I see nothing in the form of facts to support virtually anything you claim. In fact you cite an article about 'defriending' which, in fact, supports the opposite view than what you express. Liberals defriend conservatives more often over political views. 13% more. What you conveniently left off your comment was the fact that liberals have many more conservative friends to start with than conservatives.
47% of conservatives said they only see conservative posts on Facebook. Only 32% of liberals say they see only liberal posts. So obviously, if you're a conservative you don't need to defriend as many people because you're not exposed to varying viewpoints nearly as much as liberals are. In other words, conservatives were 15% more likely to never view posts that didn't share their point of view. You tried to make it sound like liberals don't want to hear the other side. The truth, yes the truth is this. We at least listen more to the other side. Then we make our decision. Whereas your crowd has much more of a closed mindset and never listens to opposing views. Now do you get it? You don't need to defriend as many people because you're not listening to begin with if you are a conservative. Versus defriending based on listening. So who's throwing out the straw man? You make the claim that "If you de-friend someone (or large groups of someones), their stories are basically not going to be on your feed in the first place, and liberals have been shown to be more likely to de-friend conservatives". On first glance and second glance you are apparently trying to make it look like liberals never listen to the conservative argument. No,no my friend. You're going after the straw man. In reality, many more liberals than conservatives listen to opposing views and then they make a decision whether or not they will defriend someone. Conservatives actively avoid defriending by never listening in the first place! And irregardless of what your ideas are, it is liberals who listen more. And we like to read entire articles, not just home in on the 'facts' that support us.
The rest of your post is crap. Rehashing the same old tired song and dance. Trying to make it sound like liberals are the ones with closed minds. Oh yeah, we plod along listening to our heart instead of the facts. Refer to the above paragraphs again. We do listen. We listen for facts. Something not always in demand by your side apparently.
Here's a fact for you. Fox News coverage of global climate change was inaccurate in 72% of the segments covering it during 2013. MSNBC had only 8% of its segments contain inaccurate information. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...
To have so many people listen to what is an essentially misinformation campaign is pretty pathetic. And one wonders if that isn't the reason for the scarcity o those 'real life' conservative arguments. Could it be because they don't exist? Or is it because I have made a concerted effort to never listen to Sarah Palin?
They use RTK technology. It doesn't rely on the same data as GPS or dGPS. It isn't new techology. And it wouldn't matter if the DOD screwed with the dGPS signal.
What is new is just what the article talked about. They have found a way, through 6 years of developing the software, to use a cheap antennae to capture signals. Prior to the software development, cheap antennae couldn't be used because they allowed for too much signal degradation. Their solution is their software, which they have apparently perfected to the point where it can recognize and correct or mistakes caused by the antennae.
My understanding of RTK is that it isn't useful for navigation, but is very useful and accurate in obtaining your position(while not moving) This is because it relies on a base station in addition to the other receiver.
Who's piling up the bullshit? Two people in a row with the same answer. 'My watch has never gone below 30%.' You don't even bother to provide a time period over which your watch has never gotten below the magical 30% mark.
Here's what we can assume from your statement. ____ You haven't told anyone a thing. Like how long did it go without a charge? And more importantly, how many apps did you use and for how long? Because, again, you told us nothing. If you are just wearing it as a fashion statement, well I'm thinking you're in with about 90% of the purchasers. But that won't keep us from seeing bullshit clickbait articles about 'killer' apps for the watch. Oh, sorry, I guess I borrowed some of those words from you. But I've seen at least a dozen bullshit clickbait articles already spinning about the next 'killer' app for the watch. And I think about the next article I'll see about 'new rumors' about the iWatch 2. And '6 things you didn't know your iWatch could do'. In other words, when it comes to bullshit clickbait articles, most of the bullshit flows in one direction.
Well, besides the obvious new stuff allowing you to access multiple cell providers with no input from you, the main benefit I see here is the ability to recoup unused data. If you buy 2GB but only use 1.5GB, you get a refund of 5 bucks.
I don't know how much this would have save me through my years with Verizon, but it would have been significant since about 80 per cent of the time I don't use all the data on my plan and of that amount I would estimate it to average close to a gig a month.
If the cell providers that Google partnered with have any brains at all, the impact of this could be huge. It seems to me that it is in effect making Tmobile and Sprint one network and it doesn't take a genious to understand that, with just a little bit of foresight, this will allow them to dramatically expand their coverage while only making half the investment. . Using Google's technology they would no longer have to have competing towers.I'm sure Google understands the implications of it also and are hoping they do just that, thus allowing Google to utilize a network that could compete directly with Verizon and ATT.
Let's do some more math. All cell calls within a mile are intercepted and rerouted. I really don't give a hoot about this particular case, but how about giving us an educated guess as to how many 'innocent' cell phone calls are intercepted each and every day in each and every major city(and undoubtedly many mid and small sized cities as well) by not only the local PD but also any number of state and federal agencies.
Sorry, you can make this seem small with your math, but in reality this is probably a bigger threat to your privacy than anything the NSA does. Why? Because these individual machines(stingrays) are each given personal service. This isn't a vacumn cleaner approach, but something far more intrusive.
I've seen too many instances where local judges make decisions that run contrary(IMHO) to our Constitution. I remember a local case where the police stopped a vehicle, found 25lbs of pot and had the brilliant idea of using the vehicles GPS to try and figure out where the purchase was made. Hmm. It turns out that they raided the last stop made by the car with a search warrant issued by a local judge. That wasn't the problem. The problem was the location wasn't where the bad guys had made their purchase. Big problem? Not really. You see the judge had decided to issue a blanket search warrant for all the locations on the GPS. And that is the problem with the stingray. A search warrant for one cell phone is really a warrant for thousands of cell phones.
Is this freaking for real? First flight should be flying one of these drones, carrying a maximum payload, into a crash test dummy. Second test should be the drone 'accidently' dropping a maximum payload package and having it hit a crash test dummy. Third test should be what happens when the operator receives a text while operating a drone. Fourth test, well I really don't care because 400 ft and 100mph is a non starter for me. Sure, the planes flying above them will be safe but what about the rest of us?
Hey, I'm not against commercial drones. But I was watching a show on Pivot where they were using a $100,000 plus military style drone to try and capture some poachers. The person operating it was an experienced with time spent in Afghanistan flying military drones IIRC. The thing spent a lot more time being repaired after 'unplanned events' than it did in the air. No one was hurt but they were flying in a remote and largely uninhabited region. So yeah, I say let's make Amazon test these things to the max before they are allowed to unleash them into the 'wild'. If not, can anyone tell me the best guage and choke pattern to use?
Maybe I should spend some of my hundreds of millions playing presidential candidate. It was so cool being on Fox News. I mean, all my BFF's were so jealous. Oh the attention I'm getting is orgasmic...
Interesting comment that I would like to have some cites on. As you well know the only thing corrupting 'big government' is assholes on the right bringing 'big government' to its knees whenever an opportunity arises for 'big government' to make a difference. Of course I am referring to 'big government' as the US model. You know, the one where we have a bunch of red neck right wing wanna be good ol boys fucking up the country. You know the one. Where a Senator from a farm in the middle of a swamp in a state that rightfully has few citizens, has the same say as the one I voted for. You know the country. My Senator comes from a state with enormous population(the largest), enormous economy(largest) and yet has to sit and be brow beaten by Sen.Redneck.
Do I sound mad? You bet. Because we all know that this didn't happen by accident. Won't go into that whole thing. But what I will say is I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing the term 'big government' used in situation like the one you used it in that I could puke. You act as if we're fucking children. Like 'big government' is excluded from political events. You act as if we had a coherent energy plan in place in the US and as YOU DAMN WELL FUCKING KNOW WE DON'T. SO QUIT WITH THE 'BIG GOVERNMENT' PROGRAMS ARE A FAILURE BULLSHIT WHEN THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE FUCKING LACK OF A BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BIG INTERNATIONAL TREATY.
Yeah maybe. But actually no, you're wrong on both counts. They exist and they look good. I read about them months ago on the Budget Light Forum site(flashlight stuff mostly, but cover just about anything to do with LEDs).
Hey, look at this. Ali Express lists 4217 results for 'led filament bulb'. Guess this isn't really cutting edge news.
Because it is clear that the potential for abuse is so high that the longer we delay the better.
I say delay, because we're really only talking about the private sector. The government, law enforcement agencies, etc. are flying all the time. I'm sure with what we spend on black budget items that I can be viewed and heard day and night/in and out. Not saying anyone is, just know they can. And I sure as hell don't want private industries, particularly those who engage in advertising, being given the 'keys' to the garage. I can see the ads flying in already. "Dear homeowner. It's the right time of year to paint, mow, and generally just clean up. Recent photos suggest your home...."
And this is supposed to make us feel good? I would suggest that the use of Symantec products could, in some circumstances, be seen as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Just the other day they 'broke' the story about the big bank heist---and declined to identify the banks.
Now they have broke the story about the mother of all hacker groups. And guess what. They decline to identify them. We found 'em. But we're not telling you who.
Is this part in the linked article hilarious? "Using a C&C center, The Equation group comprises of over 300 domains and more than 100 servers hosted in countries including the US, UK, Panama and Colombia. Panama and Colombia? Yeah, hotbeds of foreign intrigue. Ha, ha. I think if I had found the servers set up in Panama and Colombia, it wouldn't be the NSA I'd be looking at. Let's see, what are there leading exports again? No, instead I think Kapersky is pulling some of this crap out of the proverbial crap hole. Sorry though. I can't specifically say it's Kapersky. But hey, everything seems to be pointing in one direction/or another, right?
Oh, and then there is this. "Disclaimer: Kaspersky Labs sponsored the trip to the Security Analyst Summit 2015."
I used to like Kapersky. But with names like GReAT(Global Research and Analysis Team) and research like this, I'm having serious doubts about where the PR ends and reality sets in. I guess if you want to believe what they're trying to sell, Kapersky is the greatest ever.
Boy what a freaking scam these security firms are engaged in these days. "Gee, we can tell you what happened but that million dollar 'hush' money payout they gave us precludes us from offering any REAL protection to everyone else.
"Google doesn't create immersive experiences that you get lost in," says Ben Thompson." Let's see, Facebook and Pinterest will take over because of their 'immersive experiences' such as video news feeds,etc. Wow, I guess reading Google news and/or viewing You Tube won't have the qualities that are involved in the immersive experience one will surely enjoy at Facebook?
"According to Thompson the future of online advertising looks increasingly like the business of television." I'm confused because I read a couple of reader comments that suggested Mr. Thompson is a deep thinker. Here's the thing to remember. Mr. Thompson repeatedly suggests that the advertising model used on TV is a highly successful one with a proven track record. This suggests to me that he firmly believes that most TV viewers pay attention to ads. I'll tell you what Mr Thompson. Why don't you launch a channel of your own(May i suggest calling it 'Reality check) and offer two ways to watch it. One with no ads, one with ads. That should feed you enough information to clearly show you something i think you already know. The effectiveness of TV advertising is a myth generated by the people gettting the ad money. I actually pay attention to ads once a year. Yep, Superbowl Sunday.
Finally another quote from Mr Thompson to support the poster idea about Google peak; "To me the Microsoft comparison can't be more clear. This is the price of being so successful — what you're seeing is that when a company becomes dominant, its dominance precludes it from dominating the next thing. It's almost like a natural law of business." Yet the poster and Mr Thompson are both certain that Facebook could become the dominant player in the digital advertising world that they see forming up. Which begs the question; Isn't Facebook already a dominant fixture in a certain category? Google dominates search. Who is king of the social network?
If the poster or any of the people cited by him believe that an equivalent of a full page magazine ad placed in a news blog or a 60 second ad placed in the middle of a video feed are going to be met with different reactions than the same ads in the print and televison world I can only say no, no they won't. They won't be welcomed, they won't be watched or read. Sure, the ad agencies can and already are painting a rosy picture. Who cares? The real world of advertising bears little resemblance to reality.
It's quite interesting that Google is the one that has the 'real' numbers. Yet they are portrayed as almost stumbling to their massive profits, with little insight or knowledge about advertising. No, they just got lucky.
In one of the articles the poster linked to the author states, ; "Relatedly, and as hinted above, both IBM and Microsoft were found to have abused their monopolies in an attempt to dominate application software and browsers respectively; it’s increasingly plausible to argue, as The Information has reported, that Google is doing the same with Android and its increasingly onerous requirements around the inclusion of Google’s services." Uh, except that in the case of Google there is one SLIGHT variation. Google isn't trying to force you to take their browser as Microsoft did. Just the opposite. They are simply saying if you are an OEM and want the Play Store or Google apps on the phone you are selling, you must abide by the terms we dictate. It seems pretty reasonable to me. After all, I don't believe this is any way inhibits an OEM from running Android.
Yeah , I always throw away my old phones. Wouldn't want to have backup phone in case the new phone was lost/stolen or broke. And the idea of selling or trading in a working phone is, I understand, limited to iPhone users only.
Slashdot Mirror
I see nothing in the form of facts to support virtually anything you claim. In fact you cite an article about 'defriending' which, in fact, supports the opposite view than what you express. Liberals defriend conservatives more often over political views. 13% more. What you conveniently left off your comment was the fact that liberals have many more conservative friends to start with than conservatives.
47% of conservatives said they only see conservative posts on Facebook. Only 32% of liberals say they see only liberal posts. So obviously, if you're a conservative you don't need to defriend as many people because you're not exposed to varying viewpoints nearly as much as liberals are. In other words, conservatives were 15% more likely to never view posts that didn't share their point of view. You tried to make it sound like liberals don't want to hear the other side. The truth, yes the truth is this. We at least listen more to the other side. Then we make our decision. Whereas your crowd has much more of a closed mindset and never listens to opposing views. Now do you get it? You don't need to defriend as many people because you're not listening to begin with if you are a conservative. Versus defriending based on listening. So who's throwing out the straw man? You make the claim that "If you de-friend someone (or large groups of someones), their stories are basically not going to be on your feed in the first place, and liberals have been shown to be more likely to de-friend conservatives". On first glance and second glance you are apparently trying to make it look like liberals never listen to the conservative argument. No,no my friend. You're going after the straw man. In reality, many more liberals than conservatives listen to opposing views and then they make a decision whether or not they will defriend someone. Conservatives actively avoid defriending by never listening in the first place! And irregardless of what your ideas are, it is liberals who listen more. And we like to read entire articles, not just home in on the 'facts' that support us.
The rest of your post is crap. Rehashing the same old tired song and dance. Trying to make it sound like liberals are the ones with closed minds. Oh yeah, we plod along listening to our heart instead of the facts. Refer to the above paragraphs again. We do listen. We listen for facts. Something not always in demand by your side apparently.
Here's a fact for you. Fox News coverage of global climate change was inaccurate in 72% of the segments covering it during 2013. MSNBC had only 8% of its segments contain inaccurate information. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...
To have so many people listen to what is an essentially misinformation campaign is pretty pathetic. And one wonders if that isn't the reason for the scarcity o those 'real life' conservative arguments. Could it be because they don't exist? Or is it because I have made a concerted effort to never listen to Sarah Palin?
They use RTK technology. It doesn't rely on the same data as GPS or dGPS. It isn't new techology. And it wouldn't matter if the DOD screwed with the dGPS signal.
What is new is just what the article talked about. They have found a way, through 6 years of developing the software, to use a cheap antennae to capture signals. Prior to the software development, cheap antennae couldn't be used because they allowed for too much signal degradation. Their solution is their software, which they have apparently perfected to the point where it can recognize and correct or mistakes caused by the antennae.
My understanding of RTK is that it isn't useful for navigation, but is very useful and accurate in obtaining your position(while not moving) This is because it relies on a base station in addition to the other receiver.
Who's piling up the bullshit? Two people in a row with the same answer. 'My watch has never gone below 30%.' You don't even bother to provide a time period over which your watch has never gotten below the magical 30% mark.
Here's what we can assume from your statement. ____
You haven't told anyone a thing. Like how long did it go without a charge? And more importantly, how many apps did you use and for how long? Because, again, you told us nothing. If you are just wearing it as a fashion statement, well I'm thinking you're in with about 90% of the purchasers. But that won't keep us from seeing bullshit clickbait articles about 'killer' apps for the watch. Oh, sorry, I guess I borrowed some of those words from you. But I've seen at least a dozen bullshit clickbait articles already spinning about the next 'killer' app for the watch. And I think about the next article I'll see about 'new rumors' about the iWatch 2. And '6 things you didn't know your iWatch could do'. In other words, when it comes to bullshit clickbait articles, most of the bullshit flows in one direction.
I'm pretty sure the board of directors would let her go, hell probably even pay her to go.
For campaign cash she could hold a private auction on eBay selling herself out to the highest bidder[s].
And her qualifications are at least as..
Go Meg.
Well, besides the obvious new stuff allowing you to access multiple cell providers with no input from you, the main benefit I see here is the ability to recoup unused data. If you buy 2GB but only use 1.5GB, you get a refund of 5 bucks.
I don't know how much this would have save me through my years with Verizon, but it would have been significant since about 80 per cent of the time I don't use all the data on my plan and of that amount I would estimate it to average close to a gig a month.
If the cell providers that Google partnered with have any brains at all, the impact of this could be huge. It seems to me that it is in effect making Tmobile and Sprint one network and it doesn't take a genious to understand that, with just a little bit of foresight, this will allow them to dramatically expand their coverage while only making half the investment. . Using Google's technology they would no longer have to have competing towers.I'm sure Google understands the implications of it also and are hoping they do just that, thus allowing Google to utilize a network that could compete directly with Verizon and ATT.
Let's do some more math. All cell calls within a mile are intercepted and rerouted. I really don't give a hoot about this particular case, but how about giving us an educated guess as to how many 'innocent' cell phone calls are intercepted each and every day in each and every major city(and undoubtedly many mid and small sized cities as well) by not only the local PD but also any number of state and federal agencies.
Sorry, you can make this seem small with your math, but in reality this is probably a bigger threat to your privacy than anything the NSA does. Why? Because these individual machines(stingrays) are each given personal service. This isn't a vacumn cleaner approach, but something far more intrusive.
I've seen too many instances where local judges make decisions that run contrary(IMHO) to our Constitution. I remember a local case where the police stopped a vehicle, found 25lbs of pot and had the brilliant idea of using the vehicles GPS to try and figure out where the purchase was made. Hmm. It turns out that they raided the last stop made by the car with a search warrant issued by a local judge. That wasn't the problem. The problem was the location wasn't where the bad guys had made their purchase. Big problem? Not really. You see the judge had decided to issue a blanket search warrant for all the locations on the GPS. And that is the problem with the stingray. A search warrant for one cell phone is really a warrant for thousands of cell phones.
I'm all for it. As a matter of fact, it makes my decision easy. I won't even have to read the proposed rules.
Is this freaking for real? First flight should be flying one of these drones, carrying a maximum payload, into a crash test dummy. Second test should be the drone 'accidently' dropping a maximum payload package and having it hit a crash test dummy. Third test should be what happens when the operator receives a text while operating a drone. Fourth test, well I really don't care because 400 ft and 100mph is a non starter for me. Sure, the planes flying above them will be safe but what about the rest of us?
Hey, I'm not against commercial drones. But I was watching a show on Pivot where they were using a $100,000 plus military style drone to try and capture some poachers. The person operating it was an experienced with time spent in Afghanistan flying military drones IIRC. The thing spent a lot more time being repaired after 'unplanned events' than it did in the air. No one was hurt but they were flying in a remote and largely uninhabited region. So yeah, I say let's make Amazon test these things to the max before they are allowed to unleash them into the 'wild'. If not, can anyone tell me the best guage and choke pattern to use?
Maybe I should spend some of my hundreds of millions playing presidential candidate. It was so cool being on Fox News. I mean, all my BFF's were so jealous.
Oh the attention I'm getting is orgasmic...
seems to play. Just kidding. I'm sure Sir Jon Paul engineered and designed everything, rounded edges and all. It does have rounded edges, right?
Thanks, don't understand the zero today mod.
Interesting comment that I would like to have some cites on. As you well know the only thing corrupting 'big government' is assholes on the right bringing 'big government' to its knees whenever an opportunity arises for 'big government' to make a difference. Of course I am referring to 'big government' as the US model. You know, the one where we have a bunch of red neck right wing wanna be good ol boys fucking up the country. You know the one. Where a Senator from a farm in the middle of a swamp in a state that rightfully has few citizens, has the same say as the one I voted for. You know the country. My Senator comes from a state with enormous population(the largest), enormous economy(largest) and yet has to sit and be brow beaten by Sen.Redneck.
Do I sound mad? You bet. Because we all know that this didn't happen by accident. Won't go into that whole thing. But what I will say is I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing the term 'big government' used in situation like the one you used it in that I could puke. You act as if we're fucking children. Like 'big government' is excluded from political events. You act as if we had a coherent energy plan in place in the US and as YOU DAMN WELL FUCKING KNOW WE DON'T. SO QUIT WITH THE 'BIG GOVERNMENT' PROGRAMS ARE A FAILURE BULLSHIT WHEN THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE FUCKING LACK OF A BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BIG INTERNATIONAL TREATY.
Yeah maybe. But actually no, you're wrong on both counts. They exist and they look good. I read about them months ago on the Budget Light Forum site(flashlight stuff mostly, but cover just about anything to do with LEDs).
Hey, look at this. Ali Express lists 4217 results for 'led filament bulb'. Guess this isn't really cutting edge news.
I meant to say what should happen to Led Zeppelin.
what could happen to Led Zeppelin.
The CEO of Moon Express said, "The MX-1 is the iPhone of space...".
I guess the contest is over. Who would've thunk it. Next big decision for them is how to work a small i into the company name.
Here come the killer ants. I bet the drones will be flying for sure. I wouldn't want to be sharing the sky with them. Birds beware.
Because it is clear that the potential for abuse is so high that the longer we delay the better.
I say delay, because we're really only talking about the private sector. The government, law enforcement agencies, etc. are flying all the time. I'm sure with what we spend on black budget items that I can be viewed and heard day and night/in and out. Not saying anyone is, just know they can. And I sure as hell don't want private industries, particularly those who engage in advertising, being given the 'keys' to the garage. I can see the ads flying in already. "Dear homeowner. It's the right time of year to paint, mow, and generally just clean up. Recent photos suggest your home...."
Sorry I seem to confuse Rodgers and Poindexter.
And this is supposed to make us feel good? I would suggest that the use of Symantec products could, in some circumstances, be seen as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Just the other day they 'broke' the story about the big bank heist---and declined to identify the banks.
Now they have broke the story about the mother of all hacker groups. And guess what. They decline to identify them. We found 'em. But we're not telling you who.
Is this part in the linked article hilarious? "Using a C&C center, The Equation group comprises of over 300 domains and more than 100 servers hosted in countries including the US, UK, Panama and Colombia. Panama and Colombia? Yeah, hotbeds of foreign intrigue. Ha, ha. I think if I had found the servers set up in Panama and Colombia, it wouldn't be the NSA I'd be looking at. Let's see, what are there leading exports again? No, instead I think Kapersky is pulling some of this crap out of the proverbial crap hole. Sorry though. I can't specifically say it's Kapersky. But hey, everything seems to be pointing in one direction/or another, right?
Oh, and then there is this. "Disclaimer: Kaspersky Labs sponsored the trip to the Security Analyst Summit 2015."
I used to like Kapersky. But with names like GReAT(Global Research and Analysis Team) and research like this, I'm having serious doubts about where the PR ends and reality sets in. I guess if you want to believe what they're trying to sell, Kapersky is the greatest ever.
Boy what a freaking scam these security firms are engaged in these days. "Gee, we can tell you what happened but that million dollar 'hush' money payout they gave us precludes us from offering any REAL protection to everyone else.
"Google doesn't create immersive experiences that you get lost in," says Ben Thompson." Let's see, Facebook and Pinterest will take over because of their 'immersive experiences' such as video news feeds,etc. Wow, I guess reading Google news and/or viewing You Tube won't have the qualities that are involved in the immersive experience one will surely enjoy at Facebook? "According to Thompson the future of online advertising looks increasingly like the business of television." I'm confused because I read a couple of reader comments that suggested Mr. Thompson is a deep thinker. Here's the thing to remember. Mr. Thompson repeatedly suggests that the advertising model used on TV is a highly successful one with a proven track record. This suggests to me that he firmly believes that most TV viewers pay attention to ads. I'll tell you what Mr Thompson. Why don't you launch a channel of your own(May i suggest calling it 'Reality check) and offer two ways to watch it. One with no ads, one with ads. That should feed you enough information to clearly show you something i think you already know. The effectiveness of TV advertising is a myth generated by the people gettting the ad money. I actually pay attention to ads once a year. Yep, Superbowl Sunday. Finally another quote from Mr Thompson to support the poster idea about Google peak; "To me the Microsoft comparison can't be more clear. This is the price of being so successful — what you're seeing is that when a company becomes dominant, its dominance precludes it from dominating the next thing. It's almost like a natural law of business." Yet the poster and Mr Thompson are both certain that Facebook could become the dominant player in the digital advertising world that they see forming up. Which begs the question; Isn't Facebook already a dominant fixture in a certain category? Google dominates search. Who is king of the social network? If the poster or any of the people cited by him believe that an equivalent of a full page magazine ad placed in a news blog or a 60 second ad placed in the middle of a video feed are going to be met with different reactions than the same ads in the print and televison world I can only say no, no they won't. They won't be welcomed, they won't be watched or read. Sure, the ad agencies can and already are painting a rosy picture. Who cares? The real world of advertising bears little resemblance to reality. It's quite interesting that Google is the one that has the 'real' numbers. Yet they are portrayed as almost stumbling to their massive profits, with little insight or knowledge about advertising. No, they just got lucky. In one of the articles the poster linked to the author states, ; "Relatedly, and as hinted above, both IBM and Microsoft were found to have abused their monopolies in an attempt to dominate application software and browsers respectively; it’s increasingly plausible to argue, as The Information has reported, that Google is doing the same with Android and its increasingly onerous requirements around the inclusion of Google’s services." Uh, except that in the case of Google there is one SLIGHT variation. Google isn't trying to force you to take their browser as Microsoft did. Just the opposite. They are simply saying if you are an OEM and want the Play Store or Google apps on the phone you are selling, you must abide by the terms we dictate. It seems pretty reasonable to me. After all, I don't believe this is any way inhibits an OEM from running Android.
Yes, they are such an admirable company. So, so much to admire.
Yeah , I always throw away my old phones. Wouldn't want to have backup phone in case the new phone was lost/stolen or broke. And the idea of selling or trading in a working phone is, I understand, limited to iPhone users only.