Technology StocksOff Topic (Every Day Technology)

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Stock Puppy who wrote (1411)8/23/2017 12:10:27 AM
From: TimF
   of 1432
Am I incorrect in saying that the more traffic to a site, the more that the site can demand in advertising $?

I'm not an expert on the internet advertising market, but I think that's the general trend even if in reality its a bit more complicated than that.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: TimF who wrote (1412)8/23/2017 7:01:54 AM
From: Stock Puppy
   of 1432
If it's true, then the site would benefit whether or not the visitor saw the ads -

the benefit would of course be greater if the visitor clicked on an ad...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Stock Puppy who wrote (1413)8/23/2017 7:59:46 PM
From: TimF
1 Recommendation   of 1432
10 Most Common Ways to Make Money with Your Website

1 - Affiliate marketing (They click on your link and buy and then you get paid)

2. Pay Per Click Advertising (Google Adsense)

3. Sell Ad Space

Incorporating Google’s AdSense on your website is just one way to make money from online advertisements.

Another is to simply sell your own ad space directly to companies looking to sponsor different blogs. For example, you can come up with a price for each space, like: “Sidebar banner ads will cost $xxx per month”.

You can get paid depending on how many visitors you get. Typically this is quoted as a dollar amount per one thousand impressions (or CPM). So for example, you might see it as: $5 CPM. If the website gets 100,000 visits a month, that ad price translates into $500 bucks.

The good thing about this approach is that if your site gets a ton of traffic from different sources, your simple banner ad pricing can go up to as high as $5000 per month! However, the obvious downside is that if your site doesn’t get a lot of traffic, you can’t expect to earn as much either.

The other common method when selling ad space directly from your website is a simple direct price. Here you simply name a price (based on what you think it’s worth, relative to what the competition might be charging), and get paid upfront at the beginning of each month. This pricing is also generally a simple flat fee, not tied to a Cost Per Click like AdSense.

4. Sell Your Own Digital Product (Ebook for Example)

5. Accept Donations from visitors

6. Accept sponsored posts & articles (…but use nofollow tag)

Sponsored posts and articles (method 6)One of the common ways to making more money from your website means getting those visitor numbers UP.

Once you’ve done the hard work of building steady traffic to your site with an engaged community, there are a few different ways to monetize your hard work.

For example, many companies go out of their way to look for blogs that will feature their sponsored content. ‘Native advertising‘ like this works well because it still lines up with your site’s primary content, so it comes across relevant and transparent.

You can also review the products from a company in an ‘advertorial’ that’s part content, part advertisement. For example, if your website is all about the latest iOS games for iPhones and iPads, the creator of one of those ads would LOVE to have you review and feature their app to your fans.

When done right, this can create a win/win scenario. However done poorly, with irrelevant or inauthentic site content, and it can erode all of the reader’s goodwill you’ve worked so hard to create in the first place.

7. Generate ‘leads’ for other companies


How exactly do companies make money from online ads?

Ben Kneen, 10+ years experience working with and for digital publishers
Answered 112w ago

Digital advertising is a massive industry, a $50 billion dollar pillar of the internet economy.

Simply said, advertisers pay content providers and technology companies to put advertising in front of consumers like you. Consumer in turn are influenced by this advertising (whether they think they are or not), and spend money with the advertiser on products like iPads, chocolate bars, airline tickets, and more. So the money companies make selling products is partly used to fund advertising, which in turn, hopefully results in more sales, which is spent on more advertising, you get the picture. The better a publisher is a attracting valuable users, the more advertisers will pay them to reach those consumers, and the easier it is for the advertiser to run an efficient and cost effective campaign.

Advertising gets a bad rap and has a lot of room for improvement, but actually creates a lot of good in the world. It provides consumers free content, it pays publishers to make content users want to read, and it helps advertisers grow their business.

6.6k Views · 3 Upvotes

David Macrory, Operations Director at W00tmedia (2017-present)
Answered 19w ago

There are many different buying models available with ad space on publisher/blogger websites. I will use British pounds as that’s what I’m familiar with, but to convert to USD it’s almost like for like.

The most expensive forms will be a sponsorship/tenancy where the advertiser has a constant presence on the site. These go from £100-£100,000 depending on the site and the number of formats available.

Next would be a direct buy where the advertiser requests a set amount of ads (impressions) to show on the site. This can be anywhere from £1-£40 per thousand depending on the type of ad and the quality of the audience on the site.

Next up is programmatically bought advertising, which 5 years ago was barely existent but now makes up the largest chunk. Here, the advertiser buys space across a wide range of sites in near realtime, and can buy depending on the audience, the type of site or retarget users based on their previous interactions with your site/adverts. Here costs can be from 10p-£10 per thousand.

Now - what you’re talking about is buying based on a click or a conversion. This is a fairly popular buying model that can be used as it guarantees the advertiser pays for results. Someone like Facebook may get 10p/10c for each click, but they’ll be getting millions a day so will be making huge profits. Someone far smaller may only get a few clicks per day so have to explore alternative ways to make revenue - whether it is producing content for brands that promotes it, doing social shares and getting paid for it, or having affiliate links on their site.

Charles Fletcher, He who dies with the most toys is still dead.
Answered 60w ago

There are a number of different compensation models in Affiliated Marketing. Some are based on the number of times an ad is presented (displayed on a web page), some are based on the number of times a ad is clicked and some are commissions only in the event of someone clicking on an ad and them making a purchase.

Guyi Shen, CEO of EdgePi, DIY Price Intelligence for SME E-Commerce

Updated 364w ago · Upvoted by Samyak Datta, former Software Engineering Intern at Google

There is in general 3 ways to sell advertising on the internet

CPA - cost per action, which means Google only gets paid if the user does an action that the advertiser wants to pay for, like buying a product or signing up to recieve an email, etc...

CPC - cost per click, which means Google gets paid everytime a user clicks on an ad.

CPM - cost per 1000 impressions, which means Google gets paid everytime the ad displays in your browser, regardless of whether you clicked on it or not.

Google sells its ads in all 3 of these variations so even if you never click or view an ad, google still makes money if the advertiser is buying adspace using the CPM method.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: Sr K8/26/2017 11:13:40 AM
   of 1432
From FPL EnergyNews
August 2015

Should the ceiling fan direction be turned to clockwise or counterclockwise in the summer?

I'm deleting the answer.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Sr K who wrote (1415)8/27/2017 9:12:32 AM
From: Stock Puppy
1 Recommendation   of 1432
Should the ceiling fan direction be turned to clockwise or counterclockwise in the summer?

SInce correlations can be found inthe most unexpected places,

I'm sure that it depends on how you put your toilet paper roll in the holder - over or under.

The over/under debate is almost over - the situation has been analyzed.

But Good Housekeeping takes a side, so to speak.

However, Ann Landers takes the other side
(See somewhere below. No, stop that, - it's embarrassing - not there - here on this post.)


I don't give a $#^t. Darn.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF8/29/2017 7:09:06 PM
1 Recommendation   of 1432
Ad blocking is under attack

11 August 2017 on Industry news Well, this is huge, so I'd like to draw your attention to what's happening right now. This is a very alarming case, and it concerns every ad blocker user.

Brief introduction into ad blocking To understand better what's happened, you should first learn a bit more about ad blocking. Every ad blocker work is based on using so-called filters lists, which are maintained (mostly) by volunteers. That said, whichever ad blocker you use, credits for actual ad blocking belong to the filter lists maintainers. The most popular filters list is called EasyList and this is what this story is about.

Got it, so what happened? Yesterday a strange commit landed in the EasyList repo. The "" domain was removed with a comment "Removed due to DMCA takedown request".

An ad server was unblocked by all ad blockers due to a DMCA request. Let that sink in for a moment...

A small research was conducted by the community in the comments section of that commit. It appears that the story began 23 days ago with a comment by a freshly registered Github account to the commit that added "" to EasyList. @dmcahelper threatened with "the file or repository disruption," but his threats were not taken seriously that time.

The domain in question hosts an image describing its work as "used by digital publishers to control access to copyrighted content in accordance with the DMCA and understand how visitors are accessing their copyrighted content".

However, further research showed that this domain hosts the code of an anti-adblocking startup Admiral, so we can assume that it is the company we should blame for this. Where did they get this glorious idea? The wording of the original comment from 23 days ago reminds me awfully of this post claiming that DMCA can be applied to ad blockers.

Why should I care? This might set a very important precedent of an advertising company exploiting DMCA to force people to see their ads, and can lead to ridiculous consequences if left unnoticed.

EasyList is a community project and may not be able to protect themselves from such an attack. I am calling on other ad blockers developers, you people and everybody else concerned about people's rights (EFF, please) to stand up to this threat and protect ad blocking.

UPD (11 Aug, 8:09GMT): EFF representative offered their help to EasyList maintainers.

UPD (11 Aug, 11:34GMT): Filters maintainers commented on the situation:
We received a DMCA request from Github, as the server in question may've been used as Anti-Adblock Circumvention/Warning on some websites. To keep transparency with the Easylist community, the commit showed this filter was removed due to DMCA.

We had no option but to remove the filter without putting the Easylist repo in jeopardy. If it is a Circumvention/Adblock-Warning adhost, it should be removed from Easylist even without the need for a DMCA request.

In regards to Adblock-Warning/Anti-adblock, the amount of filters being added recently to Easylist has been greatly limited due to issues like this. As list authors we have to be careful in what we add.

We'll certainly look at our legal options and it will be contested if we get DMCA requests for any legit adservers or websites that use DMCA as a way to limit Easylist's ability to block ads.

UPD (11 Aug, 13:13GMT): Comment from Admiral

UPD (11 Aug, 17:05GMT): Original DMCA notice is now available

UPD (11 Aug, 21:13GMT): Github representative commented on the situation


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: TimF8/29/2017 7:32:18 PM
1 Recommendation   of 1432
What We Get Wrong About Technology

Blade Runner (1982) is a magnificent film, but there’s something odd about it. The heroine, Rachael, seems to be a beautiful young woman. In reality, she’s a piece of technology — an organic robot designed by the Tyrell Corporation. She has a lifelike mind, imbued with memories extracted from a human being. So sophisticated is Rachael that she is impossible to distinguish from a human without specialised equipment; she even believes herself to be human. Los Angeles police detective Rick Deckard knows otherwise; in Rachael, Deckard is faced with an artificial intelligence so beguiling, he finds himself falling in love. Yet when he wants to invite Rachael out for a drink, what does he do?

He calls her up from a payphone.

There is something revealing about the contrast between the two technologies — the biotech miracle that is Rachael, and the graffiti-scrawled videophone that Deckard uses to talk to her. It’s not simply that Blade Runner fumbled its futurism by failing to anticipate the smartphone. That’s a forgivable slip, and Blade Runner is hardly the only film to make it. It’s that, when asked to think about how new inventions might shape the future, our imaginations tend to leap to technologies that are sophisticated beyond comprehension. We readily imagine cracking the secrets of artificial life, and downloading and uploading a human mind. Yet when asked to picture how everyday life might look in a society sophisticated enough to build such biological androids, our imaginations falter. Blade Runner audiences found it perfectly plausible that LA would look much the same, beyond the acquisition of some hovercars and a touch of noir.

Now is a perplexing time to be thinking about how technology shapes us. Some economists, disappointed by slow growth in productivity, fear the glory days are behind us. “The economic revolution of 1870 to 1970 was unique in human history,” writes Robert Gordon in The Rise and Fall of American Growth ( UK) ( US). “The pace of innovation since 1970 has not been as broad or as deep.” Others believe that exponential growth in computing power is about to unlock something special. Economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee write of “the second machine age” ( UK) ( US), while the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab favours the term “fourth industrial revolution”, following the upheavals of steam, electricity and computers. This coming revolution will be built on advances in artificial intelligence, robotics, virtual reality, nanotech, biotech, neurotech and a variety of other fields currently exciting venture capitalists.

Forecasting the future of technology has always been an entertaining but fruitless game. Nothing looks more dated than yesterday’s edition of Tomorrow’s World. But history can teach us something useful: not to fixate on the idea of the next big thing, the isolated technological miracle that utterly transforms some part of economic life with barely a ripple elsewhere. Instead, when we try to imagine the future, the past offers two lessons. First, the most influential new technologies are often humble and cheap. Mere affordability often counts for more than the beguiling complexity of an organic robot such as Rachael. Second, new inventions do not appear in isolation, as Rachael and her fellow androids did. Instead, as we struggle to use them to their best advantage, they profoundly reshape the societies around us.

To understand how humble, cheap inventions have shaped today’s world, picture a Bible — specifically, a Gutenberg Bible from the 1450s. The dense black Latin script, packed into twin blocks, makes every page a thing of beauty to rival the calligraphy of the monks. Except, of course, these pages were printed using the revolutionary movable type printing press. Gutenberg developed durable metal type that could be fixed firmly to print hundreds of copies of a page, then reused to print something entirely different. The Gutenberg press is almost universally considered to be one of humanity’s defining inventions. It gave us the Reformation, the spread of science, and mass culture from the novel to the newspaper. But it would have been a Rachael — an isolated technological miracle, admirable for its ingenuity but leaving barely a ripple on the wider world — had it not been for a cheap and humble invention that is far more easily and often overlooked: paper.

The printing press didn’t require paper for technical reasons, but for economic ones. Gutenberg also printed a few copies of his Bible on parchment, the animal-skin product that had long served the needs of European scribes. But parchment was expensive — 250 sheep were required for a single book. When hardly anyone could read or write, that had not much mattered. Paper had been invented 1,500 years earlier in China and long used in the Arabic world, where literacy was common. Yet it had taken centuries to spread to Christian Europe, because illiterate Europe no more needed a cheap writing surface than it needed a cheap metal to make crowns and sceptres.

Paper caught on only when a commercial class started to need an everyday writing surface for contracts and accounts. “If 11th-century Europe had little use for paper,” writes Mark Kurlansky in his book Paper ( UK) ( US), “13th-century Europe was hungry for it.” When paper was embraced in Europe, it became arguably the continent’s earliest heavy industry. Fast-flowing streams (first in Fabriano, Italy, and then across the continent) powered massive drop-hammers that pounded cotton rags, which were being broken down by the ammonia from urine. The paper mills of Europe reeked, as dirty garments were pulped in a bath of human piss.

Paper opened the way for printing. The kind of print run that might justify the expense of a printing press could not be produced on parchment; it would require literally hundreds of thousands of animal skins. It was only when it became possible to mass-produce paper that it made sense to search for a way to mass-produce writing too. Not that writing is the only use for paper. In his book Stuff Matters ( UK) ( US), Mark Miodownik points out that we use paper for everything from filtering tea and coffee to decorating our walls. Paper gives us milk cartons, cereal packets and corrugated cardboard boxes. It can be sandpaper, wrapping paper or greaseproof paper. In quilted, perforated form, paper is soft, absorbent and cheap enough to wipe, well, anything you want. Toilet paper seems a long way from the printing revolution. And it is easily overlooked — as we occasionally discover in moments of inconvenience. But many world-changing inventions hide in plain sight in much the same way — too cheap to remark on, even as they quietly reorder everything. We might call this the “toilet-paper principle”.

It’s not hard to find examples of the toilet-paper principle, once you start to look. The American west was reshaped by the invention of barbed wire, which was marketed by the great salesman John Warne Gates with the slogan: “Lighter than air, stronger than whiskey, cheaper than dust.” Barbed wire enabled settlers to fence in vast areas of prairie cheaply. Joseph Glidden patented it in 1874; just six years later, his factory produced enough wire annually to circle the world 10 times over. Barbed wire’s only advantage over wooden fencing was its cost but that was quite sufficient to cage the wild west, where the simple invention prevented free-roaming bison and cowboys’ herds of cattle from trampling crops. Once settlers could assert control over their land, they had the incentive to invest in and improve it. Without barbed wire, the American economy — and the trajectory of 20th-century history — might have looked very different.

There’s a similar story to be told about the global energy system. The Rachael of the energy world — the this-changes-everything invention, the stuff of dreams — is nuclear fusion. If we perfect this mind-bendingly complex technology, we might safely harvest almost limitless energy by fusing variants of hydrogen. It could happen: in France, the ITER fusion reactor is scheduled to be fully operational in 2035 at a cost of at least $20bn. If it works, it will achieve temperatures of 200 million degrees Celsius — yet will still only be an experimental plant, producing less power than a coal-fired plant, and only in 20-minute bursts. Meanwhile, cheap-and-cheerful solar power is quietly leading a very different energy revolution. Break-even costs of solar electricity have fallen by two-thirds in the past seven years, to levels barely more than those of natural gas plants. But this plunge has been driven less by any great technological breakthrough than by the humble methods familiar to anyone who shops at Ikea: simple modular products that have been manufactured at scale and that snap together quickly on site.

The problem with solar power is that the sun doesn’t always shine. And the solution that’s emerging is another cheap-and-cheerful, familiar technology: the battery. Lithium-ion batteries to store solar energy are becoming increasingly commonplace, and mass-market electric cars would represent a large battery on every driveway. Several giant factories are under construction, most notably a Tesla factory that promises to manufacture 35GW worth of batteries each year by 2020; that is more than the entire global production of batteries in 2013. Battery prices have fallen as quickly as those of solar panels. Such Ikea-fication is a classic instance of toilet-paper technology: the same old stuff, only cheaper.

Perhaps the most famous instance of the toilet-paper principle is a corrugated steel box, 8ft wide, 8.5ft high and 40ft long. Since the shipping container system was introduced, world merchandise trade (the average of imports and exports) has expanded from about 10 per cent of world GDP in the late 1950s to more than 20 per cent today. We now take for granted that when we visit the shops, we’ll be surrounded by products from all over the globe, from Spanish tomatoes to Australian wine to Korean mobile phones.

“The standard container has all the romance of a tin can,” says historian Marc Levinson in his book The Box ( UK) ( US). Yet this simple no-frills system for moving things around has been a force for globalisation more powerful than the World Trade Organisation. Before the shipping container was introduced, a typical transatlantic cargo ship might contain 200,000 separate items, comprising many hundreds of different shipments, from food to letters to heavy machinery. Hauling and loading this cornucopia from the dockside, then packing it into the tightest corners of the hull, required skill, strength and bravery from the longshoremen, who would work on a single ship for days at a time. The container shipping system changed all that.

Loading and unloading a container ship is a gigantic ballet of steel cranes, choreographed by the computers that keep the vessel balanced and track each container through a global logistical system. But the fundamental technology that underpins it all could hardly be simpler. The shipping container is a 1950s invention using 1850s know-how. Since it was cheap, it worked. The container was a simple enough idea, and the man who masterminded its rise, Malcom McLean, could scarcely be described as an inventor. He was an entrepreneur who dreamed big, took bold risks, pinched pennies and deftly negotiated with regulators, port authorities and the unions.

McLean’s real achievement was in changing the system that surrounded his box: the way that ships, trucks and ports were designed. It takes a visionary to see how toilet-paper inventions can totally reshape systems; it’s easier for our limited imaginations to slot Rachael-like inventions into existing systems. If nuclear fusion works, it neatly replaces coal, gas and nuclear fission in our familiar conception of the grid: providers make electricity, and sell it to us. Solar power and batteries are much more challenging. They’re quietly turning electricity companies into something closer to Uber or Airbnb — a platform connecting millions of small-scale providers and consumers of electricity, constantly balancing demand and supply.

Some technologies are truly revolutionary. They transcend the simple pragmatism of paper or barbed wire to produce effects that would have seemed miraculous to earlier generations. But they take time to reshape the economic systems around us — much more time than you might expect. No discovery fits that description more aptly than electricity, barely comprehended at the beginning of the 19th century but harnessed and commodified by its end. Usable light bulbs had appeared in the late 1870s, courtesy of Thomas Edison and Joseph Swan. In 1881, Edison built electricity-generating stations in New York and London and he began selling electricity as a commodity within a year. The first electric motors were used to drive manufacturing machinery a year after that. Yet the history of electricity in manufacturing poses a puzzle. Poised to take off in the late 1800s, electricity flopped as a source of mechanical power with almost no impact at all on 19th-century manufacturing. By 1900, electric motors were providing less than 5 per cent of mechanical drive power in American factories. Despite the best efforts of Edison, Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse, manufacturing was still in the age of steam.

Productivity finally surged in US manufacturing only in the 1920s. The reason for the 30-year delay? The new electric motors only worked well when everything else changed too. Steam-powered factories had delivered power through awe-inspiring driveshafts, secondary shafts, belts, belt towers, and thousands of drip-oilers. The early efforts to introduce electricity merely replaced the single huge engine with a similarly large electric motor. Results were disappointing.

As the economic historian Paul David has argued, electricity triumphed only when factories themselves were reconfigured. The driveshafts were replaced by wires, the huge steam engine by dozens of small motors. Factories spread out, there was natural light. Stripped of the driveshafts, the ceilings could be used to support pulleys and cranes. Workers had responsibility for their own machines; they needed better training and better pay. The electric motor was a wonderful invention, once we changed all the everyday details that surrounded it.

David suggested in 1990 that what was true of electric motors might also prove true of computers: that we had yet to see the full economic benefits because we had yet to work out how to reshape our economy to take advantage of them. Later research by economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Lorin Hitt backed up the idea: they found that companies that had merely invested in computers in the 1990s had seen few benefits, but those that had also reorganised — decentralising, outsourcing and customising their products — had seen productivity soar.

Overall, the productivity statistics have yet to display anything like a 1920s breakthrough. In that respect we are still waiting for David’s suggestion to bear fruit. But in other ways, he was proved right almost immediately. People were beginning to figure out new ways to use computers and, in August 1991, Tim Berners-Lee posted his code for the world wide web on the internet so that others could download it and start to tinker. It was another cheap and unassuming technology, and it unlocked the potential of the older and grander internet itself.

If the fourth industrial revolution delivers on its promise, what lies ahead? Super-intelligent AI, perhaps? Killer robots? Telepathy: Elon Musk’s company, Neuralink, is on the case. Nanobots that live in our blood, zapping tumours? Perhaps, finally, Rachael? The toilet-paper principle suggests that we should be paying as much attention to the cheapest technologies as to the most sophisticated. One candidate: cheap sensors and cheap internet connections. There are multiple sensors in every smartphone, but increasingly they’re everywhere, from jet engines to the soil of Californian almond farms — spotting patterns, fixing problems and eking out efficiency gains. They are also a potential privacy and security nightmare, as we’re dimly starting to realise — from hackable pacemakers to botnets comprised of printers to, inevitably, internet-enabled sex toys that leak the most intimate data imaginable. Both the potential and the pitfalls are spectacular.

Whatever the technologies of the future turn out to be, they are likely to demand that, like the factories of the early 20th century, we change to accommodate them. Genuinely revolutionary inventions live up to their name: they change almost everything, and such transformations are by their nature hard to predict. One clarifying idea has been proposed by economists Daron Acemoglu and David Autor. They argue that when we study the impact of technology on the workplace, we should view work in bite-sized chunks — tasks rather than jobs.

For example, running a supermarket involves many tasks — stacking the shelves, collecting money from customers, making change, and preventing shoplifters. Automation has had a big impact on supermarkets, but not because the machines have simply replaced human jobs. Instead, they have replaced tasks done by humans, generally the tasks that could be most easily codified. The barcode turned stocktaking from a human task into one performed by computers. (It is another toilet-paper invention, cheap and ubiquitous, and one that made little difference until retail formats and supply chains were reshaped to take advantage.)

A task-based analysis of labour and automation suggests that jobs themselves aren’t going away any time soon — and that distinctively human skills will be at a premium. When humans and computers work together, says Autor, the computers handle the “routine, codifiable tasks” while amplifying the capabilities of the humans, such as “problem-solving skills, adaptability and creativity”. But there are also signs that new technologies have polarised the labour market, with more demand for both the high-end skills and the low-end ones, and a hollowing out in the middle. If human skills are now so valuable, that low-end growth seems like a puzzle — but the truth is that many distinctively human skills are not at the high end. While Jane Austen, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso exhibited human skills, so does the hotel maid who scrubs the toilet and changes the bed. We’re human by virtue not just of our brains, but our sharp eyes and clever fingers.

So one invention I’m keen to observe is the “ Jennifer unit”, made by a company called Lucas Systems. Jennifer and the many other programmes like her are examples of a “voice-directed application” — just software and a simple, inexpensive earpiece. Such systems have become part of life for warehouse workers: a voice in their ear or instructions on a screen tell them where to go and what to do, down to the fine details. If 13 items must be collected from a shelf, Jennifer will tell the human worker to pick five, then five, then three. “Pick 13” would lead to mistakes. That makes sense. Computers are good at counting and scheduling. Humans are good at picking things off shelves. Why not unbundle the task and give the conscious thinking to the computer, and the mindless grabbing to the human? Like paper, Jennifer is inexpensive and easy to overlook. And like the electric dynamo, the technologies in Jennifer are having an impact because they enable managers to reshape the workplace. Science fiction has taught us to fear superhuman robots such as Rachael; perhaps we should be more afraid of Jennifer.

I'm not quite as optimistic about battery backed solar power as Harford seems to be, but that isn't the real point of his post.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: TimF who wrote (1417)8/30/2017 10:17:22 AM
From: TimF
   of 1432
Technically ad blocking isn''t under attack, the site that was remove from the block list (and which I have since manually added to mine and to my hosts file) provides ad blocking detection, but doesn't serve ads. Still the idea that putting a url on a list to block, with block meaning that you simply don't accept any information or commands from it, not that you crack it and break its security, amounts to "circumvention of a technical measure" is a bit of a stretch, and I think abusive of the DMCA process.

Of course now that people have heard about it many will manually block the site (even if they didn't care so much about ad block detection before).

Other sites to block (all go to the same company) can be seen at one of the links from my previous post.

You can either block the domain, or just block having it presented by a third party site.

To do the former you can add it to your ad blockers block list as something like (just the domain) or ||

To do the later you can add it as something like ||^$third-party

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF8/30/2017 11:20:07 PM
2 Recommendations   of 1432

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF9/21/2017 12:12:11 PM
1 Recommendation   of 1432
I had a iphone 5c. Its been replaced by a Galaxy S7.

What I like more about each one.

Iphone -
Its handier. (But overall the bigger size of the Galaxy is an improvement)

I'm more used to the OS since I had it first.

The ability to block and app from using cell data. (With android I'd have to root it or all I can do is turn off cell function for all apps while I use a particular app)

The mute switch on the side.

The fact that iphones get OS updates for longer than Androids.

Galaxy S7 -

It has a bigger screen but not too big as to be unwieldy.

Connected to that it has a higher resolution screen.

Faster. (more powerful processor, 4 times the RAM)

Twice the storage 32GB vs 16GB (The OS and preloaded apps are a little bigger taking up some of the difference but still the extra space is nice).

The ability to side-load apps or use more than one app store (but I'm not going to do this, its a work phone).

Thinner. I supposed there are downsides. If it was thicker it could be more rugged or have a bigger battery, but considered in isolation thinner is better (up to a point)

Its physically in better shape. New, never been dropped or damaged in some other way.

Dislikes about the S7

I"m getting adds on the lock screen. I didn't get anything other than from the app store. I've turned off notification for all apps, and still the ads don't go away.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2017 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.