Despite the terse message, this AC is exactly right, IMO. I've never looked into the price of something like this, but it seems like an extremely immense waste of money to me. Of course, I'm also not a not very knowledgeable about marketing: maybe this will end up being a great investment.
So anyway, my question is this: does anyone know of any examples of such adverts (not just New Years, but stuff like the Super Bowl) that have ended up being good investments, besides beer and the like? In particular, companies related to technology in some way.
I found out this about a software vendor of our company's and I was horrified to hear there was a single password, and even more horrified to know what it was -- it was pretty simple. So I made them change it, and they've hated me since. Good, I say, they shouldn't have been such twits to begin with and now they know that I know how incompetent they are.
So what could make this even worse? I work at a hospital and the application in question contains patient info (AKA ePHI, w/r/t HIPAA)! My life would be so much simpler if I didn't know as much as I do while still knowing too little to write my own clinical software.
You obviously have no knowledge of the workings of an automobile, it's a lot more than a carriage with an engine. RSS, however, is an extremely simple and obvious: it's two unimpressive things slapped together.
I should have said besides the RSS feed, I understand that.
So what you are saying is that with iTunes, I just import the initial XML RSS document and as soon as there is a new file available it will download it and copy it to my iPod (as soon as it's plugged in of course) without ANY user intervention? If so, that must be a feature of a newer version of iTunes than I have.
> Podcast = find a show you like, subscribe. listen. > Audio Download = find a show you like, find how to download it from that particular site
Oh wow, I thought it was just a low-bitrate audio file, but apparently it will magically appear on my iPod without my knowledge! Oh, what's that? You still have to figure out how to find it the first time, (evidently some people have never heard of bookmarks) download it, you still have to check back periodically, barring an RSS feed (which AFAIK still wouldn't get the file for you, just give you notification and/or a link), and copy it to my iPod...
It's exactly the same thing with a distribution method tacked on. One that is not novel in any way. As AC said, a gimmick to smear Apple's marketing feces all over the landscape.
> stealing is stealing. Permitting theft on a massive scale in order to facilitate relatively few examples of some vague notion of fair use
Luckily for them, copyright infringement is not stealing. Regardless, your argument lacks merit: you can use exactly the same argument for handguns, since no one in their right mind hunts animals with a 9mm, but they are still available for sale. Also, it is not very vague at all. There are clearly-defined rights that we used to have, for good reason, that we no longer have due to the "political" actions of the recording industry.
Companies are buying laws: any way you look at it, that is wrong. Companies having a say in anything is also wrong. That is not anti-corporate, because I have no problem with individuals (CEOs, Presidents, shareholders... hell, janitors) voicing their personal opinions about these things, and their opinions should have equal weight as mine. However, once they are under the umbrella of a faceless company, they suddenly have more rights than the same number of people elsewhere. That is wrong.
> Then why are the profit margins of record companies and earnings of musicians frequently brought up when defending P2P?
Because the record labels are whining about how much it is hurting their business when, in fact, sales are increasing. It has nothing to do with anti-corporatism for anyone but a few whackos -- who may well be so vocal that they seem more numerous than they truly are.
> shows similar relationships with any activity that induces adrenaline production. Do we ban any of these?
No, because despite the rampant crime that it causes (more than video games), football brings in far too much money at schools for them to ban it, despite the negative influences it brings besides aggresssion.
> a kid from a bad or no family and social adjustment issues can get de-sensitized to the repercussions of the violence (after repeated game playing)
And you don't think they can be desensitized to violence from that which they see on television? Heck, what about all the violence a lot of kids see in the streets? A well-directed movie can feel immersive too, albeit for a shorter time. Go watch a really good Kung-Fu movie and see if you don't feel like kicking someone's ass afterward. When playing a game, if you feel like kicking someone's ass, you can do it in the game.
> making them more likely to snap as oppopsed to a similar kid with no violent game play history.
That is utterly ridiculous. If a person "snaps" it has nothing to do with a damned game, it's because they are sick of life and can't take it any more. Please don't state as fact something that has never been proven, or even had strong evidence as such.
I don't even know why I try explaining things to irrational people.
> if you can't see the computer screen, where you can adjust the contrast, brightness, and font size, and perhaps even get a screen reader to read the text to you, just how are you going to see text on paper ?
A lightbulb and a magnifying glass have done quite nicely for at least a hundred years before the computer monitor was created.
> Only 3% of accidents are solely caused by speeding
No, 0% of accidents are caused by just speeding. Speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden stop. The only way that speed could have killed a person is if they had a heart attack: "scared to death" from going so fast. Actually, then it's their heart thay killed them.
That's why they make these amazing things -- discovered recently, I believe -- called glasses, which allow you to see when your sight has started going. Amazing.
Anyway, If you can't see well enough to use a computer, use some fucking paper.
> If we get out there and don't find bacteria, it obviously didn't happen that way.
Not that it affects your point much, but if we get "out there" there will be a whole lot of places to look for bacteria. So many that ruling it out by exploration alone would be impossible. What if it was just one asteroid/whatever that came from a galaxy far, far away but its bacteria only came to Earth and deposited life nowhere else on the way? Then we'd have to get to that galaxy to prove it.
> So you won't hire people who believe in a deity, then?
That's not what he said. He said he wouldn't hire people who think that a 2000+ year old book written by ignorant nomads describing one of many diety's actions describes "science."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, both of them, PLUS all the Mozilla users that are arrogant enough to want their face shown on a 20-ft high screen.
:)
I'll be signing up as soon as I have a picture!
It's a bad sign that we have to thank someone for linking to something relevant -- or at least non-offensive. Oh well, it was funny anyway.
Despite the terse message, this AC is exactly right, IMO. I've never looked into the price of something like this, but it seems like an extremely immense waste of money to me. Of course, I'm also not a not very knowledgeable about marketing: maybe this will end up being a great investment.
So anyway, my question is this: does anyone know of any examples of such adverts (not just New Years, but stuff like the Super Bowl) that have ended up being good investments, besides beer and the like? In particular, companies related to technology in some way.
If that Wiki entry is firing back, the gunpowder must have been wet.
I found out this about a software vendor of our company's and I was horrified to hear there was a single password, and even more horrified to know what it was -- it was pretty simple. So I made them change it, and they've hated me since. Good, I say, they shouldn't have been such twits to begin with and now they know that I know how incompetent they are.
So what could make this even worse? I work at a hospital and the application in question contains patient info (AKA ePHI, w/r/t HIPAA)! My life would be so much simpler if I didn't know as much as I do while still knowing too little to write my own clinical software.
You obviously have no knowledge of the workings of an automobile, it's a lot more than a carriage with an engine. RSS, however, is an extremely simple and obvious: it's two unimpressive things slapped together.
> by saying "barring an RSS feed"
I should have said besides the RSS feed, I understand that.
So what you are saying is that with iTunes, I just import the initial XML RSS document and as soon as there is a new file available it will download it and copy it to my iPod (as soon as it's plugged in of course) without ANY user intervention? If so, that must be a feature of a newer version of iTunes than I have.
No, more like a bunch of losers with nothing to do listening to someone else masturbate, while thinking it's hip/edgy/political/whatever.
> Podcast = find a show you like, subscribe. listen.
> Audio Download = find a show you like, find how to download it from that particular site
Oh wow, I thought it was just a low-bitrate audio file, but apparently it will magically appear on my iPod without my knowledge! Oh, what's that? You still have to figure out how to find it the first time, (evidently some people have never heard of bookmarks) download it, you still have to check back periodically, barring an RSS feed (which AFAIK still wouldn't get the file for you, just give you notification and/or a link), and copy it to my iPod...
It's exactly the same thing with a distribution method tacked on. One that is not novel in any way. As AC said, a gimmick to smear Apple's marketing feces all over the landscape.
> stealing is stealing. Permitting theft on a massive scale in order to facilitate relatively few examples of some vague notion of fair use
Luckily for them, copyright infringement is not stealing. Regardless, your argument lacks merit: you can use exactly the same argument for handguns, since no one in their right mind hunts animals with a 9mm, but they are still available for sale. Also, it is not very vague at all. There are clearly-defined rights that we used to have, for good reason, that we no longer have due to the "political" actions of the recording industry.
Companies are buying laws: any way you look at it, that is wrong. Companies having a say in anything is also wrong. That is not anti-corporate, because I have no problem with individuals (CEOs, Presidents, shareholders... hell, janitors) voicing their personal opinions about these things, and their opinions should have equal weight as mine. However, once they are under the umbrella of a faceless company, they suddenly have more rights than the same number of people elsewhere. That is wrong.
> Then why are the profit margins of record companies and earnings of musicians frequently brought up when defending P2P?
Because the record labels are whining about how much it is hurting their business when, in fact, sales are increasing. It has nothing to do with anti-corporatism for anyone but a few whackos -- who may well be so vocal that they seem more numerous than they truly are.
> keep in mind are talking about permitting theft because of fair use.
No, we are talking about trying to KEEP our fair use rights, while recognizing that copyright infringement is an unfortunate side effect of that.
> What percentage of music files shared on P2P networks do you think are anything but theft?
What percentage of handguns are used for anything but murder?
> shows similar relationships with any activity that induces adrenaline production. Do we ban any of these?
No, because despite the rampant crime that it causes (more than video games), football brings in far too much money at schools for them to ban it, despite the negative influences it brings besides aggresssion.
> a kid from a bad or no family and social adjustment issues can get de-sensitized to the repercussions of the violence (after repeated game playing)
And you don't think they can be desensitized to violence from that which they see on television? Heck, what about all the violence a lot of kids see in the streets? A well-directed movie can feel immersive too, albeit for a shorter time. Go watch a really good Kung-Fu movie and see if you don't feel like kicking someone's ass afterward. When playing a game, if you feel like kicking someone's ass, you can do it in the game.
> making them more likely to snap as oppopsed to a similar kid with no violent game play history.
That is utterly ridiculous. If a person "snaps" it has nothing to do with a damned game, it's because they are sick of life and can't take it any more. Please don't state as fact something that has never been proven, or even had strong evidence as such.
I don't even know why I try explaining things to irrational people.
> if you can't see the computer screen, where you can adjust the contrast, brightness, and font size, and perhaps even get a screen reader to read the text to you, just how are you going to see text on paper ?
A lightbulb and a magnifying glass have done quite nicely for at least a hundred years before the computer monitor was created.
No, the kind that allows you to write as large as you need, and to use a magnifying glass to read it.
> I've seen plenty [...] 50% of them were women
> I've also seen [...] About 90% of them were men.
> I've seen [...] These constitute about 90%
With all this statistical analysis you do, do you ever have a chance to pay attention to the road?
> Speeding is a problem for cyclists and pedestrians who have to share the roads with impatient maniacs.
Cyclists on the roads, sure, but don't you have things like sidewalks or zebra and/or toucan crossings?
> Only 3% of accidents are solely caused by speeding
No, 0% of accidents are caused by just speeding. Speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden stop. The only way that speed could have killed a person is if they had a heart attack: "scared to death" from going so fast. Actually, then it's their heart thay killed them.
> Eyes as good as they used to be?
That's why they make these amazing things -- discovered recently, I believe -- called glasses, which allow you to see when your sight has started going. Amazing.
Anyway, If you can't see well enough to use a computer, use some fucking paper.
> Are any of these for-profit corporations?
No, but the individuals at the top of them sure do profit...
> let's hope people from Kansas don't become teachers in the real world
Hope alone gets you nothing. You have to act to get real results. NUKE KANSAS NOW!!!
> If we get out there and don't find bacteria, it obviously didn't happen that way.
Not that it affects your point much, but if we get "out there" there will be a whole lot of places to look for bacteria. So many that ruling it out by exploration alone would be impossible. What if it was just one asteroid/whatever that came from a galaxy far, far away but its bacteria only came to Earth and deposited life nowhere else on the way? Then we'd have to get to that galaxy to prove it.
> So you won't hire people who believe in a deity, then?
That's not what he said. He said he wouldn't hire people who think that a 2000+ year old book written by ignorant nomads describing one of many diety's actions describes "science."