Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Good grief (Score 1) 245

This is not an argument, it's posturing.

Ok, Matt. Though I've already spelled it out elsewhere for another coy poster, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- once -- that you're not just trolling and you really can't see why the burden should be on people like you to explain why there's a cogent thought in this paper worth discussing, not the other way around.

The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!??? By the time our parents kick us out, we'll never have to work again. We could just, like, go to the bank and tell them they need to do this and stuff, 'cause we'd be totally poor if they didn't. DUUUUDE."

I sure do hope you can see (1) why a thought process like that -- which is indisputably mathematically correct, and yet utterly decoupled from reality -- shouldn't ever leave that basement, much less be published in what professes to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and (2) that most professedly sentient beings would not haughtily demand a blow-by-blow explanation as to why.

Comment Re:What videos exactly? (Score 1) 160

Hmm, not sure I agree. Walmart is a retail store, and won't really care whether they're advertising on YouTube or not. There are plenty of other advertisement avenues for them.

However, Google's billions are made almost *entirely* from online advertising. I'm not saying they'll necessarily take a significant hit from this, but you can bet that this is *much* more concerning to them, as it's affecting the reputation of their most important service, financially speaking. I'd bet we'll see some sort of proactive response from them concerning this fairly shortly. There's no way they're going to risk their primary revenue source.

Comment Re:What videos exactly? (Score 1) 160

People rarely have a lot of love for the party in the position to charge them more; but the fact that a 'search company' apparently can't make any useful promises regarding where your ads will end up is probably not helping their position on this one.

Even in situations where everything is pretty banal; advertisers generally want some targeting of the impressions they are paying for to the audience they are trying to reach. If Google can't demonstrate an ability to avoid certain contexts on request, why would an advertiser believe that they are any more accurate or honest when it comes to targeting certain audiences?

Comment Re:What videos exactly? (Score 3, Insightful) 160

Perhaps also an effort to encourage Google to come back and offer these advertisers some discounted rates? It's unlikely that these advertisers will stay away for long. But why not pull out of a deal temporarily and see if things look more favorable for the next contract?

I don't think there's a lot of love for the dominant position Google has in internet advertising, so of course other companies will take any opportunity they can get to stick it too them just a bit. This just seems like an excuse to do that.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score 0) 117

Well, you're just wrong. I've personally watched inventory shrinkage drop into the measurement noise with the introduction of technology-based tools that catch the people who steal - because other employees understand there are consequences.

Yes, it's a shame that throughout all of human history and in every level of society and income, some people like to steal stuff. Someone who is trying to make a living running a business and who has to make payroll every week and keep customers happy won't usually have a lot of luck changing human nature. Now, I know that you've personally solved these human nature problems in your own area, and no longer feel any need to lock your doors or in any way look after your personal safety, because you've fixed everybody that you might encounter or who might want your stuff.

Yes, people stealing things IS a problem. And taking measures to stop it from happening to you isn't irrational. Yes, more parents should raise kids that have some sort of moral compass and which are educated and motivated enough to go out and create things so that they can trade the fruit of their labors for the stuff they want, instead of stealing it. Your notion that it's wrong-headed to use convenient tools to help deal with the fact that there are lots of people out there who DO find it easier (or even, in some cases, more entertaining) to steal stuff than buy it - never mind, I realize that you're trolling. Silly me.

Comment Re:Good grief (Score 1) 245

It's hilarious (in a sad sort of way) to see the "consensus" attack dogs come out to defend the kind of mindless drivel that is this paper, published in what alleges to be a scientific journal.

It's doubly hilarious that, rather than even attempting to justify why the mindless drivel is anything but, you simply fall back on the reflexive ad hominem "denialists" -- this, in the midst of a high-horse post about supposed "empty rhetoric."

Post may contain irony


Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score -1, Troll) 117

Give them a decent paycheck so they actually have something to lose if they get fired?

Yep, you've never actually worked in such an environment, have you? I've seen people making six figures who steal routinely $20 stuff from their employers. I've seen well paid general managers of grocery stores stealing steaks. I've seen IT directors who drive Teslas but who still pocket RAM sticks from the lab.

You'll understand when you start working.

Comment Re:MapReduce is great (Score 1) 108

I work with (multi-terabyte, not multi-petabyte) GIS databases. I am also a Haskell programmer (though not for my day job) so MapReduce doesn't scare me off at all. It's very hard to see how MapReduce specifically would help large-scale GIS.

The main benefit of MapReduce for most problems isn't the programming model, it's the principle "move your code to where the data is" in a way that's agnostic to precisely where the data is. When you have big data, you need to do that. Precisely what that code does is a secondary concern.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score 4, Insightful) 117

Here's an idea for you:

1) Start a retail business.

2) Get robbed by someone who walks in the front door. Or,

3) Have one of your employees attack another one. Or,

4) Have one of your employees get hooked on heroin and start to steal your inventory.

I'm guessing your solution to getting to the bottom of such things is to hire people to stand around watching everything so they can testify based on their recollections of events later, in a trial. Because you sure wouldn't want what happens on your own property with your own inventory with your the people you pay money to be there doing things to be recorded. Until you really, really do because real life is different when you start paying a fortune in insurance as part of running a business. Or find yourself in court. Or are running out of money because of inventory shrinkage, or have to know which of your very good employees is totally innocent of what one of your rotten employees has been setting them up to look guilty for.

But yeah, I can see why you'd advocate violence against a vendor offering a service you can choose to ignore if it's not useful to you.

Comment Re:Uhm... (Score 1) 388

Trump's relationship with the truth isn't so much interesting in that it's fairly casual; but in how self-destructive it seems to be.

People lying in order to advance their interests is an issue; but hardly unexpected or particularly abnormal. People who can't stop lying even when they'd be trivially better off keeping their mouths shut are a different matter. Something like the inagural crowd size thing: that's an idiotic lie. Trivially verifiable, hilariously petty; and completely unnecessary. He didn't lose much by it, since nobody actually seems to expect better; but he had virtually nothing to gain even if it had worked; and no reasonable expectation that it would work.

Slashdot Top Deals

Time to take stock. Go home with some office supplies.