MS essentially completes the ad run and then shelves the campaign.
It's hard to say when a campaign is actually successful. They might be ads that people like but if they're not ads that get people to buy the product, then they're failures. Remember the Taco Bell Chihuaha? That was one of the most memorable campaigns in history, but Taco Bell was losing sales during the course of that campaign so it was pulled.
I'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit.
But the government and big companies believe in the same thing - that is businesses are allowed to operate freely and without any restrictions, the money will trickle down to the working class. The government creates these loopholes so huge corporations can take advantage of them and then buy into the government to create more loopholes, ad infinitum.
Well, maybe you should go troll somewhere else. There are tons of apps with "inappropriate" language and even nudie pictures that are on the app store. There are a lot of reasons for that app you spoke of to be rejected but seeing the word penis was not one of them.
Again, $5000 bucks on a 38 min film is just paying for bare expenses on stuff that can't be gotten for free - such as the materials for the costumes and props, and it took years to create because it was a labor of love in-between paying jobs. This is not a viable business model for an industry.
For all the talk about "Hollywood accounting" I find it just as disingenuous when all of these indie shorts come out claiming ridiculously small budgets. Yes, he might have spent $300 out of pocket for some snacks or something for the crew... but the crew worked for free, the cast worked for free, he didn't pay anything for filming on the street (which in most metropolitcan areas in the US he'd have to get a permit and insurance for), the cost of the camera and equipment wasn't included, and most importantly the hundreds of hours he spent creating those visual effects weren't included either. This really gives people a warped sense of scale of how time consuming and work-intensive a production is - especially on here with everyone claiming this is the death of Hollywood. Just like the open source adage - Open Source is free only if your time is worthless... This movie cost $300 bucks only if everyone's time on it was worthless. This is why Sam Raimi didn't say "Oh, you did this for $300 bucks and it's 5 minutes long? That means you could make a 90 minute film for $5400 bucks. Here you go, kid, go nuts."
You don't need $100 million to make a film anymore, but you do need the millions of dollars Hollywood has in order to get a film seen. They own all the sources of distribution. You want your movie seen in 1000 screens nationwide with a worldwide release? You have to go through them. I know some people will talk about online distribution and YouTube and such, but look at this video. At the moment it has 1,535,618 views, which isn't a lot by Hollywood standards and worldwide standards, and ALL of those views aren't from paying customers. Even at $300 bucks, this guy would not have gotten his money back on the film had Hollywood not offered him a deal. On top of that, the easier it becomes for everybody to make movies, the easier it becomes for everybody to make LOTS of BAD movies. The cream of the crop will be drowned out in a sea of mediocrity - which is exactly what YouTube is now. I'd go so far as to say that YouTube has decreased the quality of independent films. Now, everybody who wants to get their stuff out and be seen by the masses has to pander to an audience that wants funny 10 second clips of pandas sneezing (46,748,716 views) or cats playing on a keyboard (4,497,166 views but MANY rehashes). I have a lot of friends in the effects and indie film industry and all of them have had conversations on how to become the next YouTube sensation, and all of their ideas have suffered in the process. Art dictated by the masses, in my opinion and experience, is a helluva lot worse than art dictated by uncreative studio execs.
If anyone has studied history, they'd realize that they're 1 person in the billions who have existed, and only a very, VERY small fraction of people throughout the entire history of the world have had their privacy infringed in the manner the poster is talking about. The general rule, historically speaking, is that nobody gives a crap what you're searching for and you probably think you're more important in the grand scheme of things than you really are.
Yeah, humans of course couldn't have any effect on climate change whatsoever. A huge industrial complex shooting massive amount of CO2 and various other chemicals has been going on for thousands of years - ever since Fred Flinstone slid down his dinosaur/crane after the end of his long workday.
Google might be an advertisement company and not a search company, but they created and implemented the whole concept of unobtrusive text ads. Remember what the web was like before Google ads (and AdBlock)? You couldn't type in a url without a dozen pop-ups or a punch the monkey game. Can anyone really envision Microsoft or any other advertising company making ads LESS obtrusive if Google hadn't done so first?
Have you looked at the size of multi-national corporations recently? They get bigger and bigger ever year. They have profit margins that rival that of decent sized nations. It's only natural that government, too, gets bigger in correlation to the corporations. This happens for 2 reasons. Corporations pour millions of dollars into buying legislation from the government - the result being the government gets bigger and more complicated. In this case, it's also easier to deal with a single governmental entity, such as the Federal government, as opposed to dozens of smaller entities like local state governments.
The complete reverse is also true - politicians with "socialist" tendencies need to create entities - such as the post office, educational system, and public option health plan - that have the ability to compete with corporations (which are getting bigger). This again results in government getting bigger and more complicated. Governments growing world-wide is the result more of globalization than any personal, political side.
Your info will never be given to government agencies.
If the government wants to get into the match-making industry, more power to 'em!
Seriously, do you really think that anybody cares about your DNA information that much as to hack into this site? There's really nothing that your DNA can be used for that criminals or the government would even want it for at this point. You can't even perform identity theft with it! Is there really a large black market for this information? If someone really wanted your DNA, I'm sure they could get a good sample by going through your trash or other means. If the government starts collecting DNA from everybody, do you really think they're gonna go through a dating service as opposed to actually getting it from your doctor or from mandatory screenings? If we come to that point, you've already got bigger problems than this site giving up your information. So really, what could possibly go wrong here other than you going on a couple of crappy dates because DNA might not be a viable matchmaking opportunity?
It wasn't too long ago when the dangers of smoking or fast food weren't made aware to everybody. Some smoking ads advertised the health benefits of smoking. It's because of government intervention and regulation that you have the information you currently have, and are fully aware you're destroying your lungs and will most likely die of cancer far earlier than you would have otherwise by smoking. What makes the FDA looking into the dangers of smoking any different than the FDA looking into the dangers of caffeine mixed with alcohol? Do you trust your friendly, neighborhood, multinational alcohol corporation that much as to have them advise you of the health risks of the drinks they're trying to sell you? Making your own mistakes are one thing... having information about my health being deliberately hidden so that some corporation can make a few million dollars off of killing me is another thing altogether.
That's probably a better version of the future than what we have in the present, seeing as how the number of alcohol related deaths is significantly higher than the number of marijuana related deaths.
Well, if google street view takes photos of your hiking trail, maybe I'll just spend an afternoon walking through it online instead of bumping into you.
As always, it's up to the developer and publisher to decide how much gameplay and what features to give you at what price. It's up to the consumer to either purchase it or not based on if they think they're getting a good value for their money. In every single game in existence, there were dozens of features and additions that the developer wanted to put in but either ran out of time or didn't have the resources. There are also thousands of other games that wanted to put in more than they could and were shelved in the process, never to be seen again. When you purchase a game, you should be purchasing the game and not what "could have been" the game had all of the features the developer thought of made it in. Otherwise, Peter Molyneux would be in a world of lawsuits for promising a helluva lot more than he can chew.
In addition, there is no standard for what should be included and how much time should be spent in a game. Some games you could finish in 6 hours and don't have any multiplayer aspect to keep you playing (Heavenly Sword). Other games take 80 hours to beat (Final Fantasy). Still others you could play indefinitely or until the server runs dry (Counter Strike). All of those are priced at 40 - 60 bucks (when released), irrelevant of how much actual gameplay you're getting.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Look, the guy probably died from lung cancer or some other complication that resulted from smoking. The dangers of smoking are well known, even and especially to smokers. Give the grieving family member a break for putting in an anti-smoking message into the write-up. You might think smoking is great and gets you through the day, but if you leave this world due to some smoking complication, I doubt the grieving members of your family that you leave behind are going to give a crap about the roads you helped build with a couple bucks in tobacco taxes seeing as how you're no longer with them.
Amazing how many haters there are of education, seeing as how this forum is supposed to be for educated people. Yes yes, you were bored in school and it was too easy, woe is you. For the rest of the people, the current school system works a lot better than no system. It seems that Obama is taking a cue from the evidence given in The Outliers. Our school system is based on an agrarian society where kids needed to be home to work the fields in the summer so we have an extended summer vacation. The studies outlined in the book have shown that kids of all backgrounds advance similarly in reading comprehension during the school year. It is only during summer vacation that poorer kids start falling behind because they aren't encouraged to read in their homes, as opposed to children from wealthier parents who continue to encourage their children's education outside of class. As the write-up said, we don't need longer school days, we need a longer school year. If that's what Obama's proposing, then it should be encouraged.
And just like air conditioning, DLC is extra. You don't need an extra map or 2 to enjoy the game. Your purchased copy will run perfectly 100% fine and you could always go through the complete campaign which is still usually around 15 - 30 hours of gameplay. DLC adds a little more to that if you're finished with the game and don't want to wait till the sequel to have new content. This content isn't free to produce, and is an added value on top of what you've already paid. Saying that without the DLC, the game is broken in any way or missing features is being very disingenuous.
I really like their site and have used it for a number of questions in the past, so I'm happy they're branching out and using their engine to generate revenue. Isn't what they're asking, though, a bit too much? The minimum price point is $130 a month! When there are a dozen open source CMS packages, and countless other sites charging nothing or very little for monthly fees for similar functionality, I can't imagine someone using Stack's engine at that price.
Slashdot Mirror
MS essentially completes the ad run and then shelves the campaign.
It's hard to say when a campaign is actually successful. They might be ads that people like but if they're not ads that get people to buy the product, then they're failures. Remember the Taco Bell Chihuaha? That was one of the most memorable campaigns in history, but Taco Bell was losing sales during the course of that campaign so it was pulled.
And it's made in flash.
You Only Live Once
I'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit.
But the government and big companies believe in the same thing - that is businesses are allowed to operate freely and without any restrictions, the money will trickle down to the working class. The government creates these loopholes so huge corporations can take advantage of them and then buy into the government to create more loopholes, ad infinitum.
Also, smaller retailers need to have a SINGLE (not 50) payment destinations (a central clearinghouse for this)
Someone could make a pretty penny starting a company that does such a thing...
Well, maybe you should go troll somewhere else. There are tons of apps with "inappropriate" language and even nudie pictures that are on the app store. There are a lot of reasons for that app you spoke of to be rejected but seeing the word penis was not one of them.
Again, $5000 bucks on a 38 min film is just paying for bare expenses on stuff that can't be gotten for free - such as the materials for the costumes and props, and it took years to create because it was a labor of love in-between paying jobs. This is not a viable business model for an industry.
For all the talk about "Hollywood accounting" I find it just as disingenuous when all of these indie shorts come out claiming ridiculously small budgets. Yes, he might have spent $300 out of pocket for some snacks or something for the crew... but the crew worked for free, the cast worked for free, he didn't pay anything for filming on the street (which in most metropolitcan areas in the US he'd have to get a permit and insurance for), the cost of the camera and equipment wasn't included, and most importantly the hundreds of hours he spent creating those visual effects weren't included either. This really gives people a warped sense of scale of how time consuming and work-intensive a production is - especially on here with everyone claiming this is the death of Hollywood. Just like the open source adage - Open Source is free only if your time is worthless... This movie cost $300 bucks only if everyone's time on it was worthless. This is why Sam Raimi didn't say "Oh, you did this for $300 bucks and it's 5 minutes long? That means you could make a 90 minute film for $5400 bucks. Here you go, kid, go nuts."
You don't need $100 million to make a film anymore, but you do need the millions of dollars Hollywood has in order to get a film seen. They own all the sources of distribution. You want your movie seen in 1000 screens nationwide with a worldwide release? You have to go through them. I know some people will talk about online distribution and YouTube and such, but look at this video. At the moment it has 1,535,618 views, which isn't a lot by Hollywood standards and worldwide standards, and ALL of those views aren't from paying customers. Even at $300 bucks, this guy would not have gotten his money back on the film had Hollywood not offered him a deal. On top of that, the easier it becomes for everybody to make movies, the easier it becomes for everybody to make LOTS of BAD movies. The cream of the crop will be drowned out in a sea of mediocrity - which is exactly what YouTube is now. I'd go so far as to say that YouTube has decreased the quality of independent films. Now, everybody who wants to get their stuff out and be seen by the masses has to pander to an audience that wants funny 10 second clips of pandas sneezing (46,748,716 views) or cats playing on a keyboard (4,497,166 views but MANY rehashes). I have a lot of friends in the effects and indie film industry and all of them have had conversations on how to become the next YouTube sensation, and all of their ideas have suffered in the process. Art dictated by the masses, in my opinion and experience, is a helluva lot worse than art dictated by uncreative studio execs.
If anyone has studied history, they'd realize that they're 1 person in the billions who have existed, and only a very, VERY small fraction of people throughout the entire history of the world have had their privacy infringed in the manner the poster is talking about. The general rule, historically speaking, is that nobody gives a crap what you're searching for and you probably think you're more important in the grand scheme of things than you really are.
Yeah, humans of course couldn't have any effect on climate change whatsoever. A huge industrial complex shooting massive amount of CO2 and various other chemicals has been going on for thousands of years - ever since Fred Flinstone slid down his dinosaur/crane after the end of his long workday.
diverting attention to Catholicism, trying to lend legitimacy to Scientology as a religion?
I think the posts diverting attention to Catholicism are trying more to discredit Catholicism by comparing it to a cult than the other way around.
Google might be an advertisement company and not a search company, but they created and implemented the whole concept of unobtrusive text ads. Remember what the web was like before Google ads (and AdBlock)? You couldn't type in a url without a dozen pop-ups or a punch the monkey game. Can anyone really envision Microsoft or any other advertising company making ads LESS obtrusive if Google hadn't done so first?
Have you looked at the size of multi-national corporations recently? They get bigger and bigger ever year. They have profit margins that rival that of decent sized nations. It's only natural that government, too, gets bigger in correlation to the corporations. This happens for 2 reasons. Corporations pour millions of dollars into buying legislation from the government - the result being the government gets bigger and more complicated. In this case, it's also easier to deal with a single governmental entity, such as the Federal government, as opposed to dozens of smaller entities like local state governments.
The complete reverse is also true - politicians with "socialist" tendencies need to create entities - such as the post office, educational system, and public option health plan - that have the ability to compete with corporations (which are getting bigger). This again results in government getting bigger and more complicated. Governments growing world-wide is the result more of globalization than any personal, political side.
Your info will never be given to government agencies.
If the government wants to get into the match-making industry, more power to 'em!
Seriously, do you really think that anybody cares about your DNA information that much as to hack into this site? There's really nothing that your DNA can be used for that criminals or the government would even want it for at this point. You can't even perform identity theft with it! Is there really a large black market for this information? If someone really wanted your DNA, I'm sure they could get a good sample by going through your trash or other means. If the government starts collecting DNA from everybody, do you really think they're gonna go through a dating service as opposed to actually getting it from your doctor or from mandatory screenings? If we come to that point, you've already got bigger problems than this site giving up your information. So really, what could possibly go wrong here other than you going on a couple of crappy dates because DNA might not be a viable matchmaking opportunity?
It wasn't too long ago when the dangers of smoking or fast food weren't made aware to everybody. Some smoking ads advertised the health benefits of smoking. It's because of government intervention and regulation that you have the information you currently have, and are fully aware you're destroying your lungs and will most likely die of cancer far earlier than you would have otherwise by smoking. What makes the FDA looking into the dangers of smoking any different than the FDA looking into the dangers of caffeine mixed with alcohol? Do you trust your friendly, neighborhood, multinational alcohol corporation that much as to have them advise you of the health risks of the drinks they're trying to sell you? Making your own mistakes are one thing... having information about my health being deliberately hidden so that some corporation can make a few million dollars off of killing me is another thing altogether.
That's probably a better version of the future than what we have in the present, seeing as how the number of alcohol related deaths is significantly higher than the number of marijuana related deaths.
The pirates have stolen all the good ideas. That's why Hollywood keeps going after them.
But he makes one helluva mean commercial.
Well, if google street view takes photos of your hiking trail, maybe I'll just spend an afternoon walking through it online instead of bumping into you.
Basically, it's the difference between buying American vs German.
As always, it's up to the developer and publisher to decide how much gameplay and what features to give you at what price. It's up to the consumer to either purchase it or not based on if they think they're getting a good value for their money. In every single game in existence, there were dozens of features and additions that the developer wanted to put in but either ran out of time or didn't have the resources. There are also thousands of other games that wanted to put in more than they could and were shelved in the process, never to be seen again. When you purchase a game, you should be purchasing the game and not what "could have been" the game had all of the features the developer thought of made it in. Otherwise, Peter Molyneux would be in a world of lawsuits for promising a helluva lot more than he can chew.
In addition, there is no standard for what should be included and how much time should be spent in a game. Some games you could finish in 6 hours and don't have any multiplayer aspect to keep you playing (Heavenly Sword). Other games take 80 hours to beat (Final Fantasy). Still others you could play indefinitely or until the server runs dry (Counter Strike). All of those are priced at 40 - 60 bucks (when released), irrelevant of how much actual gameplay you're getting.
Look, the guy probably died from lung cancer or some other complication that resulted from smoking. The dangers of smoking are well known, even and especially to smokers. Give the grieving family member a break for putting in an anti-smoking message into the write-up. You might think smoking is great and gets you through the day, but if you leave this world due to some smoking complication, I doubt the grieving members of your family that you leave behind are going to give a crap about the roads you helped build with a couple bucks in tobacco taxes seeing as how you're no longer with them.
Amazing how many haters there are of education, seeing as how this forum is supposed to be for educated people. Yes yes, you were bored in school and it was too easy, woe is you. For the rest of the people, the current school system works a lot better than no system. It seems that Obama is taking a cue from the evidence given in The Outliers. Our school system is based on an agrarian society where kids needed to be home to work the fields in the summer so we have an extended summer vacation. The studies outlined in the book have shown that kids of all backgrounds advance similarly in reading comprehension during the school year. It is only during summer vacation that poorer kids start falling behind because they aren't encouraged to read in their homes, as opposed to children from wealthier parents who continue to encourage their children's education outside of class. As the write-up said, we don't need longer school days, we need a longer school year. If that's what Obama's proposing, then it should be encouraged.
And just like air conditioning, DLC is extra. You don't need an extra map or 2 to enjoy the game. Your purchased copy will run perfectly 100% fine and you could always go through the complete campaign which is still usually around 15 - 30 hours of gameplay. DLC adds a little more to that if you're finished with the game and don't want to wait till the sequel to have new content. This content isn't free to produce, and is an added value on top of what you've already paid. Saying that without the DLC, the game is broken in any way or missing features is being very disingenuous.
I really like their site and have used it for a number of questions in the past, so I'm happy they're branching out and using their engine to generate revenue. Isn't what they're asking, though, a bit too much? The minimum price point is $130 a month! When there are a dozen open source CMS packages, and countless other sites charging nothing or very little for monthly fees for similar functionality, I can't imagine someone using Stack's engine at that price.