OK, what is your problem here. Is it that the author is stating a fact regarding PSP vs DS popularity that is true but only giving US statistics?
or
Is it that you disagree with the DS crushing the PSP in overall popularity worldwide?
Cause guess what, the statement the Methusala poster made was regarding PSP vs DS worldwide (I assume) and your counterargument is using US only figures. The Us only figures do not scale worldwide. And the worldwide figures show the PSP getting owned.
So his original statement is correct, your counter argument lacks the correct scope.
Nintendo has an established handheld line, Sony just jumped in. Not to mention Sony included features most people didn't care about, like that goofy UMD movie format that costs more than a DVD and is only compatible with the PSP.
Then you'd be wrong, though, as the DS and the PSP have an equivalent install base in the US, for instance. Where the DS is decimating the PSP is in Japan - where the DS effectively tapped a new demographic.
You can see that he's kindof dismissing that possibility in the DS/PSP numbers for next year: he predicts the gap to increase, but not significantly. If the DS Lite follows the Japan behavior, that gap will grow incredibly.
This is the quote that started this whole thing. You changes the scope of the statistics to show show that the PSP and the DS are neck and neck. In the US, ok - but not worldwide - and that is the scope of the article. You then procede to use this US statistic as the basis for your arguments against his which are on a worldwide scale. That is flawed analysis. The DS is killing the PSP.
Also, the author does not dismiss the PSP/DS numbers - he dismissed the (GBA)SP numbers. You mis-analyzed the statistics, so your arguments against it are wrong. You want to defend your logic, ok - then how about addressing all the points I have made concerning why your logic was faulty and your analysis was inaccurate instead of defending your numbers? You have yet to do that.
If the numbers are wrong, then ignore my argument (and his too). I don't care. If someone says "there are 700,000 people in the US who are more than 7 foot tall, and 400,000 people who are less than 4 foot tall, clearly, there are more midgets than giants in the US" there's nothing wrong with me pointing out the fact that 400,000 is less than 700,000. The numbers could be wrong - that's just another reason. But the logic is still wrong too.
Thing is, the whole argument isn't about US, its about world. You took the US statistics and tried to use it as a basis for how the PSP and DS are neck and neck. They aren't even close. In the US, ok - but worldwide that doesn't mean anything. You changed the scope of the statistics to match your perspective. That's ridiculous.
Yes, they have. Take a look at the games they have for the DS in Japan. The demographic buying a DS is completely different than those that bought a GBA.
Order of events time. They released this game, it was a huge hit - single handedly grabbing a huge chunk of adult gameers, then Nintendo goes "Hey, we can get all these guys too." This was not an original strategy, this was a tactical change based on critical events.
You think they're going to stop with Wii?
Considering the Japanese are a commuter culture, maybe. The reason that the DS is selling so well amongst adults is that it began to offer games that competed with DoCoMo's offerings on their phones and those of Pocket PC's. The Wii doesn't even play the same role. They will continue their mantra of "Kid friendly" and "accesable by everyone."
Then read the article. They're quoting an install base for the PSP/DS of 8.7 and 8.8 million respectively. If you disagree with those numbers, that's another reason the guy's wrong.:)
I know where those numbers came from, but if thats your only reference - you're way off. Try looking at the quarterly releases directly from Nintendo and Sony. A little more accurate. I have a problem taking someone seriously when they denounce a whole article but are willing to use statistics from it as argumental fulcrums. Then say, well if the statistics are wrong, that's another reason he's wrong. It would also be the reason you would be wrong too.
Except for the fact that we were only ever talking about the DS? The great-grandparent said "who would've predicted the DS's dominance over the PSP?", the grandparent said "I would". According to the article, the PSP and the DS are neck and neck.
Fair enough, but I was countering your point of Nintendo not having an established history in handheld. I was not trying to enter into your DS vs PSP argument in any other way than to correct you inacurate statement.
In addition, Nintendo's targeting a demographic which is completely outside previous generations, Where did you get this idea. They said they wanted to make it accesable for all, a statement they make every release. They have yet to change their tactic of garnering faith with the younger demographic.
I have to agree with the grandparent: how can you make predictions about systems as revolutionary as the PS3 (in terms of price) and the Wii (in terms of target audience)? There's just no information about it whatsoever.
For the PS3, you do price point analysis. The product doesn't have to be the same. You analyze consumer response in comparison to price point increases that are on par with Sony's annouced prcing. This will give you a response trend.
For the Wii, that target audience has been disected like a frog. Kid friendly with a dash of innovation. You may think it is completely irrelevant - but the biggest trends to compare this to is candy. WTF?!!! Yep, candy. Candy started taking an "interactive" and "electronic" aspect about a decade ago. It used to be all Bazooka Joes and Pixie Stix, now its candy that beeps and comes in cool packaging that moves or does something utilizing the candy. Yeah, I know we had whistle pops way back in the day - but we also had Space Wars too. You can get fairly accurate trends out of consumer response to drastic new ideas applied to common ubiquitous entities - especially as candy is pretty attractive to the target group Nintendo is going after.
You have to remeber this is trend analysis, its not an exact science. You take a whole bunch of statistics with related aspects, qualify them - and then analyze the results in relation to what you're trying to predict. You can do this without having existing statistics on exact subject matter.
Then you'd be wrong, though, as the DS and the PSP have an equivalent install base in the US, for instance. Where the DS is decimating the PSP is in Japan - where the DS effectively tapped a new demographic.
Uhh, no - he's spot on. Even if the PSP and DS have similar install bases, I'd like to see your references - Nintendo has a long history of handheld dominance. That's established. One neck and neck race between two devices while ignoring the GB Advance SP is a flawed analysis. Add those numbers and you see that Nintendo is still owning handheld. The SP is still selling, making it a competator. I guess you meant PSP vs. DS, not true market.
Aside from you not understanding what Anti-zionism is, you haven't disagreed with anything I have said. You have only given examples reinforcing my arguments.
After reading my responses to you, and looking over this post of yours, I decided that maybe a more eloquent explanaition was in order. Trust me, I have no love for this so called "man", but your behavior isn't fighting against shit. It's just self enabling.
DMCA This wasn't an issue before people started pirating left and right. Content providers didn't give a rats ass about backups. They didn't care that you might rip their CD's to play in your own mp3 player. Once people started redistributing the content en masse, they got pissed. They came up with DRM schemes. The scheme was intended to stop piracy, an unfortunate side effect was that it also prevented legitimate use in the process. Looking at the order of events, these companies never would have tried this shit had people not abused the freedoms of the media vehicle. Blaming a company for protecting its interests is ignorant as hell. You need to look at the original reason for the behavior.
Out of Wack Copy Right law I agree somewhat here. Public domain timelines should be maintained. Yet, if no one actually payed for the shit, it would enter public domain - the companies holding it wouldn't have a reason to pay into holding it.
There is also the extreme counter argument. What if a content creator, lets say a writer, wanted to control his ideas so he could PREVENT big business from profiting off his work posthumously? If you remove the estate holders right to control copyright, you take thier only weapon away. I'm not arguing all applications of copyright law are great, I'm arguing that you have to respect them if you would later like to invoke them for the right reasons.
F'd up patent system all purchased by big business through Congress You get no argument out of me here.
If it is ok for us to go to Iraq, and lets face it, it is about oil. Oh, how little you understand. This isn't about oil. It's also not about fighting terrorism or any shit like that. Take a look at a map. If you can find Iraq you will notice that it is centered in the Middle East and has most of its major cities close to Iran, while the west is empty. This is an IDEAL staging area. This is about POWER. Being in alliance with Isreal, which has the West side of the Middle East Covered - you can effectively exercise control over this part of the world using the two countries as staging areas. Possible oil pricing is a positive byproduct.
Then the moral bar has been lowered so much that it really doesn't take much to step over it. What the hell does this have to do with personal responsibility and accountability? Nothing. The behavior of the world around you does not dictate to you your behavior, nor should it. To buy into the idea that you are just doing what you saw others do reveals that you understand this behavior is for shit. If you want to be an ass, then fine - I'm way to entrenched in personal freedom to dictate behavior. Just don't try to justify it the way you do. You aren't doing a thing except fucking over those who choose to use civil disobedience as their prefered method. You are actually fucking over your own cause.
I sure as hell am done trying to put it back were it should be. My original response to this statement was weak. Attacking you doesn't do anything other than fuel your fire. Maybe an education lesson is in order.
If you want to change things, you have to look past what you get out of it - because the answer is nothing. You will get nothing out of your endevors. Your children, or the children of those whom you love, will be the ones to benefit from your actions. If you really want to change things, you have to accept this is truth. True change cannot be a derivative, nor can it be the motivation, of personal gain.
Maybe you should actually try LEARNING about things before you accept a prepackaged diatribe to spout off in response to your trivial actions. Because, in reality, you are a tool of the man if you beleive the shit you do and behave the way that you do.
I think that perhaps what the author was trying to get at was that if games are going to take future steps towards maturing as a storytelling vehicle, they are going to have to deal with fear.
Books, television, and movies can all convey fear. Games have a little harder time with it.
The problem is "the man" isn't an entity. Its a bunch of little entities. If you really wanna stick it to "the man" you should selectively choose where to spend your money, do something that would actually cause "the man" to go out of business, and definitely not play good dog/bad dog by purchasing one thing and stealing another.
And if he refused to generate income for himself, at some point the taxpayers would be paying for him in some way, shape, or form. That's not screwing the man, thats screwing your fellow citizens.
This kid could use his energies doing something positive, not going all out for himself because he feels justified. Because in reality, what he's doing isn't making any difference at all. So its value as a crusade is none. In fact, I would argue he is just like them, screwing over someone else for his personal gain.
Ghandi screwed over the man. Malcom X and Martin Luther King screwed over the man. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence screwed the man. Actions exhibited by this kid don't add up to shit in a toilet compared to what you really have to do to screw over "the man."
The statement I was refuting was based on this kids beleif that he has the right to steal shit. Yeah, DVD's are the reason Theaters are dying - I would be a fool to say otherwise, but that's not really the point of what I'm arguing.
This guy has no justification for his behavior. IF you think they suck, just don't go. If you go and you rip them off, don't say you're doing it in your crusade against the man. Because while it may not be the major contributor, it is a factor. And this attitude is what businesses point to as justification for their behavior.
Yeah, I recognize that DVDs are killing Theaters - much like really powerful home gaming systems killed Arcades. While the financial loss of this guys behavior is minimal, it still isn't justified. And his attitude is what businesses point at when they try to justify their behavior.
The kid doesn't want to change shit, he just want to do whatever the hell he wants and feel justified for it.
I don't go to the movies unless I already know that I'm going to enjoy the show, which is to say I barely go - but I don't have a problem with changing movies if the one your in sucks. One ticket = one movie. Or you could ask for your money back.
What does the Convienience Island have to do with you stealing shit? Your attempts to justify your behavior as a result of some corporations actions are ridiculous. You are still responsible for your actions.
A for the snotty little stab at my perception, at least I can recognize when I 'm being a theiving douchebag. If you want to really vote with your dollar, your gonna have to go without.
Your popcorn wasn't subsidized by advertising at the movie theater. The advertising was put there to create a new revenue stream becuase the theaters were losing money. Probably because a large amount of people justify their deceitful behavior with some sort of magic logic where they are the good guy screwing over the evil corporation.
Don't claim you're anti-establishment as some sort of justification of your con jobs. Your actions are the ones driving companies to do the shit they do.
It's none of their fucking business where the bytes coming through your pipe originated from.It's none of their fucking business where the bytes coming through your pipe originated from.
Until it hits their pipe. If they don't like what you got going on, they drop you. The TOS is a declaration of resons why they would drop you, that's it.
So go ahead and build whatever network you want on your end - no ones stopping you, then have fun trying to find an outbound connection.
Man, I can't tell you haw many clients I have shown Alertbox to. I then show them the Marketing Sherpa internet usage reports and they drop their jaws. "People really do that?" is a common response.
I didn't want my post to come off as criticising yours, just to add another dimention to it. I really wish some "designers" would read this stuff. Surmising how the rest of the world uses the web off of your personal web surfing habits is a bad move. I have to constantly fight PHB's on this issue also.
I just feel some people take it too far because of the "original" intent of the web. Yes it is for information, but look at all the ways the web allows you to present it. It's awe inspiring and fun as hell to play in. I feel like a television producer when television was first becoming popular. The fact that the content changes format so fast is a statement to the ideal that it can't be standardized.
Yet, I also understand best practices. Trying to play artist on an e-commerce site is suicide. Bitching that the search engines don't index your stuff properly when you use experimental layouts and multiple language layers to present your stuff is also ridiculous. Trying to coax website developers into using a single methodology is also ridiculous, as they might not find one that works better.
All in all, you have to recognize the sites function, the content, its target, and it's method of proliferation before you open your dev environment.
I'm sure Google could very easily implement a system that targets ads to US ips or Japanese IPs, etc.
I can already confirm that this is a standard practice in online advertising. Google video already allows you to limit your content being served based on region, the advertising tool will just sit on top of that.
Google is in it for the Ad revenue. It wouldn't do them a lick of good to serve english ads to Cantonese surfers who wouldn't click through on them.
If that were the case, cable and satellite TV would already be long gone by now....
The only reason it's fairly cheap at the moment is because nothing has hit YouTube or Google that is popular enough for 40 million people to want to download and/or stream it at the same time.
The beauty of it is, unlike tv, they won't have to do it at the same time.
The user population will get comfortable with the fact that they can request content to fit their schedule, instead of conforming to a broadcast schedule. It's congruent with their inherent selfishness.
Also, Broadband is not as ubiquitous as the TV yet. But it is already affecting print media. Look at News papers and magazines. They'r down, big time. Once we get foldable mobile screens - their done.
Once braodband becomes the norm, and media center systems get a little easier to configure - TV is done too.
It's already seen overseas. Don't ask me how, but when I was in Japan, girls there could name just about every contestant.
The same way I get Telemundo. A provder over there just has to pay for a feed.
With the web maturing like a 15 year old girl on hormone therapy, the concept of content and purpose need to be re-examined constantly. While I am annoyed at the inability of a large chunk of web designers to grasp the concept of navigation, I am equally annoyed at web "experts" who try to dictate the purpose of the web.
If the web is to remain a free environment, people should be free to put whatever crap they want up there. If a search engine can't index it properly, too bad for the content creators. If I want to create informative content, I should try my best to conform to usability conventions (there is nothing standard about it). If I want to create new style art house media, then I really don't care about usability conventions.
I think that sometimes these usability reports have an equally arrogant stance on trying to create a "standard" way to present information. Personally I think thats a load of crap. I will decide what standard I need to use based on the purpose of the site. Not being an idiot, I won't commit web suicide by making my e-commerce website hard to navigate, hard to read, and difficult to index.
But sometimes I want to create art in the new medium, and I don't need some blowhard telling me my navigation scheme is ruining the internet.
Instead of setting up a lab and stress testing the thing with fake user traffic and analyzing it from the outside they may have opted to dive in and experience what works and what doesn't from a "truer" useage perspective.
To see what happens in a large scale corporation when you deploy a product you have to actually deploy it in a large scale. They already know what their tools do and what the pains and plusses are. They really don't have any first hand experience with the competition other than tests and stories.
I personally think this is a great move on their part. Not only to improve their products, but to experience what happens when their competition is deployed somewhere else. The insight can be used across the board.
While I understand this line of thought, I argue that this is even more true if the courts are corrupt. Civil Disobedience is to be used against corrupt systems, unfortunately it relies on raw numbers of people disobeying to make a point.
Unfortunately people are no longer motivated in the numbers they used to be in order to effectively use this tactic.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, what is your problem here. Is it that the author is stating a fact regarding PSP vs DS popularity that is true but only giving US statistics?
or
Is it that you disagree with the DS crushing the PSP in overall popularity worldwide?
Cause guess what, the statement the Methusala poster made was regarding PSP vs DS worldwide (I assume) and your counterargument is using US only figures. The Us only figures do not scale worldwide. And the worldwide figures show the PSP getting owned.
So his original statement is correct, your counter argument lacks the correct scope.
Nintendo has an established handheld line, Sony just jumped in. Not to mention Sony included features most people didn't care about, like that goofy UMD movie format that costs more than a DVD and is only compatible with the PSP.
Then you'd be wrong, though, as the DS and the PSP have an equivalent install base in the US, for instance. Where the DS is decimating the PSP is in Japan - where the DS effectively tapped a new demographic.
You can see that he's kindof dismissing that possibility in the DS/PSP numbers for next year: he predicts the gap to increase, but not significantly. If the DS Lite follows the Japan behavior, that gap will grow incredibly.
This is the quote that started this whole thing. You changes the scope of the statistics to show show that the PSP and the DS are neck and neck. In the US, ok - but not worldwide - and that is the scope of the article. You then procede to use this US statistic as the basis for your arguments against his which are on a worldwide scale. That is flawed analysis. The DS is killing the PSP.
Also, the author does not dismiss the PSP/DS numbers - he dismissed the (GBA)SP numbers. You mis-analyzed the statistics, so your arguments against it are wrong. You want to defend your logic, ok - then how about addressing all the points I have made concerning why your logic was faulty and your analysis was inaccurate instead of defending your numbers? You have yet to do that.
If the numbers are wrong, then ignore my argument (and his too). I don't care. If someone says "there are 700,000 people in the US who are more than 7 foot tall, and 400,000 people who are less than 4 foot tall, clearly, there are more midgets than giants in the US" there's nothing wrong with me pointing out the fact that 400,000 is less than 700,000. The numbers could be wrong - that's just another reason. But the logic is still wrong too.
Thing is, the whole argument isn't about US, its about world. You took the US statistics and tried to use it as a basis for how the PSP and DS are neck and neck. They aren't even close. In the US, ok - but worldwide that doesn't mean anything. You changed the scope of the statistics to match your perspective. That's ridiculous.
Yes, they have. Take a look at the games they have for the DS in Japan. The demographic buying a DS is completely different than those that bought a GBA.
:)
Order of events time. They released this game, it was a huge hit - single handedly grabbing a huge chunk of adult gameers, then Nintendo goes "Hey, we can get all these guys too." This was not an original strategy, this was a tactical change based on critical events.
You think they're going to stop with Wii?
Considering the Japanese are a commuter culture, maybe. The reason that the DS is selling so well amongst adults is that it began to offer games that competed with DoCoMo's offerings on their phones and those of Pocket PC's. The Wii doesn't even play the same role. They will continue their mantra of "Kid friendly" and "accesable by everyone."
Then read the article. They're quoting an install base for the PSP/DS of 8.7 and 8.8 million respectively. If you disagree with those numbers, that's another reason the guy's wrong.
I know where those numbers came from, but if thats your only reference - you're way off. Try looking at the quarterly releases directly from Nintendo and Sony. A little more accurate. I have a problem taking someone seriously when they denounce a whole article but are willing to use statistics from it as argumental fulcrums. Then say, well if the statistics are wrong, that's another reason he's wrong. It would also be the reason you would be wrong too.
Except for the fact that we were only ever talking about the DS? The great-grandparent said "who would've predicted the DS's dominance over the PSP?", the grandparent said "I would". According to the article, the PSP and the DS are neck and neck.
Fair enough, but I was countering your point of Nintendo not having an established history in handheld. I was not trying to enter into your DS vs PSP argument in any other way than to correct you inacurate statement.
In addition, Nintendo's targeting a demographic which is completely outside previous generations,
Where did you get this idea. They said they wanted to make it accesable for all, a statement they make every release. They have yet to change their tactic of garnering faith with the younger demographic.
I have to agree with the grandparent: how can you make predictions about systems as revolutionary as the PS3 (in terms of price) and the Wii (in terms of target audience)? There's just no information about it whatsoever.
For the PS3, you do price point analysis. The product doesn't have to be the same. You analyze consumer response in comparison to price point increases that are on par with Sony's annouced prcing. This will give you a response trend.
For the Wii, that target audience has been disected like a frog. Kid friendly with a dash of innovation. You may think it is completely irrelevant - but the biggest trends to compare this to is candy. WTF?!!! Yep, candy. Candy started taking an "interactive" and "electronic" aspect about a decade ago. It used to be all Bazooka Joes and Pixie Stix, now its candy that beeps and comes in cool packaging that moves or does something utilizing the candy. Yeah, I know we had whistle pops way back in the day - but we also had Space Wars too. You can get fairly accurate trends out of consumer response to drastic new ideas applied to common ubiquitous entities - especially as candy is pretty attractive to the target group Nintendo is going after.
You have to remeber this is trend analysis, its not an exact science. You take a whole bunch of statistics with related aspects, qualify them - and then analyze the results in relation to what you're trying to predict. You can do this without having existing statistics on exact subject matter.
Then you'd be wrong, though, as the DS and the PSP have an equivalent install base in the US, for instance. Where the DS is decimating the PSP is in Japan - where the DS effectively tapped a new demographic.
Uhh, no - he's spot on. Even if the PSP and DS have similar install bases, I'd like to see your references - Nintendo has a long history of handheld dominance. That's established. One neck and neck race between two devices while ignoring the GB Advance SP is a flawed analysis. Add those numbers and you see that Nintendo is still owning handheld. The SP is still selling, making it a competator. I guess you meant PSP vs. DS, not true market.
Yeah, thats why you applied it in a situation where I at no point opposed the existence of Isreal.
BTW, Karma Whore much? Posting as AC so you can flame is weak.
Aside from you not understanding what Anti-zionism is, you haven't disagreed with anything I have said. You have only given examples reinforcing my arguments.
After reading my responses to you, and looking over this post of yours, I decided that maybe a more eloquent explanaition was in order. Trust me, I have no love for this so called "man", but your behavior isn't fighting against shit. It's just self enabling.
DMCA
This wasn't an issue before people started pirating left and right. Content providers didn't give a rats ass about backups. They didn't care that you might rip their CD's to play in your own mp3 player. Once people started redistributing the content en masse, they got pissed. They came up with DRM schemes. The scheme was intended to stop piracy, an unfortunate side effect was that it also prevented legitimate use in the process. Looking at the order of events, these companies never would have tried this shit had people not abused the freedoms of the media vehicle. Blaming a company for protecting its interests is ignorant as hell. You need to look at the original reason for the behavior.
Out of Wack Copy Right law
I agree somewhat here. Public domain timelines should be maintained. Yet, if no one actually payed for the shit, it would enter public domain - the companies holding it wouldn't have a reason to pay into holding it.
There is also the extreme counter argument. What if a content creator, lets say a writer, wanted to control his ideas so he could PREVENT big business from profiting off his work posthumously? If you remove the estate holders right to control copyright, you take thier only weapon away. I'm not arguing all applications of copyright law are great, I'm arguing that you have to respect them if you would later like to invoke them for the right reasons.
F'd up patent system all purchased by big business through Congress
You get no argument out of me here.
If it is ok for us to go to Iraq, and lets face it, it is about oil.
Oh, how little you understand. This isn't about oil. It's also not about fighting terrorism or any shit like that. Take a look at a map. If you can find Iraq you will notice that it is centered in the Middle East and has most of its major cities close to Iran, while the west is empty. This is an IDEAL staging area. This is about POWER. Being in alliance with Isreal, which has the West side of the Middle East Covered - you can effectively exercise control over this part of the world using the two countries as staging areas. Possible oil pricing is a positive byproduct.
Then the moral bar has been lowered so much that it really doesn't take much to step over it.
What the hell does this have to do with personal responsibility and accountability? Nothing. The behavior of the world around you does not dictate to you your behavior, nor should it. To buy into the idea that you are just doing what you saw others do reveals that you understand this behavior is for shit. If you want to be an ass, then fine - I'm way to entrenched in personal freedom to dictate behavior. Just don't try to justify it the way you do. You aren't doing a thing except fucking over those who choose to use civil disobedience as their prefered method. You are actually fucking over your own cause.
I sure as hell am done trying to put it back were it should be.
My original response to this statement was weak. Attacking you doesn't do anything other than fuel your fire. Maybe an education lesson is in order.
If you want to change things, you have to look past what you get out of it - because the answer is nothing. You will get nothing out of your endevors. Your children, or the children of those whom you love, will be the ones to benefit from your actions. If you really want to change things, you have to accept this is truth. True change cannot be a derivative, nor can it be the motivation, of personal gain.
Maybe you should actually try LEARNING about things before you accept a prepackaged diatribe to spout off in response to your trivial actions. Because, in reality, you are a tool of the man if you beleive the shit you do and behave the way that you do.
I think that perhaps what the author was trying to get at was that if games are going to take future steps towards maturing as a storytelling vehicle, they are going to have to deal with fear.
Books, television, and movies can all convey fear. Games have a little harder time with it.
Does everyone do it anyway? Yes. Do publishers keep customer font around in case the customer forgets to send it in? All the time.
This is also why a large number of printers request you change fonts to vectors when you send a document for printing.
I mean, what can you gain by making the sun look bad?
An edge in the sunscreen market?
The problem is "the man" isn't an entity. Its a bunch of little entities. If you really wanna stick it to "the man" you should selectively choose where to spend your money, do something that would actually cause "the man" to go out of business, and definitely not play good dog/bad dog by purchasing one thing and stealing another.
And if he refused to generate income for himself, at some point the taxpayers would be paying for him in some way, shape, or form. That's not screwing the man, thats screwing your fellow citizens.
This kid could use his energies doing something positive, not going all out for himself because he feels justified. Because in reality, what he's doing isn't making any difference at all. So its value as a crusade is none. In fact, I would argue he is just like them, screwing over someone else for his personal gain.
Ghandi screwed over the man. Malcom X and Martin Luther King screwed over the man. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence screwed the man. Actions exhibited by this kid don't add up to shit in a toilet compared to what you really have to do to screw over "the man."
I bet you cut yourself too.
The statement I was refuting was based on this kids beleif that he has the right to steal shit. Yeah, DVD's are the reason Theaters are dying - I would be a fool to say otherwise, but that's not really the point of what I'm arguing.
This guy has no justification for his behavior. IF you think they suck, just don't go. If you go and you rip them off, don't say you're doing it in your crusade against the man. Because while it may not be the major contributor, it is a factor. And this attitude is what businesses point to as justification for their behavior.
Yeah, I recognize that DVDs are killing Theaters - much like really powerful home gaming systems killed Arcades. While the financial loss of this guys behavior is minimal, it still isn't justified. And his attitude is what businesses point at when they try to justify their behavior.
The kid doesn't want to change shit, he just want to do whatever the hell he wants and feel justified for it.
I don't go to the movies unless I already know that I'm going to enjoy the show, which is to say I barely go - but I don't have a problem with changing movies if the one your in sucks. One ticket = one movie. Or you could ask for your money back.
I sure as hell am done trying to put it back were it should be.
Way to be. This is what makes you an ass.
What does the Convienience Island have to do with you stealing shit? Your attempts to justify your behavior as a result of some corporations actions are ridiculous. You are still responsible for your actions.
A for the snotty little stab at my perception, at least I can recognize when I 'm being a theiving douchebag. If you want to really vote with your dollar, your gonna have to go without.
Your popcorn wasn't subsidized by advertising at the movie theater. The advertising was put there to create a new revenue stream becuase the theaters were losing money. Probably because a large amount of people justify their deceitful behavior with some sort of magic logic where they are the good guy screwing over the evil corporation.
You are a factor buddy, face it.
Don't claim you're anti-establishment as some sort of justification of your con jobs. Your actions are the ones driving companies to do the shit they do.
Like I said, it's not the consumer's fault that they are using an unsustainable business model.
But it is the consumers fault if they buy it.
It's none of their fucking business where the bytes coming through your pipe originated from.It's none of their fucking business where the bytes coming through your pipe originated from.
Until it hits their pipe. If they don't like what you got going on, they drop you. The TOS is a declaration of resons why they would drop you, that's it.
So go ahead and build whatever network you want on your end - no ones stopping you, then have fun trying to find an outbound connection.
Man, I can't tell you haw many clients I have shown Alertbox to. I then show them the Marketing Sherpa internet usage reports and they drop their jaws. "People really do that?" is a common response.
I didn't want my post to come off as criticising yours, just to add another dimention to it. I really wish some "designers" would read this stuff. Surmising how the rest of the world uses the web off of your personal web surfing habits is a bad move. I have to constantly fight PHB's on this issue also.
I just feel some people take it too far because of the "original" intent of the web. Yes it is for information, but look at all the ways the web allows you to present it. It's awe inspiring and fun as hell to play in. I feel like a television producer when television was first becoming popular. The fact that the content changes format so fast is a statement to the ideal that it can't be standardized.
Yet, I also understand best practices. Trying to play artist on an e-commerce site is suicide. Bitching that the search engines don't index your stuff properly when you use experimental layouts and multiple language layers to present your stuff is also ridiculous. Trying to coax website developers into using a single methodology is also ridiculous, as they might not find one that works better.
All in all, you have to recognize the sites function, the content, its target, and it's method of proliferation before you open your dev environment.
I'm sure Google could very easily implement a system that targets ads to US ips or Japanese IPs, etc.
I can already confirm that this is a standard practice in online advertising. Google video already allows you to limit your content being served based on region, the advertising tool will just sit on top of that.
Google is in it for the Ad revenue. It wouldn't do them a lick of good to serve english ads to Cantonese surfers who wouldn't click through on them.
If that were the case, cable and satellite TV would already be long gone by now....
The only reason it's fairly cheap at the moment is because nothing has hit YouTube or Google that is popular enough for 40 million people to want to download and/or stream it at the same time.
The beauty of it is, unlike tv, they won't have to do it at the same time.
The user population will get comfortable with the fact that they can request content to fit their schedule, instead of conforming to a broadcast schedule. It's congruent with their inherent selfishness.
Also, Broadband is not as ubiquitous as the TV yet. But it is already affecting print media. Look at News papers and magazines. They'r down, big time. Once we get foldable mobile screens - their done.
Once braodband becomes the norm, and media center systems get a little easier to configure - TV is done too.
It's already seen overseas. Don't ask me how, but when I was in Japan, girls there could name just about every contestant.
The same way I get Telemundo. A provder over there just has to pay for a feed.
I agree, to a point.
With the web maturing like a 15 year old girl on hormone therapy, the concept of content and purpose need to be re-examined constantly. While I am annoyed at the inability of a large chunk of web designers to grasp the concept of navigation, I am equally annoyed at web "experts" who try to dictate the purpose of the web.
If the web is to remain a free environment, people should be free to put whatever crap they want up there. If a search engine can't index it properly, too bad for the content creators. If I want to create informative content, I should try my best to conform to usability conventions (there is nothing standard about it). If I want to create new style art house media, then I really don't care about usability conventions.
I think that sometimes these usability reports have an equally arrogant stance on trying to create a "standard" way to present information. Personally I think thats a load of crap. I will decide what standard I need to use based on the purpose of the site. Not being an idiot, I won't commit web suicide by making my e-commerce website hard to navigate, hard to read, and difficult to index.
But sometimes I want to create art in the new medium, and I don't need some blowhard telling me my navigation scheme is ruining the internet.
Instead of setting up a lab and stress testing the thing with fake user traffic and analyzing it from the outside they may have opted to dive in and experience what works and what doesn't from a "truer" useage perspective.
To see what happens in a large scale corporation when you deploy a product you have to actually deploy it in a large scale. They already know what their tools do and what the pains and plusses are. They really don't have any first hand experience with the competition other than tests and stories.
I personally think this is a great move on their part. Not only to improve their products, but to experience what happens when their competition is deployed somewhere else. The insight can be used across the board.
While I understand this line of thought, I argue that this is even more true if the courts are corrupt. Civil Disobedience is to be used against corrupt systems, unfortunately it relies on raw numbers of people disobeying to make a point.
Unfortunately people are no longer motivated in the numbers they used to be in order to effectively use this tactic.