Bullshit. Just because this is the way American news has gone doesn't mean it is the status quo for the rest of the world. Also, just because you disagree with what they're reporting doesn't mean there is bias. The BBC World News service is unparalleled in it's coverage.
Point taken, but this is not Streisand...not by a long shot. Just because someone files a DCMA takedown does not mean that it gets filed under the Streisand Effect. And you see companies like this constantly trying to push the boundaries of what's acceptable with their customers.
You're kidding, right? The only thing he has in the power of the DMCA to take down is the photo...which if I'm not mistaken is the only thing that they could even have a basis to claim--although as Boing Boing points out is futile since it falls clearly under fair use. As you know, the criticism itself they cannot take down as it falls under the first amendment. The request was for the photo only...not the criticism. I can see how you may have been swayed by Boing Boing's highly misleading title, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
So if you actually had taken the time to RTF takedown notice, you'd see this. But this is/. so I'm probably holding you to an unfair expectation. If you are bold enough to actually look at it, pay special attention to where it says "infringing image".
Really? Let's look at the definition of Streisand Effect:
"The Streisand Effect" is when a person, often a celebrity, tries to have a piece of information censored or removed, only to have it backfire and cause the information to receive much more attention than it was previously receiving.
Okay, now let's look at irony:
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
You can look them up too, if you'd like AC, but I'm assuming you're just lazy. Now in terms of this, you are trying to tell me that a photo used for an advertisement was something they didn't want people to talk about? That the actual definition of the Streisand Effect means that something they want hidden in actuality receives more publicity...and that you are trying to apply this to an advertisement...and that it is not considered ironic? Perhaps the word you should look up is advertisement.
Seriously? Look at the photo. It's comical to the point of exaggeration. It's the type of photo you stare at for awhile to figure out what's wrong with it. You're meant to look at the damn thing!
Besides, this is an advertisement. PR wonks at Ralph Lauren probably are laughing about this because people like us are trying to stir up a shit storm about it. The entire purpose of advertising is for it to be seen and for people to start talking about it and guess what...that's what we're doing right now.
Now you can argue all that you want that they don't prefer that people post the photo just to criticize it and I would agree with you there. Lawyers probably stepped in and fired off a DCMA request just as a matter of trying to protect the brand...but in it's relation to the Streisand Effect? You're crazy. You said so yourself that you have zero interest in them and that the Streisand Effect is working beautifully...yes, for them. For Ralph Lauren. Because you, I am assuming a pretty Joe Above Average Geek, are talking about a fashion company and delighting in the fact that this picture now is drawing more looks from people. That is what I call irony.
Again, the Streisand Effect should be about trying to take down something that people don't want shown--then backfiring by drawing attention to whatever it was they were purporting to suppress. The purpose of advertising is to get as many eyeballs on their brand as possible using whatever techniques they can and where outright trickery is actually admired. Which do you think is actually happening?
Okay, seriously. Not everything is the fucking Streisand Effect. In fact, this appears to be even the opposite. Streisand wanted to preserve her privacy and it backfired by drawing attention to her house and the photo. There's no way you can tell me that people talking about an advertisement isn't publicity for the brand.
We may be mocking them, but you know how the saying goes...any publicity is good publicity.
I don't know know what it is about/. but a lot of people are too quick to pull the trigger on labeling something as the Streisand Effect.
To my mind, emerging technologies, subscriptions and episodic and downloadable content should all enable price drops--increasing accessibility to a much wider audience.
Oh yeah. Just ask EA how well that's going. How much has their episodic content come down?
Maybe it's because Hyper-V isn't a mature product and VMWare is the best out there for virtualization.
You're being dishonest about your numbers anyway. For $50 million dollars, that's enough licensing to get Enterprise level support from VMWare for over 16,500 processors.
But the problem is that if Hyper-V doesn't work well, doesn't fit the needs of the company, why spend your hypothetical $10 million for a solution that doesn't work? That's the problem with clueless CIOs who look at the financial cost of something and balks rather than looks at what the goals they want to achieve and get the best solution for it. The cheaper option will always end up costing more money than the right solution.
You were lucky to have instant messenger. Back in my day, we were typing on our hand-me down PCs, logged onto Prodigy and waited minutes for typed responses on a bulletin board to return, day in, day out. We praised the day we got our 33.6 modem and signed on to Compuserve.
In case for the humor impaired, I'm riffing on the Four Yorkshiremen sketch.
Bzzzzzzt, wrong answer. I tried a little testing myself with the Bing engine and replaced the word Microsoft with Linux and Apple. To do the double blind, I then switched expensive with awesome and then re-ran Microsoft, Linux, Apple and Mac. Bing's answers were not that surprising for MS. It's a bit dishonest and clearly favors positive spins on Microsoft and leans toward negatives with it's competitors. Give it a try. It's almost fun.
Let me rephrase that since I read your comment again.
You are right that bills should stand on their own in an ideal system. But we don't have an ideal system. My comment on defense is aimed toward the defense budget bills which are essentially a black box from the Pentagon which most Congressmen and Congresswomen rubber stamp because it makes them seem "unpatriotic" if they don't.
Unfortunately, for science and the arts, the only funding they will get is through earmarks because "a bill on it's own" wouldn't garner enough groundswell support, no matter how wonderful the project may be for the national good or well-being.
On the surface, this does sound like a good project, one that does bring a bit more transparency to our government as a whole.
However, if there is a groundswell against earmarks, I wonder how it's going to affect projects which at first glance don't look worthwhile. I think it would disproportionately affect science and the arts as they're often seen as luxuries rather than necessities.
Yeah, because I'm a guy and I'm not going to win any beauty contests. You remember you're reading Slashdot, right?
I look at what the mass media pushes (and has pushed) for what is beauty and it does not appeal to me. There's a number of women out there that are attractive, but not the ones a lot of media companies are pushing.
What struck me about this whole thing is the alleged file-sharer has to sign a document admitting guilt and then the promise that they wouldn't do it again.
Seems awfully heavy handed to me, not to mention legally tricky for those who are accused. What's to say that by signing that document, they won't open themselves up to legal motions by the multinational entertainment companies.
Actually, after reading the article, here's the main point I gleaned from it. Teenagers are cheap and don't like paying for their media, whatever that media may be. MP3s, DVDs, movies, games, even phone usage. They don't have the resources to get them, so they resort to piracy to get it or restrict its usage. It's not that Twitter is pointless (other articles could make this point), but the value they see in it is minimal because sending/receiving tweets costs them a text message they would rather send to their friends.
Honestly, this is getting a lot of traction for nothing. The hype machine wins again.
Another point that struck me was the contradictions in the piece. PC gaming is apparently unpopular among teenagers as the upgrade costs make it prohibitive, but PC gaming is also the one avenue which is pointed out that you can get games for free. However, you have to buy console games. Go figure.
Please form your comparisons in the form of a car analogy. These "sports", like the obviously made-up and poorly named basket-ball, have as much relevance to us as the Matrix does to a netbook.
1) You don't need manufacturing jobs for low-wage, low-skill. The jobs exist and most Americans don't seem to want to do them. Plus, many of those jobs exist in numbers in a farm economy.
2) We already do this, so I don't see what your point is.
Having lived in Minnesota myself, I've lived in some of these areas. In fact, St Paul has been a home for Somalis and Hmong for many years. Sure, there's the occasional problems, but I've lived among them and found them to be good neighbors. They made it their home, established some businesses and restaurants, and became part of the community.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. Just because this is the way American news has gone doesn't mean it is the status quo for the rest of the world. Also, just because you disagree with what they're reporting doesn't mean there is bias. The BBC World News service is unparalleled in it's coverage.
Point taken, but this is not Streisand...not by a long shot. Just because someone files a DCMA takedown does not mean that it gets filed under the Streisand Effect. And you see companies like this constantly trying to push the boundaries of what's acceptable with their customers.
You're kidding, right? The only thing he has in the power of the DMCA to take down is the photo...which if I'm not mistaken is the only thing that they could even have a basis to claim--although as Boing Boing points out is futile since it falls clearly under fair use. As you know, the criticism itself they cannot take down as it falls under the first amendment. The request was for the photo only...not the criticism. I can see how you may have been swayed by Boing Boing's highly misleading title, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
/. so I'm probably holding you to an unfair expectation. If you are bold enough to actually look at it, pay special attention to where it says "infringing image".
So if you actually had taken the time to RTF takedown notice, you'd see this. But this is
"The Streisand Effect" is when a person, often a celebrity, tries to have a piece of information censored or removed, only to have it backfire and cause the information to receive much more attention than it was previously receiving.
Okay, now let's look at irony:
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
You can look them up too, if you'd like AC, but I'm assuming you're just lazy. Now in terms of this, you are trying to tell me that a photo used for an advertisement was something they didn't want people to talk about? That the actual definition of the Streisand Effect means that something they want hidden in actuality receives more publicity...and that you are trying to apply this to an advertisement...and that it is not considered ironic? Perhaps the word you should look up is advertisement.
Seriously? Look at the photo. It's comical to the point of exaggeration. It's the type of photo you stare at for awhile to figure out what's wrong with it. You're meant to look at the damn thing!
Besides, this is an advertisement. PR wonks at Ralph Lauren probably are laughing about this because people like us are trying to stir up a shit storm about it. The entire purpose of advertising is for it to be seen and for people to start talking about it and guess what...that's what we're doing right now.
Now you can argue all that you want that they don't prefer that people post the photo just to criticize it and I would agree with you there. Lawyers probably stepped in and fired off a DCMA request just as a matter of trying to protect the brand...but in it's relation to the Streisand Effect? You're crazy. You said so yourself that you have zero interest in them and that the Streisand Effect is working beautifully...yes, for them. For Ralph Lauren. Because you, I am assuming a pretty Joe Above Average Geek, are talking about a fashion company and delighting in the fact that this picture now is drawing more looks from people. That is what I call irony.
Again, the Streisand Effect should be about trying to take down something that people don't want shown--then backfiring by drawing attention to whatever it was they were purporting to suppress. The purpose of advertising is to get as many eyeballs on their brand as possible using whatever techniques they can and where outright trickery is actually admired. Which do you think is actually happening?
Okay, seriously. Not everything is the fucking Streisand Effect. In fact, this appears to be even the opposite. Streisand wanted to preserve her privacy and it backfired by drawing attention to her house and the photo. There's no way you can tell me that people talking about an advertisement isn't publicity for the brand.
/. but a lot of people are too quick to pull the trigger on labeling something as the Streisand Effect.
We may be mocking them, but you know how the saying goes...any publicity is good publicity.
I don't know know what it is about
To my mind, emerging technologies, subscriptions and episodic and downloadable content should all enable price drops--increasing accessibility to a much wider audience.
Oh yeah. Just ask EA how well that's going. How much has their episodic content come down?
Maybe it's because Hyper-V isn't a mature product and VMWare is the best out there for virtualization.
You're being dishonest about your numbers anyway. For $50 million dollars, that's enough licensing to get Enterprise level support from VMWare for over 16,500 processors.
But the problem is that if Hyper-V doesn't work well, doesn't fit the needs of the company, why spend your hypothetical $10 million for a solution that doesn't work? That's the problem with clueless CIOs who look at the financial cost of something and balks rather than looks at what the goals they want to achieve and get the best solution for it. The cheaper option will always end up costing more money than the right solution.
You were lucky to have instant messenger. Back in my day, we were typing on our hand-me down PCs, logged onto Prodigy and waited minutes for typed responses on a bulletin board to return, day in, day out. We praised the day we got our 33.6 modem and signed on to Compuserve.
In case for the humor impaired, I'm riffing on the Four Yorkshiremen sketch.
oh hai! I am on ur puter, downlodings ur pr0n.
In Australia, does the MS death spiral go counter-clockwise?
Why is this modded funny?
Bzzzzzzt, wrong answer. I tried a little testing myself with the Bing engine and replaced the word Microsoft with Linux and Apple. To do the double blind, I then switched expensive with awesome and then re-ran Microsoft, Linux, Apple and Mac. Bing's answers were not that surprising for MS. It's a bit dishonest and clearly favors positive spins on Microsoft and leans toward negatives with it's competitors. Give it a try. It's almost fun.
Let me rephrase that since I read your comment again.
You are right that bills should stand on their own in an ideal system. But we don't have an ideal system. My comment on defense is aimed toward the defense budget bills which are essentially a black box from the Pentagon which most Congressmen and Congresswomen rubber stamp because it makes them seem "unpatriotic" if they don't.
Unfortunately, for science and the arts, the only funding they will get is through earmarks because "a bill on it's own" wouldn't garner enough groundswell support, no matter how wonderful the project may be for the national good or well-being.
Why does defense get a free pass? You think there aren't a lot of defense earmarks tacked onto bills at the last minute?
On the surface, this does sound like a good project, one that does bring a bit more transparency to our government as a whole.
However, if there is a groundswell against earmarks, I wonder how it's going to affect projects which at first glance don't look worthwhile. I think it would disproportionately affect science and the arts as they're often seen as luxuries rather than necessities.
Say what you want about Disney (I'm no fan, myself), but they will get my money for Tron.
You should see the trailer for Legacy: It's here.
You just described "Hot or Not".
Yeah, because I'm a guy and I'm not going to win any beauty contests. You remember you're reading Slashdot, right?
I look at what the mass media pushes (and has pushed) for what is beauty and it does not appeal to me. There's a number of women out there that are attractive, but not the ones a lot of media companies are pushing.
I recognize some guys are into that, but I'm not.
Because beauty is a subjective matter, how do you hope to measure this in an objective, scientific way.
My odds are that Microsoft will go with a "butterfly ballot" style and convince them to either install IE or Pat Buchanan.
What struck me about this whole thing is the alleged file-sharer has to sign a document admitting guilt and then the promise that they wouldn't do it again.
Seems awfully heavy handed to me, not to mention legally tricky for those who are accused. What's to say that by signing that document, they won't open themselves up to legal motions by the multinational entertainment companies.
Actually, after reading the article, here's the main point I gleaned from it. Teenagers are cheap and don't like paying for their media, whatever that media may be. MP3s, DVDs, movies, games, even phone usage. They don't have the resources to get them, so they resort to piracy to get it or restrict its usage. It's not that Twitter is pointless (other articles could make this point), but the value they see in it is minimal because sending/receiving tweets costs them a text message they would rather send to their friends.
Honestly, this is getting a lot of traction for nothing. The hype machine wins again.
Another point that struck me was the contradictions in the piece. PC gaming is apparently unpopular among teenagers as the upgrade costs make it prohibitive, but PC gaming is also the one avenue which is pointed out that you can get games for free. However, you have to buy console games. Go figure.
Please form your comparisons in the form of a car analogy. These "sports", like the obviously made-up and poorly named basket-ball, have as much relevance to us as the Matrix does to a netbook.
1) You don't need manufacturing jobs for low-wage, low-skill. The jobs exist and most Americans don't seem to want to do them. Plus, many of those jobs exist in numbers in a farm economy.
2) We already do this, so I don't see what your point is.
Having lived in Minnesota myself, I've lived in some of these areas. In fact, St Paul has been a home for Somalis and Hmong for many years. Sure, there's the occasional problems, but I've lived among them and found them to be good neighbors. They made it their home, established some businesses and restaurants, and became part of the community.