time.
Emphasis on USED TO -- this was how many decades ago? and how much innovation and expansion occurred in the communications sector AFTER they broke it into the Baby Bells?
Wow.
A dusty old reference that actually proves the OPPOSITE of what was actually being said.
Most impressive.
On the post: Creative Destruction: Time To Make Companies Small Enough To Fail
expanse and expense in markets
In manufacturing markets such as th3e automotive one, the fixed cost of entry into the market is quite substantial. The reason why the relative numbers of competing companies is so low compared to, say, grocery stores (or any chain store for that matter) is because entry into the market is highly restricted and competitive participation in the market requires a serious level of resources.
Part of the problem is that these companies failed to be competitive in production costs relative to their foreign counterparts. American automobiles have very little market overseas, so their native production is a MUST for them - Toyota, Honda, and the rest are global manufacturers with products in circulation everywhere - they can sustain a smaller presence in America because it is only a cog in the larger machine.
Breaking up a titan into smaller companies makes sense when there are inefficiencies of scale at work: unfortunately, I'm not sure that there are any efficiencies to be had.
By breaking up these companies, it may doom them to certain failure when they cannot keep even the barest margins to maintain their factories.
Let's make this clear- I don't like the bailout - ANY of them - but I'm not sure that breaking up these companies will actually HELP the automotive sector. It may simply concentrate it further and DECREASE competition as the smaller companies fail.
AT&T as a counterexample is problematic - for one, they were a company that provided data TRANSFER over the medium of phone lines. They weren't manufacturers, they WERE the network. Interoperability was a must.
How could a Mustang be "interoperable" with a Civic?
I think the problem is that these companies MUST die, and be replaced bo ones that are internationally competitive. The problem is, they can't manage something like that on American soil, and they will be destroyed financially and politically if they try to shunt themselves into foreign ground. I was actually AT the Senate hearing a week ago when they warned the companies that any attempt at opening a foreign plant now in Mexico would be seen as highly offensive.
The question becomes one of economics vs. politics/social conscience;
Do we shut them down - the appropriate economic route - or do we let them slowly die?
On the post: Yet Another WiFi-Borrowing Criminal Caught
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I blame movies like Ocean's Eleven
Okay.
Bigotry? certainly. Judging someone purely by a label makes you a bigot.
Fortunately, you can just ignore them because, hey, Hard Core GOPers don't care about any other opinion and CERTAINLY won't listen to anyone rebutting them.
Oh, and Clinton? What was that? We actually had an effective budget SURPLUS and LESS GOVERNMENT under a DEMOCRAT than the REPUBLICAN Bush Jr.?
Really. Moral objections are only that - moral - and don't determine how good of a president he was.
And don't get me started about the whole "terrorist" connection.
By-the-by; Before you start with the mud-slinging and Hitler calling (i did it first), I am actually a registered Independant.
On the post: Yet Another WiFi-Borrowing Criminal Caught
Wait... Godwin?
Obama is the next Hitler?
Anais is the next Hitler?
We're ALL Hitler? And I'm Jewish!
Maybe we're only spectres in the Furher's dream...
Terrorist president.
Please.
The world did not end on Tuesday.
Every Democrat the wins suddenly becomes "the end of America," and Repubs as well.
Hasn't happened yet.
Please leave your revolting alarmism at home.
Oh, and Crabby?
Disagreeing with the president or disliking him is not bigotry. I can respect those who just don't like him or disagree with his policies. That's fine.
Since when is calling someone a terrorist "disagreeing" though? I guess Obama disagrees with that assesment - He doesn't think he's a terrorist?!
Feel free to disagree. Please don't blatantly offend and insult. THAT's bigotry at work.
On the post: Dear Newspapers: Locking Up Archives Shrinks Your Business
But if EVERYONE does it...
So why stop?
This is the theory behind DRM and all the other annoyoing trends we've been seeing -
Movie and Music (and even some internet) companies are trying to get EVERYONE to block content, and if EVERYONE does it, they can FORCE the traffic to funnel through their pockets.
There is a word for this:
Cartel.
The music and movie industries are essentially attempting to create a legal cartel in order to control the supply of content and block competition.
Anyone ever think we could bring the MPAA and RIAA to court on these grounds? control of supply, rigging of prices, all of it in ADDITION to anti-competitive moves.
Ooh, I'm getting all tingly...
On the post: Dueling Headlines On The Online Ad Market: Half-Full Or Half-Empty
Semantics, but...
" a steady drop in the rate of online ad spending growth"
So advertising is not declining, and even the title is incorrect: "Online Ad Growth Declines in First Half 2008"
How about a new terminology? or rather, an older one:
When dealing with actual VOLUME of a market, use decreasing/declining. (like the relationship between velocity and speed)
When talking about GROWTH RATES of a market, use the term ACCELERATE and DECCELERATE.
The market isn't falling, the rate of change of interyear growth is slowing.
The market is still increasing, just not as fast as it was.
guess what?
That is a FUNDAMENTAL REALITY of a saturated [or near saturated] market. You can expect that it will slow down in growth at some point - it's when it doesn't that you have to start fearing for the bubble and bust.
Sorry to rant, but reporting idiocy such as this annoys the heck out of me all the time. It creates alarmist reactions and wreaks havoc on markets by playing on ingrained responses to language.
You'd think that someone who is a WRITER would understand such things and know how to properly and accurately express themselves.
Here's to hoping someone out there who gives a hoot will read this and restylize their writing.
On the post: US Government Admits: Data Mining For Terrorists Doesn't Work
Uhmn, as a government worker...
I guess I shouldn't be surprised the general public doesn't know this, but the OIG and GAO are institutions created to specifically perform such reviews on a constant basis.
And I assure you, they are VERY thorough. In my agency, the operating budget is less than 2% of our total outlays, basically unheard of anywhere, government or private, except for some non-profit orgs. Efficiency? Large government may not be the MOST efficient method, but a large part of the cost is the intervening layers filtering from a national system down to the local level. And that is where most of the problems, trickery, etc. come into play.
All-in-all, I agree though; it would be very hard to determine the effectiveness of such a data filtration system.
If test returns a negative result, it might just be that the data you are looking for doesn't exist, rather than a problem with the aggregator/filter.
On the post: Sorry, But The Current Financial Crisis Has Nothing To Do With Naked Short Selling Or A Wikipedia Edit War
Article
That's the point - not that the stock dropped to something more appropriate to it's worth, but that NO ONE WAS WILLING TO BUY THEM AT ANY PRICE, under the expectation of market failure, thus forcing the stock to drop further.
The problem wasn't short selling alone, it was the pre-emptive selling with no one wanting to buy, because you are leveraged against the stock and the more it drops, the more you make.
On the post: Jack Thompson Disbarred; Claims Florida Lawyers Are Out To Get Him
On the post: Will The DOJ's Interpretation Of Email Privacy Make It Difficult To Prosecute Palin Email Hacker?
Re:
On the post: Online Gamers More Physically Fit Than Average?
Re:
I find that the MMO player has the same age spread as the average Halo player.
Unless you want to include seven year old girls playing with their Nintendogs as "gamers"
Most avid gamers now run the gamut of middle-high school to mid-thirties, and I have seen no difference between those who play MMOs and those who don't. I personally fall into the latter group, but have associations with many WoW players and the like.
Again, this is based on my experience, but I don't see how randomly assuming a different age variance counts as an attempt to invalidate the data.
On the post: Scott Harris Back To Suing Over Patent Infringement
Re: Re:
On the post: So, This One Time, At Bandcamp, I Made It Easy To Offer Fans New Music
wait... Masnick law?
BUT IT WOULD NEVER WORK FOR THE MEDIUM LARGE BANDS, OR POSSIBLY THE MEDIUM SMALL ONES. IMPOSSIBLE. BLAH BLAH BLAH EXCEPTION BLAH BLAH SEMANTICS BLAH CLOSED OPINION.
Sorry guys, just had to get that one out there before anyone else did.
On the post: Groups Demanding That ACTA Negotiations Be Made Public
Boycott
Really, start some grass routs civil disobedience movement to undermine these illegitimate, shady, and scummy moves.
On the post: Hugh Cornwell Is Still Not A Taxi Driver; Musician Learns To Embrace Free
somebody
On the post: Big Law Firm, Jones Day, Abusing Trademark Law To Stop Website From Reporting Public Info
Re: Boycott
either that, or bomb them with a DoS?
dunno, take your pick.
On the post: Big Law Firm, Jones Day, Abusing Trademark Law To Stop Website From Reporting Public Info
Boycott
On the post: Making Results Better For End Users Isn't Acting Like A Monopolist
Re: Re: Three points
Third, why do site-owner feel the need to sue Google when their "click pass-through" site no longer makes money? How about suing Firefox for allowing users to block ads? How about suing users for having sense to avoid ad-covered sites? How about suing themselves for almost training users to ignore ad-laden sites?
I agree except for one thing: the sole reason that this person is failing to make money is because Google CHOSE TO RAISE HIS MINIMUM BID in such a manner that he is UNABLE to make money. Google directly acted against HIM personally and HIS MODEL to EXCLUDE HIM from being able to post ads. That is what worries me from an economic perspective, as this DOES smack of monopolistic power.
Honestly; This is similar to the AppStore delisting the iamrich program. It might not DO anything for the user, but if people WANT to use it, then let them. It doesn't harm apple (google) and in fact generates MONEY for them, but they decided to exercise their prerogative for "quality control" and remove it (apple) or modify it's terms (google)
Next >>