Could it be simply from increased exposure of the devices to the world.. Seems easy enough for all these different Android handsets to get lost in the crowd as there are so many of them.
I'm happy to blame gun control law. I see many posts comparing the use of an assault rifle with using knives, swords, cars, fire. Ridiculous! An assault rifle is engineered for one purpose: stopping power. It puts a unusually large potential for death and mayhem into the common citizen's hands. Yes, this deranged fuckwad is to be blamed, he is the asshole who committed this atrocity. But surely you can see the ease of which someone obtains weapons like a ar15 as a bit of a problem. This is no hunting rifle or hand gun. Come on.
Yeah, might as well lug a laptop around, I agree. I'm not vendor bias, my smartphone is a blackberry bold 9900, chosen because of it's size and because 99% of my phone usage is text and email. My tablet is an asus transformer pad, chosen because I wanted something other than my ipad. And my laptop is a Macbook air, it's light, small, and does what I need for my job (software engineer).
My point was only that I prefer a small phone for general mobility and being out and about. If I know i'm going to be surfing the web and reading docs, I'll use my tablet. And if I'm gonna work: laptop. I have friends that spend a lot of time on the bus and love their giant screened phones..
It's not an excuse to treat employees badly, but, if it's bad enough there is nothing forcing people to work there. Possibly the alternative is no job at all, in which case walmart is still a step up. As for driving competitors out for the market: welcome to capitalism.
There is usually an agent setting for your browser on your tablet that you can set to desktop from mobile. This isn't an arbitrary decision to redirect you, it's a calculated one based on the type of browser you're using
If that bar had millions of customers interacting at any given time including minors and adults together, well, it just might. Shop owners and bar tenders will report things to the police if they overhear certain conversations. The level of reporting is going to be effected by how it impacts your customer base. Fb is not going to start reporting every chat with the word dope in it because they'll loose their customers. Because fb makes it easier for some online predator crime I believe they have a moral obligation to take steps to prevent that. I'm done with this: if you're using fb to pick up minors you might be caught. Good.
There is probably a decent list of domains out there that you can put in your hosts file so that lookups for these fail. I assume you're more concerned about accidental adverts and such, which is a fair concern considering how many sites have em.
I bet most people here know the viagra music from the commercials - you know: Goooood morning.. goood morning !!! we danced the whole night through.. good morning, good morning to you. With the dude prancing down the sideway to work all chipper. You'll never convince me these ads don't sink in.. Advertising is about exposure and your post simply enforces that - even if you don't want these items (right now and possible not ever). For example, you said "b) Intimate product ads, many targetted at an older demographic (I don't need viagra or KY, thanks)". You may have no need of this product at the moment but thanks to the advertisements you know it exists; mission accomplished.
I was actually quite surprised recently when I re-order cable television to watch the Canucks lose in the first round of the playoffs.. I was surprised at all the products, movies, and television that I had no idea about until I saw commercials on tv for the first time in two years. Maybe I'm unique, but I doubt that. I think commericals and advertisements have more effect on us than most people are willing to admit. I'll go out on a limb and say that advertising via commericals on television still works for companies (especially clever and memorable ones such as Coke or Apple)
Obviously it's silly to sue someone over this tech, however, if users reduce the value of advertising on television by not watching them then these lost revs will have to be made up elsewhere. And that will likely translate to more direct costs to the user.
Well said. I think it's just the nature of companies like Zynga that tend to bother me - companies that care nothing about customers or innovation, and only care about numbers and stuffing their pockets. It's interesting though where the market is now with indie games - small developers actually do stand a chance against the big companies BECAUSE they still believe in innovation and their customers.
This statement is contradictory in nature, especially when it comes to Zynga, a company known to build games based on numbers and statistics. Those numbers and statistics come directly from the customer and are directly related to whether or not the good numbers go up and the bad numbers go down. People seem to forget that these companies rely on customers to make them popular, it's far to easy for the pundits to say "well it's just marketing" as though customers are just deer caught in the headlights. I don't mean to underplay the role marketing has, it's huge, but lets be real, Zynga has released some awful games and they died, quickly. The ones that hang around have appeal to someone and they're tuned for what works for those people. that's business, because without customers, you have no business.
I'd mod you up but I've already posted on the thread. You've hit the nail on the head but it's going to fly over the/. crowd. This is the detail in the suit zynga brought against Verdu - Verdu was caught lifting assets from Zynga. There are other poker games on the Facebook market despite Zynga having the first one on there.. and some look remarkable like Zynga's poker, but they remain, because concept/game mechanic is not protected like that, for damned good reason. If it was, we'd have very few games in the world. It would be like if only one car company could make cars...
Tiny Towers was far from original IP but that's ok because Nimblebit is not Zynga.. and./ loves to hate on the big guy. It's one thing to actually take assets from a game and another to simply put out a competing game in the same genre/game mechanic. Yes they look similar BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME TYPE OF GAME and that's perfectly ok. The consumer should win here.. It's like the claims that Zynga's Bingo was copied.. well, good luck making a Bingo game that doesn't look like all Bingo games. And if you poke around, you'll find that portions of games (huds, friend bars, power up assets) are scooped and shared ALL AROUND. Are you going to blast Words with Friends for being Scrabble next.. maybe no one should ever be able make a scrabble type game again.
Who wants to come up with the next great innovation, when you know damn well that the second you do, some big player with more resources is just going to swoop in and steal it?
Stealing something doesn't make it good. Nimblebit made the tower genre good by improving on previous tower games (sim towers, etc). Zynga is attempting to make Dream Heights/Towers (whatever it's called) better than Tiny Towers. Nimblebit should spend less time throwing stones at Zynga and more time seeing what's working for Dream Heights and improving their own game. Make a better mouse trap.
I smirked just a little when I thought: wouldn't it be funny if her heart kicked it while she was "analyzing" the source code... I'm no lawyer (in fact I'm a software engineer) but I'd be getting that thing in my body pretty quickly if I needed it to survive.
"I don't let advertising dictate to me what I do and don't want. If there is something I need, I go looking for it. If there is something I need to accomplish, I go looking for ways to do it."
What a ridiculous statement.. I'm literally laughing out loud at this. Would you be surprised that companies experience gains when advertising?? How do you think those gains occur? Do you think that people are dictated by advertising and just graze their sheepish way to the store like zombies, entranced in consumer glory. Advertising is about getting something into the minds of people. It's not always about what they "need" but rather what they may "want", and no, I don't always know what I want until I see an advertisement for it. People don't just collectively realize that the latest Call Of Duty game is out.. they hear from their friends, see it in the store, OR SEE AN ADVERTISEMENT. Don't be such a basement nerd as to think you're not influenced by something so engrained in our culture, you probably don't even recognize when you've absorbed some information from an advertisement.
"Oh, and for the record: If you personally like ads, I think you're retarded."
There have been occasions where advertisements have actually alerted me to products I wasn't aware of and had interest in. While these occasions are rare they do happen, and in fact, that is their intention: exposure. If I had to choose between targeted adverts or random I'd chose targeted - I'm not including "no adverts" in the choice because, well, Facebook needs to pay their employees and bills like every other company.
It's completely free, and yes, because I don't pay them in dollars I believe that it's completely free. The service is about providing data of yourself to share to other people. Yes, Facebook can and does leverage this data to bring in real money, good on them, that allows the service to remain FREE (FREE AS IN COSTS NO DOLLARS!). It'd be another story if you had to complete some seemingly random surveys or go off to some CPA enrolment and sign up for some oddball thing before using the site.. but nope, the data you provide is completely at your (and possibly your friends) discretion and it's up to you whether it's beneficial to your experience on the site.
Slashdot Mirror
you mad, bro?
Well, that anecdote must make it so..
Could it be simply from increased exposure of the devices to the world.. Seems easy enough for all these different Android handsets to get lost in the crowd as there are so many of them.
I'm happy to blame gun control law. I see many posts comparing the use of an assault rifle with using knives, swords, cars, fire. Ridiculous! An assault rifle is engineered for one purpose: stopping power. It puts a unusually large potential for death and mayhem into the common citizen's hands. Yes, this deranged fuckwad is to be blamed, he is the asshole who committed this atrocity. But surely you can see the ease of which someone obtains weapons like a ar15 as a bit of a problem. This is no hunting rifle or hand gun. Come on.
Yeah, might as well lug a laptop around, I agree. I'm not vendor bias, my smartphone is a blackberry bold 9900, chosen because of it's size and because 99% of my phone usage is text and email. My tablet is an asus transformer pad, chosen because I wanted something other than my ipad. And my laptop is a Macbook air, it's light, small, and does what I need for my job (software engineer). My point was only that I prefer a small phone for general mobility and being out and about. If I know i'm going to be surfing the web and reading docs, I'll use my tablet. And if I'm gonna work: laptop. I have friends that spend a lot of time on the bus and love their giant screened phones..
It's not an excuse to treat employees badly, but, if it's bad enough there is nothing forcing people to work there. Possibly the alternative is no job at all, in which case walmart is still a step up. As for driving competitors out for the market: welcome to capitalism.
But what you do most is carry it around. Give me a small smartphone and a good tablet and I'm set.
There is usually an agent setting for your browser on your tablet that you can set to desktop from mobile. This isn't an arbitrary decision to redirect you, it's a calculated one based on the type of browser you're using
Everything is a gimmick before it becomes standard.
If that bar had millions of customers interacting at any given time including minors and adults together, well, it just might. Shop owners and bar tenders will report things to the police if they overhear certain conversations. The level of reporting is going to be effected by how it impacts your customer base. Fb is not going to start reporting every chat with the word dope in it because they'll loose their customers. Because fb makes it easier for some online predator crime I believe they have a moral obligation to take steps to prevent that. I'm done with this: if you're using fb to pick up minors you might be caught. Good.
Wait, the people actually providing the feedback got what they wanted... and you think they're the morons?
There is probably a decent list of domains out there that you can put in your hosts file so that lookups for these fail. I assume you're more concerned about accidental adverts and such, which is a fair concern considering how many sites have em.
I bet most people here know the viagra music from the commercials - you know: Goooood morning.. goood morning !!! we danced the whole night through.. good morning, good morning to you. With the dude prancing down the sideway to work all chipper. You'll never convince me these ads don't sink in.. Advertising is about exposure and your post simply enforces that - even if you don't want these items (right now and possible not ever). For example, you said "b) Intimate product ads, many targetted at an older demographic (I don't need viagra or KY, thanks)". You may have no need of this product at the moment but thanks to the advertisements you know it exists; mission accomplished.
I was actually quite surprised recently when I re-order cable television to watch the Canucks lose in the first round of the playoffs.. I was surprised at all the products, movies, and television that I had no idea about until I saw commercials on tv for the first time in two years. Maybe I'm unique, but I doubt that. I think commericals and advertisements have more effect on us than most people are willing to admit. I'll go out on a limb and say that advertising via commericals on television still works for companies (especially clever and memorable ones such as Coke or Apple)
Obviously it's silly to sue someone over this tech, however, if users reduce the value of advertising on television by not watching them then these lost revs will have to be made up elsewhere. And that will likely translate to more direct costs to the user.
Well said. I think it's just the nature of companies like Zynga that tend to bother me - companies that care nothing about customers or innovation, and only care about numbers and stuffing their pockets. It's interesting though where the market is now with indie games - small developers actually do stand a chance against the big companies BECAUSE they still believe in innovation and their customers.
This statement is contradictory in nature, especially when it comes to Zynga, a company known to build games based on numbers and statistics. Those numbers and statistics come directly from the customer and are directly related to whether or not the good numbers go up and the bad numbers go down. People seem to forget that these companies rely on customers to make them popular, it's far to easy for the pundits to say "well it's just marketing" as though customers are just deer caught in the headlights. I don't mean to underplay the role marketing has, it's huge, but lets be real, Zynga has released some awful games and they died, quickly. The ones that hang around have appeal to someone and they're tuned for what works for those people. that's business, because without customers, you have no business.
I'd mod you up but I've already posted on the thread. You've hit the nail on the head but it's going to fly over the /. crowd. This is the detail in the suit zynga brought against Verdu - Verdu was caught lifting assets from Zynga. There are other poker games on the Facebook market despite Zynga having the first one on there.. and some look remarkable like Zynga's poker, but they remain, because concept/game mechanic is not protected like that, for damned good reason. If it was, we'd have very few games in the world. It would be like if only one car company could make cars...
Tiny Towers was far from original IP but that's ok because Nimblebit is not Zynga.. and ./ loves to hate on the big guy. It's one thing to actually take assets from a game and another to simply put out a competing game in the same genre/game mechanic. Yes they look similar BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME TYPE OF GAME and that's perfectly ok. The consumer should win here.. It's like the claims that Zynga's Bingo was copied.. well, good luck making a Bingo game that doesn't look like all Bingo games. And if you poke around, you'll find that portions of games (huds, friend bars, power up assets) are scooped and shared ALL AROUND. Are you going to blast Words with Friends for being Scrabble next.. maybe no one should ever be able make a scrabble type game again.
Who wants to come up with the next great innovation, when you know damn well that the second you do, some big player with more resources is just going to swoop in and steal it?
Stealing something doesn't make it good. Nimblebit made the tower genre good by improving on previous tower games (sim towers, etc). Zynga is attempting to make Dream Heights/Towers (whatever it's called) better than Tiny Towers. Nimblebit should spend less time throwing stones at Zynga and more time seeing what's working for Dream Heights and improving their own game. Make a better mouse trap.
Partnership with chilling effects...this is somewhat ironic.
I smirked just a little when I thought: wouldn't it be funny if her heart kicked it while she was "analyzing" the source code... I'm no lawyer (in fact I'm a software engineer) but I'd be getting that thing in my body pretty quickly if I needed it to survive.
MOST democratic.
"I don't let advertising dictate to me what I do and don't want. If there is something I need, I go looking for it. If there is something I need to accomplish, I go looking for ways to do it."
What a ridiculous statement.. I'm literally laughing out loud at this. Would you be surprised that companies experience gains when advertising?? How do you think those gains occur? Do you think that people are dictated by advertising and just graze their sheepish way to the store like zombies, entranced in consumer glory. Advertising is about getting something into the minds of people. It's not always about what they "need" but rather what they may "want", and no, I don't always know what I want until I see an advertisement for it. People don't just collectively realize that the latest Call Of Duty game is out.. they hear from their friends, see it in the store, OR SEE AN ADVERTISEMENT. Don't be such a basement nerd as to think you're not influenced by something so engrained in our culture, you probably don't even recognize when you've absorbed some information from an advertisement.
Unless you believe competition is good for the consumer. If so, then this is exactly what is needed.
"Oh, and for the record: If you personally like ads, I think you're retarded."
There have been occasions where advertisements have actually alerted me to products I wasn't aware of and had interest in. While these occasions are rare they do happen, and in fact, that is their intention: exposure. If I had to choose between targeted adverts or random I'd chose targeted - I'm not including "no adverts" in the choice because, well, Facebook needs to pay their employees and bills like every other company.
It's completely free, and yes, because I don't pay them in dollars I believe that it's completely free. The service is about providing data of yourself to share to other people. Yes, Facebook can and does leverage this data to bring in real money, good on them, that allows the service to remain FREE (FREE AS IN COSTS NO DOLLARS!). It'd be another story if you had to complete some seemingly random surveys or go off to some CPA enrolment and sign up for some oddball thing before using the site.. but nope, the data you provide is completely at your (and possibly your friends) discretion and it's up to you whether it's beneficial to your experience on the site.