February 24, 2011 at 3:12 pm
jcrawf02 (2/24/2011)
Ian Scarlett (2/24/2011)
SQLkiwi (2/24/2011)
I hadn't realized until just now that 'Ten Centuries' was your age, not points rank :w00t:I'm indestructable.
Hold on, you're probably too young to have seen Captain Scarlet, so you won't have a clue what I'm on about. 😀
That one was on the radio right after The Shadow, right? Bing Crosby did voice-over? :hehe::-P
Nah, it was done by Town Cryer if there were no local Bards available to tell the story at the Tavern that night... 😛
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
February 24, 2011 at 4:32 pm
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Evolution generally favors either suicidal levels of cooperation (worker ants and warrior ants giving their lives for their hill), or rabid levels of competitiveness (male lions), and humans tend towards the competitive side of that scale. We compete for limited resources, and cooperate against common threats (but generally without completly dropping competition even then).
Take a look at Game Theory (the Prisoner's Dillema comes to mind here) for a lot more data on this.
I'm just not sure it's that simple. The world is much larger than that, and for the most part evolution and war are not good analogies for business. Business is relatively small compared to the world, and covers a much larger area than those examples.
Ford succeeds regularly, alongside Toyota, GM, and Subaru. It might succeed more or less than the others, but that doesn't mean it cannot succeed. The same is true in many areas of business.
We don't have to cooperate to both succeed in our endeavors.
February 24, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
Sure, but my point is that banner ads on a website are no worse than tv ads or magazine ads, why should they draw less revenue? And I'd counter that click-through is only more effective tracking of drawing a person to your web-site. If you're selling something that people are just as likely or more likely to buy off-line, then click-through isn't effective tracking of ad effectiveness at all.
Not really true. In other forms of advertising, magazine, TV, you tend to be more engaged in the activity. When you're reading a magazine, you might stop and do something else, but you've also made an effort to sit and look at that one particular item. Same for TV.
However on the web, the focus on one site is generally less because you jump in and out of areas quickly. Many people come from Google to a site for a reason and then move on. Or they are more focused on another task, rather than looking at the overall site.
We are talking about better ways to engage people over time from a marketing/advertising perspective without doing stupid things like rollovers or peel type ads.
February 24, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Ian Scarlett (2/24/2011)
I'm indestructable.Hold on, you're probably too young to have seen Captain Scarlet, so you won't have a clue what I'm on about. 😀
Thanks for that, but no, I'm 41 - I grew up with Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet, and the like.
Being indestructible makes perfect sense.
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
February 25, 2011 at 12:14 am
Craig Farrell (2/24/2011)
I drink Heinicken/Stella,...
Applause for the second one!
(Boo for the first one :-))
Need an answer? No, you need a question
My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP
February 25, 2011 at 6:54 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/24/2011)
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Evolution generally favors either suicidal levels of cooperation (worker ants and warrior ants giving their lives for their hill), or rabid levels of competitiveness (male lions), and humans tend towards the competitive side of that scale. We compete for limited resources, and cooperate against common threats (but generally without completly dropping competition even then).
Take a look at Game Theory (the Prisoner's Dillema comes to mind here) for a lot more data on this.
I'm just not sure it's that simple. The world is much larger than that, and for the most part evolution and war are not good analogies for business. Business is relatively small compared to the world, and covers a much larger area than those examples.
Ford succeeds regularly, alongside Toyota, GM, and Subaru. It might succeed more or less than the others, but that doesn't mean it cannot succeed. The same is true in many areas of business.
We don't have to cooperate to both succeed in our endeavors.
I am simplifying, of course. The subjects of game theory, evolution, war, and business, are much bigger than I can cover adequately in a forum post.
However, before you dismiss the competitiveness of this, how are the Geo and Isuzu car brands doing? How about GM and Chrysler failing to compete successfully and having to be bailed out? Have you flown Pan Am recently? How about recent purchases from Pets.com, how are those going? Does anyone even bother with MySpace any more? How about those AltaVista web searches? How's O/S-2 WARP working out in the operating systems market? And so on.
When you say "evolution ... not [a] good analogy for business", I think you may be overlooking major aspects of evolution. Keep in mind that evolution is simply the premise that success is better than failure, and defines success as continuance through time and failure as the lack thereof.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 25, 2011 at 7:39 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/24/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
Sure, but my point is that banner ads on a website are no worse than tv ads or magazine ads, why should they draw less revenue? And I'd counter that click-through is only more effective tracking of drawing a person to your web-site. If you're selling something that people are just as likely or more likely to buy off-line, then click-through isn't effective tracking of ad effectiveness at all.
Not really true. In other forms of advertising, magazine, TV, you tend to be more engaged in the activity. When you're reading a magazine, you might stop and do something else, but you've also made an effort to sit and look at that one particular item. Same for TV.
However on the web, the focus on one site is generally less because you jump in and out of areas quickly. Many people come from Google to a site for a reason and then move on. Or they are more focused on another task, rather than looking at the overall site.
We are talking about better ways to engage people over time from a marketing/advertising perspective without doing stupid things like rollovers or peel type ads.
But with TV and print media, we're so accustomed to ignore that advertising that we automatically divert our attention during commercials and readily ignore print ads. I honestly tend to notice web ads at least as much as tv and print ads, frequently more as they have a better chance of being something I'm interested in.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 25, 2011 at 7:45 am
GSquared (2/25/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/24/2011)
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Evolution generally favors either suicidal levels of cooperation (worker ants and warrior ants giving their lives for their hill), or rabid levels of competitiveness (male lions), and humans tend towards the competitive side of that scale. We compete for limited resources, and cooperate against common threats (but generally without completly dropping competition even then).
Take a look at Game Theory (the Prisoner's Dillema comes to mind here) for a lot more data on this.
I'm just not sure it's that simple. The world is much larger than that, and for the most part evolution and war are not good analogies for business. Business is relatively small compared to the world, and covers a much larger area than those examples.
Ford succeeds regularly, alongside Toyota, GM, and Subaru. It might succeed more or less than the others, but that doesn't mean it cannot succeed. The same is true in many areas of business.
We don't have to cooperate to both succeed in our endeavors.
I am simplifying, of course. The subjects of game theory, evolution, war, and business, are much bigger than I can cover adequately in a forum post.
However, before you dismiss the competitiveness of this, how are the Geo and Isuzu car brands doing? How about GM and Chrysler failing to compete successfully and having to be bailed out? Have you flown Pan Am recently? How about recent purchases from Pets.com, how are those going? Does anyone even bother with MySpace any more? How about those AltaVista web searches? How's O/S-2 WARP working out in the operating systems market? And so on.
When you say "evolution ... not [a] good analogy for business", I think you may be overlooking major aspects of evolution. Keep in mind that evolution is simply the premise that success is better than failure, and defines success as continuance through time and failure as the lack thereof.
Lots of bands still use MySpace. Not that that's especially relevant here and your point is taken.
Also remember that in evolution, it isn't one-winner takes all. There are many successes in very similar niches and many failures in the same. It isn't a great analogy for business as inidvidual businesses can change themselves in ways biological creatures cannot, just look at IBM. They've gone from a great mainframe company to a terrible services company (primarily). That's like a lion suddenly becoming a hyena.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 25, 2011 at 8:04 am
I was sick for the past week, today I check the THREAD, I have no clue where it is heading. I do not think I will be able to catch up with the THREAD.
-Roy
February 25, 2011 at 8:07 am
Roy Ernest (2/25/2011)
I do not think I will be able to catch up with the THREAD.
Beware The Thread. It is faster than you think, and will win any marathon!
February 25, 2011 at 8:14 am
Roy Ernest (2/25/2011)
I was sick for the past week, today I check the THREAD, I have no clue where it is heading. I do not think I will be able to catch up with the THREAD.
I hope you're feeling better. I never really know where the THREAD is heading.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 25, 2011 at 8:18 am
Feeling much better, Thanks. It is difficult to keep with the THREAD if you dont read the THREAD for just couple of hrs. 😀
-Roy
February 25, 2011 at 8:31 am
Roy Ernest (2/25/2011)
Feeling much better, Thanks. It is difficult to keep with the THREAD if you dont read the THREAD for just couple of hrs. 😀
Maybe we should ask OP to make a syntheses on a weekly basis to be able to catch up :w00t::hehe::hehe:
Johan
Learn to play, play to learn !
Dont drive faster than your guardian angel can fly ...
but keeping both feet on the ground wont get you anywhere :w00t:
- How to post Performance Problems
- How to post data/code to get the best help[/url]
- How to prevent a sore throat after hours of presenting ppt
press F1 for solution, press shift+F1 for urgent solution 😀
Need a bit of Powershell? How about this
Who am I ? Sometimes this is me but most of the time this is me
February 25, 2011 at 8:36 am
Stefan Krzywicki (2/25/2011)
GSquared (2/25/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/24/2011)
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Evolution generally favors either suicidal levels of cooperation (worker ants and warrior ants giving their lives for their hill), or rabid levels of competitiveness (male lions), and humans tend towards the competitive side of that scale. We compete for limited resources, and cooperate against common threats (but generally without completly dropping competition even then).
Take a look at Game Theory (the Prisoner's Dillema comes to mind here) for a lot more data on this.
I'm just not sure it's that simple. The world is much larger than that, and for the most part evolution and war are not good analogies for business. Business is relatively small compared to the world, and covers a much larger area than those examples.
Ford succeeds regularly, alongside Toyota, GM, and Subaru. It might succeed more or less than the others, but that doesn't mean it cannot succeed. The same is true in many areas of business.
We don't have to cooperate to both succeed in our endeavors.
I am simplifying, of course. The subjects of game theory, evolution, war, and business, are much bigger than I can cover adequately in a forum post.
However, before you dismiss the competitiveness of this, how are the Geo and Isuzu car brands doing? How about GM and Chrysler failing to compete successfully and having to be bailed out? Have you flown Pan Am recently? How about recent purchases from Pets.com, how are those going? Does anyone even bother with MySpace any more? How about those AltaVista web searches? How's O/S-2 WARP working out in the operating systems market? And so on.
When you say "evolution ... not [a] good analogy for business", I think you may be overlooking major aspects of evolution. Keep in mind that evolution is simply the premise that success is better than failure, and defines success as continuance through time and failure as the lack thereof.
Lots of bands still use MySpace. Not that that's especially relevant here and your point is taken.
Also remember that in evolution, it isn't one-winner takes all. There are many successes in very similar niches and many failures in the same. It isn't a great analogy for business as inidvidual businesses can change themselves in ways biological creatures cannot, just look at IBM. They've gone from a great mainframe company to a terrible services company (primarily). That's like a lion suddenly becoming a hyena.
Or evolving into something with long enough arms to reach the sugar, but possibly quite incapable of drinking tea.
Companies are based on thoughts and considerations, which are capable of much faster evolution than DNA/RNA is. That's the human evolutionary advantage all summed up nicely. A lion would have to go through a tremendous number of physical mutations to become a hyena, all involving incredibly complex and delicate DNA adjustments. A company can merely require a change in CEO in many cases. DNA changes are also random, whereas a person can change thoughts deliberately and according to a plan. (N.B.: "can" doesn't mean "always does".)
That still leaves it a valid analogy, just with different rules for the code that's being expressed.
Looking at these things from the viewpoint of "drive to survive" clarifies them tremendously. If you assume all anyone is ever doing is trying to survive, and take into account both quantity and quality, and factor in that survival can be personal, familial, group, and/or species, it makes a lot of things very, very easy to understand and anticipate.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 25, 2011 at 8:51 am
Stefan Krzywicki (2/25/2011)
But with TV and print media, we're so accustomed to ignore that advertising that we automatically divert our attention during commercials and readily ignore print ads. I honestly tend to notice web ads at least as much as tv and print ads, frequently more as they have a better chance of being something I'm interested in.
That might be true for you, but overall, web ads have been shown to be less effective than print and TV, still today. Most people think they ignore them, but they really don't. They are more engaged in the medium because it's just more focused.
Viewing 15 posts - 24,316 through 24,330 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply