This is something that has always bugged me about advertising: why do large corporations need to do it? For companies like GM, GE, Ford, Google, Microsoft, Johnson and Johnson, etc, they have a well-known brand that has been around for decades. Although there are people constantly entering and leaving the market, these companies have such an established position that their brand will always be circulated in discussions about products similar to the ones they make/sell. Rather than pushing their brand constantly, it would seem that the only things they'd really need to occasionally advertise are a product or nifty idea they've come up with.
To make a specific example, consider car sales in the US. With a few exceptions, the majority of sales are handled by a dealer who tries to ascertain the customer needs/wants and translate that into an available vehicle (ignoring any 'screw the customer' factors). It's socially established that there will always be a variety of cars at a dealer and that one can go in to find what they want, and they work with the dealer to meet their needs. From that perspective, it shouldn't make sense for go GM to spend millions on ads to random places pushing 'the car of the season', because there's an already established place to get that information. Instead, they should focus on promoting local car dealers with GM products, because that's what the populace would be interested in learning about. They might consider promoting a catalog/directory describing each car and feature or a general fund for independent car reviews if they're looking to target the people actively looking for car information; but they have an established market that will always be around until it's phased out by cultural and social changes.
Similarly, Microsoft can always expect people/companies to want on OS, J&J can expect a need for adhesive bandages, etc. And, they can expect people will actively seek these out, and that they are so commonly expected that advertising wouldn't do much to inform people of the existence of these products/services. If they can always rely on that, why bother advertising for those products and services?
Now, advertising makes a lot of sense for a small company trying to get its name out to the world or a company trying to sell a genuinely new or unexpected product, but for established markets and big companies it just doesn’t make sense to me why they'd even bother with advertising like Ads on Facebook.
It's not about the reference to a company, but to how the content is delivered. If company X is doing something cool, then it's fine to give them credit for it. What's NOT cool is to make the news article into a PR spiel about how recommending a specific product or brand. The article needs to capture that product X does this nifty thing, technical details, what other people are doing with it, and other nerdy stuff. Although this is a news site, we're not looking for a carefully worded hype articles, but just technically cool stuff. Also, look for articles with neutral wording and assessments of a variety of products and ideas, that way it minimizes the ties to a specific company or product.
Maker is a good illustration about what I mean. These videos will (ideally) show people doing cool things with a device, not talking bout a product that they're selling nor giving hype from Maker's employees. As a counter-example, the article about telecommuting would be a 'blatant' slashvertisement because it was about a specific company's product and was given by their PR officer. It's hard to take an article like that as anything other than a PR grab because of some blatant conflicts of interest in the speaker's presentation.
Also, if landing on a planet, don't forget about disease and biological factors. I know Wells already covered that, but it's still an important consideration.
Since it's a flying city, new forms of life and bacteria may appear on the ship as it progresses.
There's plenty of crap in space, and it's very probably to be in the way of the voyage.
Need to deal with the radiation of space' AFAIK we don't actually have a solution worked out for living for years with cosmic rays just blasting through the ship.
Double for the part about explaining how and why this event happened, the current social climate of the world would never see such a realization unless we're on the brink of extinction.
Because of the smaller ships included for repairs and landing, the crew might also harvest resources from asteroids and other space material as the journey continues.
Currently, everything I need to do for work, home, or anywhere else runs on windows just fine. Additionally, most any program that I want to use is primarily supported on windows, and only marginally supported on Mac or Linux distros. So, put simply, the other operating systems either 1) don't do what I need to, or 2) don't have the support for what I need to run.
And sure, from the work perspective, we MIGHT be able to use other programs, but that requires going through a complete Verification and Validation of the software, which takes more time and money than it's worth. Especially if the software is written by volunteers, we can't necessarily get support quickly or hold people accountable for issues as they arise. The medical field (where I work) requires too high of reliability to simply switch for the sake of switching, there needs to be a measurable and tangible benefit.
I suppose learning the nuances of new programs is somewhat of a trivial reason to stay with what I'm using, but I'd rather continue being productive with what I'm familiar with than spend days learning the new programs simply for the sake of learning them. And yes, I have tried venturing out into the Ubuntu and Open Source realms.;)
No one needed to; it's an appeal for popularity at the next election. Kind of like why we're seeing the responses to the petitions crop up in the news.
Yes, it does stand to reason that something from 1986 is smaller than IMAGE files (yahoo's homepage, wiki's C++ page, PDFs, etc). That 256-bit color depth means we need 256 bits to define the colors after all.
Instead of comparing to PDFs, image files, and things written 30 years later, why not compare to contemporaries?
I would be tempted to call this s slashadvertisement, but they're not even advertising something. Where's the 'pointlesslyIdle' tag when we need it?
For those who don't know what the Berne Convention is, it's a treaty where the signatories treat the copyright of one country as if it is copyrighted in theirs. Most of the countries in the world have signed this convention.
So, regardless of what one may thing of pirating, the US and UK are well within their rights by doing this. So are many other countries, which either do not or are not making headlines.
Apparently the submitter has never read a TOS before. That statement's been in almost every major corporation's TOS that I've read to date, and it's mostly an ass-covering line as mentioned by other posters. While I don't like the policy of including unreasonable policies in a TOS, this is hardly unique to dropbox and appears to be part of a mudslinging campaign instead of actual news.
...if you're looking to make things appear legit, I imagine that proper tagging and song length will go a long way. If anything, that'd be what they're checking for (recording quality as well, but I imagine you've mostly MP3's so that's somewhat moot). Is there an easy way to do that? Use iTunes or WMP and sort through them manually. Beyond that? nothing I know of. There are plenty of music directories, and you can probably check the songs against their legit counterparts in various music vendors.
However, if you sort by artist, album, singers, title, etc it'll show the songs which are lacking that information, and should make the 'illegal' ones somewhat easier to identify. While not all professional recordings have this information tagged, the majority do and it'll help you sort them out.
I really wonder who China's trying to impress with all this. I can only hope no one. There's more than one reason the radio telescope race ended in the 1960's; but it's primarily because no one cares anymore. Maybe they have a use for the telescope, but it doubt it. Instead, it seems they're just trying to waive a penis around because they can instead of doing anything useful....
Hopefully my house isn't responsible for the intelligence and internal affairs of an entire nation. If it were, I'd be damn happy the only thing they did was vandalize my house.
The company hacks were a bit uncalled for, but the government ones are important.
Print and electronic release. A print copy would be a nice verification that the electronic version hasn't been altered after release; but only allowing the print is far too cumbersome.
It does have merit to do this, but only in conjunction with an electronic copy.
Don't see why this is news; it's not like the US is the only place with virus reserves. And, it'd be very difficult to develop a vaccine for a disease without samples to work with (unless we want to try and catch infected people and draw samples before they die, which would just increase the deaths).
Can't see how anyone besides the ultra-paranoid would see this as a problem, nukes pose a more significant and real threat than these stored samples...
"The researchers tested out apps that contact Google services, including Calendar, Contacts, and Gallery, on various iterations of Android. They found that those apps were all vulnerable on devices running Android 2.3.3 or earlier. On Android 2.3.4 and later, Calendar and Contacts use a secure HTTPS connection, though the Gallery app -- which syncs with Picasa online Web albums -- does not. More important, the vulnerability is not limited to standard Android apps; any Android or desktop app that accesses Google services via ClientLogin over HTTP is vulnerable."
So, update to 2.3.4 when possible, and avoid unsecured wireless until then. It's not a life-threatening issue, more of a notice.
Prime example: The president of the US. Compare how often you hear about 'the Bush/Obama/Regan administration' versus the names of the people who actually did the work, like Jacob Lew, Arthur Laffer, John Roberts, etc. It's far more convenient to brand one person/few people as the label for a group, and then force them to 'take responsibility' for the organization, whether or not they even know of the events.
No, it's media hype. They want something to identify the group, attack, and discredit. Without some defining figure, it becomes pointless to try. Hence why they're trying to make this a big deal, because it allows for a 'target' of slander and disinformation.
It's not like this really hurts Anonymous. Even if they have hissy fits with themselves (not the first time it's happened after all) all it means is the group momentarily shrinks, remembers what it's actually there for, and then resumes it's activity.
So, we don't want the government spending exorbitant amounts of money, but when they start to make changes we criticize them? While I agree the cloud isn't a perfect place to store stuff, migrating all the low-level and unclassified government documents to a single area seems like a frugal move.
Anyways, even if you only read the summary (forget TFA), they're reducing to about 1200 data centers instead of 2k, leaving plenty of places to back-up or spread data. Hardly 'one basket'. Much more like a Beowulf cluster.
Slashdot Mirror
This is something that has always bugged me about advertising: why do large corporations need to do it? For companies like GM, GE, Ford, Google, Microsoft, Johnson and Johnson, etc, they have a well-known brand that has been around for decades. Although there are people constantly entering and leaving the market, these companies have such an established position that their brand will always be circulated in discussions about products similar to the ones they make/sell. Rather than pushing their brand constantly, it would seem that the only things they'd really need to occasionally advertise are a product or nifty idea they've come up with.
To make a specific example, consider car sales in the US. With a few exceptions, the majority of sales are handled by a dealer who tries to ascertain the customer needs/wants and translate that into an available vehicle (ignoring any 'screw the customer' factors). It's socially established that there will always be a variety of cars at a dealer and that one can go in to find what they want, and they work with the dealer to meet their needs. From that perspective, it shouldn't make sense for go GM to spend millions on ads to random places pushing 'the car of the season', because there's an already established place to get that information. Instead, they should focus on promoting local car dealers with GM products, because that's what the populace would be interested in learning about. They might consider promoting a catalog/directory describing each car and feature or a general fund for independent car reviews if they're looking to target the people actively looking for car information; but they have an established market that will always be around until it's phased out by cultural and social changes.
Similarly, Microsoft can always expect people/companies to want on OS, J&J can expect a need for adhesive bandages, etc. And, they can expect people will actively seek these out, and that they are so commonly expected that advertising wouldn't do much to inform people of the existence of these products/services. If they can always rely on that, why bother advertising for those products and services?
Now, advertising makes a lot of sense for a small company trying to get its name out to the world or a company trying to sell a genuinely new or unexpected product, but for established markets and big companies it just doesn’t make sense to me why they'd even bother with advertising like Ads on Facebook.
It's not about the reference to a company, but to how the content is delivered. If company X is doing something cool, then it's fine to give them credit for it. What's NOT cool is to make the news article into a PR spiel about how recommending a specific product or brand. The article needs to capture that product X does this nifty thing, technical details, what other people are doing with it, and other nerdy stuff. Although this is a news site, we're not looking for a carefully worded hype articles, but just technically cool stuff. Also, look for articles with neutral wording and assessments of a variety of products and ideas, that way it minimizes the ties to a specific company or product.
Maker is a good illustration about what I mean. These videos will (ideally) show people doing cool things with a device, not talking bout a product that they're selling nor giving hype from Maker's employees. As a counter-example, the article about telecommuting would be a 'blatant' slashvertisement because it was about a specific company's product and was given by their PR officer. It's hard to take an article like that as anything other than a PR grab because of some blatant conflicts of interest in the speaker's presentation.
Also, if landing on a planet, don't forget about disease and biological factors. I know Wells already covered that, but it's still an important consideration.
Since it's a flying city, new forms of life and bacteria may appear on the ship as it progresses.
There's plenty of crap in space, and it's very probably to be in the way of the voyage.
Need to deal with the radiation of space' AFAIK we don't actually have a solution worked out for living for years with cosmic rays just blasting through the ship.
Double for the part about explaining how and why this event happened, the current social climate of the world would never see such a realization unless we're on the brink of extinction.
Because of the smaller ships included for repairs and landing, the crew might also harvest resources from asteroids and other space material as the journey continues.
Currently, everything I need to do for work, home, or anywhere else runs on windows just fine. Additionally, most any program that I want to use is primarily supported on windows, and only marginally supported on Mac or Linux distros. So, put simply, the other operating systems either 1) don't do what I need to, or 2) don't have the support for what I need to run.
And sure, from the work perspective, we MIGHT be able to use other programs, but that requires going through a complete Verification and Validation of the software, which takes more time and money than it's worth. Especially if the software is written by volunteers, we can't necessarily get support quickly or hold people accountable for issues as they arise. The medical field (where I work) requires too high of reliability to simply switch for the sake of switching, there needs to be a measurable and tangible benefit.
I suppose learning the nuances of new programs is somewhat of a trivial reason to stay with what I'm using, but I'd rather continue being productive with what I'm familiar with than spend days learning the new programs simply for the sake of learning them. And yes, I have tried venturing out into the Ubuntu and Open Source realms. ;)
No one needed to; it's an appeal for popularity at the next election. Kind of like why we're seeing the responses to the petitions crop up in the news.
Yes, it does stand to reason that something from 1986 is smaller than IMAGE files (yahoo's homepage, wiki's C++ page, PDFs, etc). That 256-bit color depth means we need 256 bits to define the colors after all.
Instead of comparing to PDFs, image files, and things written 30 years later, why not compare to contemporaries?
I would be tempted to call this s slashadvertisement, but they're not even advertising something. Where's the 'pointlesslyIdle' tag when we need it?
For those who don't know what the Berne Convention is, it's a treaty where the signatories treat the copyright of one country as if it is copyrighted in theirs. Most of the countries in the world have signed this convention.
So, regardless of what one may thing of pirating, the US and UK are well within their rights by doing this. So are many other countries, which either do not or are not making headlines.
I thought this was Slashdot, not Slanderdot?
Apparently the submitter has never read a TOS before. That statement's been in almost every major corporation's TOS that I've read to date, and it's mostly an ass-covering line as mentioned by other posters. While I don't like the policy of including unreasonable policies in a TOS, this is hardly unique to dropbox and appears to be part of a mudslinging campaign instead of actual news.
...if you're looking to make things appear legit, I imagine that proper tagging and song length will go a long way. If anything, that'd be what they're checking for (recording quality as well, but I imagine you've mostly MP3's so that's somewhat moot). Is there an easy way to do that? Use iTunes or WMP and sort through them manually. Beyond that? nothing I know of. There are plenty of music directories, and you can probably check the songs against their legit counterparts in various music vendors.
However, if you sort by artist, album, singers, title, etc it'll show the songs which are lacking that information, and should make the 'illegal' ones somewhat easier to identify. While not all professional recordings have this information tagged, the majority do and it'll help you sort them out.
Isn't that the point of the 'recent' tab? To identify dupes and vote them down?
I really wonder who China's trying to impress with all this. I can only hope no one. There's more than one reason the radio telescope race ended in the 1960's; but it's primarily because no one cares anymore.
Maybe they have a use for the telescope, but it doubt it. Instead, it seems they're just trying to waive a penis around because they can instead of doing anything useful....
Hopefully my house isn't responsible for the intelligence and internal affairs of an entire nation. If it were, I'd be damn happy the only thing they did was vandalize my house.
The company hacks were a bit uncalled for, but the government ones are important.
Print and electronic release. A print copy would be a nice verification that the electronic version hasn't been altered after release; but only allowing the print is far too cumbersome.
It does have merit to do this, but only in conjunction with an electronic copy.
Havok isn't suppose to be in that time-line, at least not like that. But, no one pays attention to the details, right? Artistic liberty....
And then we'll see add-ons for chrome that display the URL.
Full circle!
Don't see why this is news; it's not like the US is the only place with virus reserves. And, it'd be very difficult to develop a vaccine for a disease without samples to work with (unless we want to try and catch infected people and draw samples before they die, which would just increase the deaths).
Can't see how anyone besides the ultra-paranoid would see this as a problem, nukes pose a more significant and real threat than these stored samples...
I didn't realize IE was downloaded so frequently.
As it says in TFA:
"The researchers tested out apps that contact Google services, including Calendar, Contacts, and Gallery, on various iterations of Android. They found that those apps were all vulnerable on devices running Android 2.3.3 or earlier. On Android 2.3.4 and later, Calendar and Contacts use a secure HTTPS connection, though the Gallery app -- which syncs with Picasa online Web albums -- does not. More important, the vulnerability is not limited to standard Android apps; any Android or desktop app that accesses Google services via ClientLogin over HTTP is vulnerable."
So, update to 2.3.4 when possible, and avoid unsecured wireless until then. It's not a life-threatening issue, more of a notice.
Prime example: The president of the US. Compare how often you hear about 'the Bush/Obama/Regan administration' versus the names of the people who actually did the work, like Jacob Lew, Arthur Laffer, John Roberts, etc. It's far more convenient to brand one person/few people as the label for a group, and then force them to 'take responsibility' for the organization, whether or not they even know of the events.
No, it's media hype. They want something to identify the group, attack, and discredit. Without some defining figure, it becomes pointless to try. Hence why they're trying to make this a big deal, because it allows for a 'target' of slander and disinformation.
It's not like this really hurts Anonymous. Even if they have hissy fits with themselves (not the first time it's happened after all) all it means is the group momentarily shrinks, remembers what it's actually there for, and then resumes it's activity.
he really Putt that one away!
Also, it seems I hate grammar today....
I still have no clue what this 'bitcons' are. Can anyone give an explanation not stepped in sensationalism?
Actually, Durarara! Is far closer to the story of Anon (and specifically moot) than GiTS or GiTS SAC.
Other than that I share the same sentiment.
So, we don't want the government spending exorbitant amounts of money, but when they start to make changes we criticize them? While I agree the cloud isn't a perfect place to store stuff, migrating all the low-level and unclassified government documents to a single area seems like a frugal move.
Anyways, even if you only read the summary (forget TFA), they're reducing to about 1200 data centers instead of 2k, leaving plenty of places to back-up or spread data.
Hardly 'one basket'. Much more like a Beowulf cluster.