Disagree on your 'if a bill is denied twice then it should be permanently denied', since one can only imagine the politics that could be played with this. But you are correct - tagging bills together also leads to egregious behavior, witnessed here.
Bigger question - why does our government care so much about importing these cars anyway? If they are modded to fit the current EPA / safety standards, what's the big deal?
...if the they would fund Anonymizer for its own citizens? That way we wouldn't need to worry about those who are sniffing our trails under the guise of 'total information awareness' and the like, to protect us from the latest threat of terroris...
'50s >Little Richard or Pat Boone? '60s >Rolling Stones or Nancy Sinatra? '70s >Led Zeppelin or Leif Garrett? '80s >U2 or Flock of Seagulls? '90s >Counting Crows or Backstreet Boys?
Every decade has myriad groups / genres clamoring for 'popular' status. Some are discovered, some manufactured. For most people, listening to music is a diversion that helps them enjoy life a little more, and that's as much thought as they put into it. Those of us who become more invested in music are the ones [here and elsewhere] who can argue passionately about it.
My point: You can't define a decade as having more or less "valuable vs. vapid" music. I will grant that technological studio advancements do make it harder to separate the dross from the ore. But in the end, who cares? If a song defines or enhances your state of mind, then isn't it doing what it's supposed to do?
EVERYBODY wants their department seen as an 'investment' rather than 'cost center'. Why? Because cost centers are the first things to get cut. While it's refreshing to see someone mentioning IT as an investment [as opposed to marketing, HR, advertising, etc., which have all been written about], it's probably better to look at all departments as investments in the whole company.
In my experience, the relationships between departments are very symbiotic in successful companies, and if cuts are needed [to meet financial goals, etc.], it's looked at on a project basis rather than departmentally, e.g., the portion of each department's budget tied to a specific project goes away if the project is killed [not just IT or advertising or whatever].
Interesting aside...anyone notice that the Finance department is usually immune from this tag? I don't know if I've ever seen the pencil pushers called a cost center.
...logic would say you are right, with the exception that recording artists contracted with labels are considered 'Work for Hire' status [part of the Consumer Home Recording Act, or something of that ilk]. The company owns copyright to what the artist produces, but the artist only gets paid if/when it sells [less advances, etc., which come off the top of anything that sells]. There are more particulars, and I'm sure I'm missing some parts, but that's the gist.
The problem is that there are only a few big conglomerates that a promising artist can sign with to even have a chance to make a good living, and everybody has the same terms. An oligarchy.
Only the biggest artists can negotiate something different. Courtney Love likened it to sharecropping [I can't find the link to the speech, but it's out there], and it's a pretty good analogy, IMO.
...That she's speaking on behalf of a "Conservative Think Tank". Obviously, as all think tanks, she's espousing a view meant to sway public/gov't. opinion, but isn't it the conservatives who want government _out_ of peoples' private lives?
I find it amusing [in a sad sort of way] that the people I know who consider themselves conservative do so because they don't want "Big Government" in their lives, taxing them and the like. Until it comes to things like asserting a 'proper' [moral] code upon citizens or protecting their business interests [reproductive rights for women, same-sex partners, content TV/movies/the Internet, PATRIOT Act, interstate commerce, etc.], of course. Then they _want_ Big Brother there doing their dirty work.
investors whose strategy is to chart past trends and try to divine the future...and while some have had luck doing it that way, it isn't really a proven strategy [past performance is no indicator, blah blah].
Although I'm sure it will pick a few 'winners', it's doubtful that it will do it any better than an A&R rep. Seriously, you need a computer to tell you that n'Sync would be a hit, after hearing Backstreet Boys? [not that I like either, but a lot of teenyboppers did].
And it's been mentioned before here...how's the 'puter going to identify the next 'new thing' [which really is what drives incremental sales in this stale industry]? By analyzing Journey and Loverboy hits, would it have predicted Nirvana and Soundgarden?
I wonder how long this would be able to be measured accurately before marketers begin building blogs that tout a 'new' fad, to get noticed? Perhaps it'll become just another tool of viral marketing for the big folks?
I don't manage a domain, but monitor one of our company's [many] "public" email boxes. We used to get about 5 / 10 of these per day, until our admins installed a spam blocker [spaminator, IIRC?].
Anyway, no problems since then. My admin said that whoever was doing it most likely harvested the email account from our public site.
It's only page 1 of econ 101 stuff. I'm sure in your statistics classes, you learned about how to look at numbers in different ways. On a pure dollar basis, the rich pay the majority of taxes. But as a percentage of money they earn, it's much more even across income levels [IIRC, the NYT had an article on this recently, although I'm too lazy to look it up].
But even if you want to complain that you pay too much to live in the greatest country in the world, the 'rich' only make up 1% [or 5%, depending on your definition] of the population. So, let's go back to econ 101: We live in a service economy. To stimulate it, you don't give breaks to a small percentage of people [the ones who already have a level of disposable income, btw], you give it to a large percentage - those who don't have as much disposable income - so they can go to the movies, and go out to eat once in awhile, etc. Our economy thrives on large numbers of small consumer transactions, not the other way around.
You're making the wrong argument anyway. Tax cuts do not stimulate our economy...JOB SECURITY does. When people know their job is going to be there tomorrow, they are less concerned about putting something on the ol' credit card. That's why during the bubble [when everyone had tons of money, and infinite upside, remember?], the amount of personal debt was also higher than ever. Even those of us who weren't making the big bucks 'knew' we could pay off our debt tomorrow, because jobs were plentiful - a source of income was virtually guaranteed.
IANAL, but IIRC from my manager training...there are certain things that employer's CANNOT make as a requirement for employment [that's the EEOC stuff about race, religion, gender, ADA, etc.]. Aside from that, it's pretty much fair game - as long as they don't do any of the 'no-no's' on the list, they can make any stipulations they like.
But on the bright side, everything else is negotiable. Perhaps if, as a technology company, they are sensitive to issues of privacy / control / unreasonable requests [BSA, MSFT, etc.] you could get them to see your view that this is unreasonable. And, if you are really, really good at what you do, they could definitely waive the practice for you [since it's not a legal requirement anyway].
Or you could get them to agree to have your accountant certify your credit is in good standing [and they pay the accountant's fee]...or have them sign a waiver that they are liable for any breaches to your privacy as a result of their credit checks...certify for you in writing the specific people in the company who have seen your report...or that you get a signing bonus if they find your credit history to be good.
It's definitely telling you something about their culture...how they feel about an employee's personal information wrt their company. Maybe it's not for you, if you can afford to not take the job.
Unfortunately, it always seems that in down economies, the draconian policies come out.
I would argue that big music companies have much _more_ control over the radio than in the past, due to consolidation and indie promoters.
Rather than shopping a single around to multiple radio stations, Record company spends +$1MM per single in "promotion fees" to independent promoter, ==> Indy gives corporate behemoth-owned radio station free tickets, promotional van, anything else that glitters, ==> Radio station plays song incessantly.
I agree that listeners drive advertising. But it's probably a chicken/egg argument, though, because so few corporations own so many stations, there is really a limited choice for listeners. Which favors the few big record companies, which gives them a lot of control.
BTW, Clear Channel owns multiple stations in the same market. And they also own at least one indie radio promoter as well as concert venue promotions, which makes it really hard for the little record co.
I used to teach a speech course at a state university. It was pretty much the philosophy of the department that, although students' performance would typically fall in a bell curve type distribution, there was no need to force a bell curve...in other words, if the students gave good speeches - rather than gave _better_ speeches than their peers in class [which is the essence of a forced bell curve] - then they should receive a rewarding grade.
Which brings me to my second point... grading 'subjective' courses is, IMO, more difficult for the teacher because it brings in the element of personal bias, and typically helps to inflate grades the way the author mentions. I could give a multiple choice test, based on specific information given in lecture or textbooks, and grade accordingly. And the scores fell along a distribution curve [A-F]. But grading someone giving a speech was more difficult. For the ones who were more comfortable speaking in public, their initial grades on speeches may have been higher, but through the semester, the ones who improved the most also received better grades, because one of the goals of the course was to get people comfortable speaking in public. So it was more arbitrary.
In the less abstract courses that deal more in facts and numbers [chemistry, anatomy, calculus, etc.], it would seem to be more likely to have grades that approximated the curve.
I think you may be a little _too_ conspiratorial here. You don't think Metallica smiles at every kiddie guitarist who goes to Guitar Center on Saturday to play 'Enter Sandman' on a big amplifier? Those are the same fans that go to concerts, pay for the t-shirt, etc.
The issue the RIAA has with is recorded music [the "R" in the acronym]. Performing someone else's music live is completely legal [if unsponsored].
The only way you'd be 'taxed' is if you released your recording of someone else's song...which is a royalty payment. And btw, you're already taxed playing cover songs if you perform - the clubs [big ones anyway] send you a 1099 for taxes, and [IIRC] either the company hiring you or the venue itself has a license [ascap/bmi?], lest the local music union folks visit.
I am a guitarist, and I see this as an instrument more for recording than performing. As ProTools, Sonar, Acid and others have helped make studio recording easier [and less expensive], so will this.
But [as the article points out] unless you are a guitarist who performs using a lot of programmed material, it will not replace good old analog equipment. Typically, vacuum tube amplifiers actually preferred - and more expensive - than solid state / digital equipment because of their inherent 'warmth' and capability to saturate the sound when pushed. Same with analog recording vs. digital. Depending on the style of music you play, one may be preferable.
Also, MIDI music controllers are typically keyboards. Which means, as a guitarist, if you want to add other instruments to a recording, you use the keys...Which can be tough if you never had piano lessons.
It will also help [especially if the Magic network thingy becomes successful] for musicians to collaborate virtually, change pitch without changing tempo, etc. This will again reduce the time and effort required to produce a well-engineered composition. It will probably also do for music what other electronic instruments did [synthesizer, drum machine, loops, sequencers, etc.] - it won't replace analog, but give more options for sounds and composing [and therefore ideas].
BTW, there are already other companies [such as Line 6, Roland-partnered with Fender, etc.], who have already started the trend of using guitars as controller for electronic sounds.
Bands tour for exposure, there's not a ton of profit from concerts
Actually, it's the other way around in most cases...bands release albums [and get on the radio] for exposure, and make their money touring, selling t-shirts, etc. Any 'profits' they make from record sales are minimal, because they are last in line after the record company takes their cut and subtracts out recording advances, studio time, production, artwork, etc. etc. etc.
...but if a company does re-publish the work just before the copyright expires [even a small run, limited distribution], the copyright date is updated.
Essentially, a company can keep a copyright ad infinitum, as long as it keeps 're-releasing'. Doing this in a very small quantity has the effect of maintaining a hold on something, even if you are not using it, which reduces the overall availability [variety] of content in the public domain.
This isn't a bad idea conceptually, but what publisher would agree to it? It's the same crap that goes on in the music industry -- 'here are our terms, take it or leave it'.
Since all the major publishers have essentially the same terms, you've got an oligarchy that is unwilling to change. Until you have enough competition for an author's work [rare, indeed], the publishers won't be willing to negotiate.
The only way this would happen would be if legislators made copyright assignable only by original author, or something like that, but seeing who contributes to legislators, that isn't likely.
So, if you publish a book and don't run new printings for 20 years, the book goes into the public domain.
Isn't that what essentially happens today? To maintain copyright, publishers will reprint or re-release a small quantity of the work, to re-copyright it. They don't even have to distribute or sell it, really.
What makes me most sad about this is that even though there may have been an original 'good intention' [i.e., allowing Sonny Bono the ability to profit from his works over a longer period of time], Congress and SCOTUS have allowed the scales to again be tipped in favor of those with the big bucks, at the expense of society's access to content.
...wasn't copyright originally intended to protect the little guy?
The RFID will identify the product, not the user. Since it's put on there by the producer in the manufacturing process, it will have a whole bunch of information relating to the product [size, plain or peanut butter, etc.]. When it's scanned at the checkout will help the manufacturer track the speed in which things are being sold through the supply chain.
This helps the manufacturer and grocer a) plan shipments of additional product; b) identify regional markets and locations where products sell better than others; c) identify the efficiency of advertising and promotions w/r/t product sales; d) etc.
The supply chain [from manufacturer->wholesaler->retailer] has many steps, and advertising / promotion is very expensive...anything product manufacturers can do to reduce costs by being more efficient, they will.
They are less concerned about you and whether you litter.
...so 8e6 tested and found that 8e6 apps [two specifically named in the story] found Triangle Boy, when other filters didn't? Wow.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Functional vs. Graphic design
on
Built For Use
·
· Score: 1
I think one point many folks miss is that functional design and graphic design, while both valuable, are two different things.
Functional design [can I find info quickly, few mouse clicks, is it intuitive] is absolutely necessary. Graphic design [does it 'look' good] is helpful but should only add to the functional design experience.
Unfortunately, many marketers and designers in business today -- likely because they 'grew up' in print media -- think graphic first, functional second.
Slashdot Mirror
Disagree on your 'if a bill is denied twice then it should be permanently denied', since one can only imagine the politics that could be played with this. But you are correct - tagging bills together also leads to egregious behavior, witnessed here.
Bigger question - why does our government care so much about importing these cars anyway? If they are modded to fit the current EPA / safety standards, what's the big deal?
...if the they would fund Anonymizer for its own citizens? That way we wouldn't need to worry about those who are sniffing our trails under the guise of 'total information awareness' and the like, to protect us from the latest threat of terroris...
[sigh] oh, never mind.
Hmmm... As examples:
'50s
>Little Richard or Pat Boone?
'60s
>Rolling Stones or Nancy Sinatra?
'70s
>Led Zeppelin or Leif Garrett?
'80s
>U2 or Flock of Seagulls?
'90s
>Counting Crows or Backstreet Boys?
Every decade has myriad groups / genres clamoring for 'popular' status. Some are discovered, some manufactured. For most people, listening to music is a diversion that helps them enjoy life a little more, and that's as much thought as they put into it. Those of us who become more invested in music are the ones [here and elsewhere] who can argue passionately about it.
My point: You can't define a decade as having more or less "valuable vs. vapid" music. I will grant that technological studio advancements do make it harder to separate the dross from the ore. But in the end, who cares? If a song defines or enhances your state of mind, then isn't it doing what it's supposed to do?
EVERYBODY wants their department seen as an 'investment' rather than 'cost center'. Why? Because cost centers are the first things to get cut. While it's refreshing to see someone mentioning IT as an investment [as opposed to marketing, HR, advertising, etc., which have all been written about], it's probably better to look at all departments as investments in the whole company.
In my experience, the relationships between departments are very symbiotic in successful companies, and if cuts are needed [to meet financial goals, etc.], it's looked at on a project basis rather than departmentally, e.g., the portion of each department's budget tied to a specific project goes away if the project is killed [not just IT or advertising or whatever].
Interesting aside...anyone notice that the Finance department is usually immune from this tag? I don't know if I've ever seen the pencil pushers called a cost center.
hmmm...maybe I chose the wrong career.
...logic would say you are right, with the exception that recording artists contracted with labels are considered 'Work for Hire' status [part of the Consumer Home Recording Act, or something of that ilk]. The company owns copyright to what the artist produces, but the artist only gets paid if/when it sells [less advances, etc., which come off the top of anything that sells]. There are more particulars, and I'm sure I'm missing some parts, but that's the gist.
The problem is that there are only a few big conglomerates that a promising artist can sign with to even have a chance to make a good living, and everybody has the same terms. An oligarchy.
Only the biggest artists can negotiate something different. Courtney Love likened it to sharecropping [I can't find the link to the speech, but it's out there], and it's a pretty good analogy, IMO.
...That she's speaking on behalf of a "Conservative Think Tank". Obviously, as all think tanks, she's espousing a view meant to sway public/gov't. opinion, but isn't it the conservatives who want government _out_ of peoples' private lives?
I find it amusing [in a sad sort of way] that the people I know who consider themselves conservative do so because they don't want "Big Government" in their lives, taxing them and the like. Until it comes to things like asserting a 'proper' [moral] code upon citizens or protecting their business interests [reproductive rights for women, same-sex partners, content TV/movies/the Internet, PATRIOT Act, interstate commerce, etc.], of course. Then they _want_ Big Brother there doing their dirty work.
Ahh, the irony...
investors whose strategy is to chart past trends and try to divine the future...and while some have had luck doing it that way, it isn't really a proven strategy [past performance is no indicator, blah blah].
Although I'm sure it will pick a few 'winners', it's doubtful that it will do it any better than an A&R rep. Seriously, you need a computer to tell you that n'Sync would be a hit, after hearing Backstreet Boys? [not that I like either, but a lot of teenyboppers did].
And it's been mentioned before here...how's the 'puter going to identify the next 'new thing' [which really is what drives incremental sales in this stale industry]? By analyzing Journey and Loverboy hits, would it have predicted Nirvana and Soundgarden?
I wonder how long this would be able to be measured accurately before marketers begin building blogs that tout a 'new' fad, to get noticed? Perhaps it'll become just another tool of viral marketing for the big folks?
I don't manage a domain, but monitor one of our company's [many] "public" email boxes. We used to get about 5 / 10 of these per day, until our admins installed a spam blocker [spaminator, IIRC?].
Anyway, no problems since then. My admin said that whoever was doing it most likely harvested the email account from our public site.
HTH
It's only page 1 of econ 101 stuff. I'm sure in your statistics classes, you learned about how to look at numbers in different ways. On a pure dollar basis, the rich pay the majority of taxes. But as a percentage of money they earn, it's much more even across income levels [IIRC, the NYT had an article on this recently, although I'm too lazy to look it up].
But even if you want to complain that you pay too much to live in the greatest country in the world, the 'rich' only make up 1% [or 5%, depending on your definition] of the population. So, let's go back to econ 101: We live in a service economy. To stimulate it, you don't give breaks to a small percentage of people [the ones who already have a level of disposable income, btw], you give it to a large percentage - those who don't have as much disposable income - so they can go to the movies, and go out to eat once in awhile, etc. Our economy thrives on large numbers of small consumer transactions, not the other way around.
You're making the wrong argument anyway. Tax cuts do not stimulate our economy...JOB SECURITY does. When people know their job is going to be there tomorrow, they are less concerned about putting something on the ol' credit card. That's why during the bubble [when everyone had tons of money, and infinite upside, remember?], the amount of personal debt was also higher than ever. Even those of us who weren't making the big bucks 'knew' we could pay off our debt tomorrow, because jobs were plentiful - a source of income was virtually guaranteed.
IANAL, but IIRC from my manager training...there are certain things that employer's CANNOT make as a requirement for employment [that's the EEOC stuff about race, religion, gender, ADA, etc.]. Aside from that, it's pretty much fair game - as long as they don't do any of the 'no-no's' on the list, they can make any stipulations they like.
But on the bright side, everything else is negotiable. Perhaps if, as a technology company, they are sensitive to issues of privacy / control / unreasonable requests [BSA, MSFT, etc.] you could get them to see your view that this is unreasonable. And, if you are really, really good at what you do, they could definitely waive the practice for you [since it's not a legal requirement anyway].
Or you could get them to agree to have your accountant certify your credit is in good standing [and they pay the accountant's fee]...or have them sign a waiver that they are liable for any breaches to your privacy as a result of their credit checks...certify for you in writing the specific people in the company who have seen your report...or that you get a signing bonus if they find your credit history to be good.
It's definitely telling you something about their culture...how they feel about an employee's personal information wrt their company. Maybe it's not for you, if you can afford to not take the job.
Unfortunately, it always seems that in down economies, the draconian policies come out.
I would argue that big music companies have much _more_ control over the radio than in the past, due to consolidation and indie promoters.
Rather than shopping a single around to multiple radio stations, Record company spends +$1MM per single in "promotion fees" to independent promoter, ==> Indy gives corporate behemoth-owned radio station free tickets, promotional van, anything else that glitters, ==> Radio station plays song incessantly.
I agree that listeners drive advertising. But it's probably a chicken/egg argument, though, because so few corporations own so many stations, there is really a limited choice for listeners. Which favors the few big record companies, which gives them a lot of control.
BTW, Clear Channel owns multiple stations in the same market. And they also own at least one indie radio promoter as well as concert venue promotions, which makes it really hard for the little record co.
I used to teach a speech course at a state university. It was pretty much the philosophy of the department that, although students' performance would typically fall in a bell curve type distribution, there was no need to force a bell curve...in other words, if the students gave good speeches - rather than gave _better_ speeches than their peers in class [which is the essence of a forced bell curve] - then they should receive a rewarding grade.
Which brings me to my second point... grading 'subjective' courses is, IMO, more difficult for the teacher because it brings in the element of personal bias, and typically helps to inflate grades the way the author mentions. I could give a multiple choice test, based on specific information given in lecture or textbooks, and grade accordingly. And the scores fell along a distribution curve [A-F]. But grading someone giving a speech was more difficult. For the ones who were more comfortable speaking in public, their initial grades on speeches may have been higher, but through the semester, the ones who improved the most also received better grades, because one of the goals of the course was to get people comfortable speaking in public. So it was more arbitrary.
In the less abstract courses that deal more in facts and numbers [chemistry, anatomy, calculus, etc.], it would seem to be more likely to have grades that approximated the curve.
Right. My point was that, as a guitarist, it's easier to control with that instrument than one that may be [less] familiar.
I think you may be a little _too_ conspiratorial here. You don't think Metallica smiles at every kiddie guitarist who goes to Guitar Center on Saturday to play 'Enter Sandman' on a big amplifier? Those are the same fans that go to concerts, pay for the t-shirt, etc.
The issue the RIAA has with is recorded music [the "R" in the acronym]. Performing someone else's music live is completely legal [if unsponsored].
The only way you'd be 'taxed' is if you released your recording of someone else's song...which is a royalty payment. And btw, you're already taxed playing cover songs if you perform - the clubs [big ones anyway] send you a 1099 for taxes, and [IIRC] either the company hiring you or the venue itself has a license [ascap/bmi?], lest the local music union folks visit.
I am a guitarist, and I see this as an instrument more for recording than performing. As ProTools, Sonar, Acid and others have helped make studio recording easier [and less expensive], so will this.
But [as the article points out] unless you are a guitarist who performs using a lot of programmed material, it will not replace good old analog equipment. Typically, vacuum tube amplifiers actually preferred - and more expensive - than solid state / digital equipment because of their inherent 'warmth' and capability to saturate the sound when pushed. Same with analog recording vs. digital. Depending on the style of music you play, one may be preferable.
Also, MIDI music controllers are typically keyboards. Which means, as a guitarist, if you want to add other instruments to a recording, you use the keys...Which can be tough if you never had piano lessons.
It will also help [especially if the Magic network thingy becomes successful] for musicians to collaborate virtually, change pitch without changing tempo, etc. This will again reduce the time and effort required to produce a well-engineered composition. It will probably also do for music what other electronic instruments did [synthesizer, drum machine, loops, sequencers, etc.] - it won't replace analog, but give more options for sounds and composing [and therefore ideas].
BTW, there are already other companies [such as Line 6, Roland-partnered with Fender, etc.], who have already started the trend of using guitars as controller for electronic sounds.
...And how do you know a singer is at your front door?
He can't find the key, and he doesn't know when to come in.
(bump ba dump)
Actually, it's the other way around in most cases...bands release albums [and get on the radio] for exposure, and make their money touring, selling t-shirts, etc. Any 'profits' they make from record sales are minimal, because they are last in line after the record company takes their cut and subtracts out recording advances, studio time, production, artwork, etc. etc. etc.
...but if a company does re-publish the work just before the copyright expires [even a small run, limited distribution], the copyright date is updated.
Essentially, a company can keep a copyright ad infinitum, as long as it keeps 're-releasing'. Doing this in a very small quantity has the effect of maintaining a hold on something, even if you are not using it, which reduces the overall availability [variety] of content in the public domain.
This isn't a bad idea conceptually, but what publisher would agree to it? It's the same crap that goes on in the music industry -- 'here are our terms, take it or leave it'.
Since all the major publishers have essentially the same terms, you've got an oligarchy that is unwilling to change. Until you have enough competition for an author's work [rare, indeed], the publishers won't be willing to negotiate.
The only way this would happen would be if legislators made copyright assignable only by original author, or something like that, but seeing who contributes to legislators, that isn't likely.
Isn't that what essentially happens today? To maintain copyright, publishers will reprint or re-release a small quantity of the work, to re-copyright it. They don't even have to distribute or sell it, really.
What makes me most sad about this is that even though there may have been an original 'good intention' [i.e., allowing Sonny Bono the ability to profit from his works over a longer period of time], Congress and SCOTUS have allowed the scales to again be tipped in favor of those with the big bucks, at the expense of society's access to content.
The RFID will identify the product, not the user. Since it's put on there by the producer in the manufacturing process, it will have a whole bunch of information relating to the product [size, plain or peanut butter, etc.]. When it's scanned at the checkout will help the manufacturer track the speed in which things are being sold through the supply chain.
This helps the manufacturer and grocer a) plan shipments of additional product; b) identify regional markets and locations where products sell better than others; c) identify the efficiency of advertising and promotions w/r/t product sales; d) etc.
The supply chain [from manufacturer->wholesaler->retailer] has many steps, and advertising / promotion is very expensive...anything product manufacturers can do to reduce costs by being more efficient, they will.
They are less concerned about you and whether you litter.
for a hippy/hacker band.
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Honeypot Penetration Experience!
...so 8e6 tested and found that 8e6 apps [two specifically named in the story] found Triangle Boy, when other filters didn't? Wow.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
I think one point many folks miss is that functional design and graphic design, while both valuable, are two different things.
Functional design [can I find info quickly, few mouse clicks, is it intuitive] is absolutely necessary. Graphic design [does it 'look' good] is helpful but should only add to the functional design experience.
Unfortunately, many marketers and designers in business today -- likely because they 'grew up' in print media -- think graphic first, functional second.