|
Backov--
Thanks.
I trust your judgment.
We can then assume that the most sophisticated methods of shaving are either:
1.) Nearly impossible to catch with small sampling methods.
2.) Too expensive for sponsors to execute.
That leaves the rather unsophisticated methods.
TheFly--
I agree, you could get caught up in trying to determine an infinite number of unsophisticated shaving methods; however, I believe if a group brainstormed over a number of days some definite patterns would begin to emerge.
Once the patterns of shaving methodologies are charted, the group could actually determine a finite number of unsophisticated shaving methods. With assistance from some great programmers, like yourself, the group could determine the least expensive ways of executing the shaving via an automated or semi-automated system.
Then test the easiest ways of shaving up to the more complex.
In fact, things like the ?exit-console? shave could be tested without the use of ccs.
As you stated earlier, the test wouldn?t provide anything but more arguments.
(Our system has trouble tracking non-cookied Macintosh users on Wednesdays.)
But Who doesn?t like a good knock-down drag-out? LOL...
Yarr...I was just about to say, we are better off trying to socially engineering our way into to the innards of the shav-o-matic.
Us> Hey I?m the programmer who hooked-up your affiliate system
Sponsor> Huh?
Us> You know they guy who did the custom work for you.
Sponsor> Hmm...
Us> Yeah, I hooked-up the ?razor?
Sponsor> Oh yeah...
-Or-
We devise a simple test:
We throw the CEOs from programs we want to test into a pool in Vegas.
If the sponsor swims, their program shaves.
If the sponsor drowns, their program does not shave.
</IMX>
|