I keep thinking I should pack a disposable in my backpack/glove compartment/office just for those special occassions where I wouldn't otherwise have a camera handy.
Good idea, in case you ever witness a car accident or crime.
Of course, that doesn't stop me from wanting one. This is just screaming "Hack Me!".
Perhaps they figure that no Japanese person would waste their time hacking a cheap disposable camera so that they can get low quality digital pictures for free.
How much time do you waste reloading film into standard disposable cameras, just to save a few bucks.
I agree that there may be a problem with people hacking them.
It is a simple matter to take apart a standard disposable camera and load new film into it, yet these are still on the market. Why would digital cameras be any different?
The average user isn't giong to bother with hacking into a sufficently cheap disposable product.
All true, but, surely there is a way to start a company without VC money.
It seems to me that the CEOs are just as culpable as the VCs. Both are looking to get rich quick. If the original posters CEO was willing to start small and build gradually, they might have survived.
I have absolutely no business discussing anything realted to EE but. . .
Doesn't the "scanning" aspect of the original poster's idea eliminate the need for an array of LEDs? In effect, wouldn't it be like waving your single keychain light around a larger than 4 square inch area, but fast enough so that you don't notice the motion?
Point taken. My only (remaining) quibble is that even when a company does focus on #2, it is all to easy for it to devolve into rationalizations of why what they are producing already IS what the consumer wants/needs, and thus further devolve into justifications for obnoxious advertising.
Essentially, the entire process becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, after which it is just a matter of getting the word out to consumers, through ads.
Granted, this is not the way that the process SHOULD work.
And yet when we look at these laptops with their lower power processors, there is VERY little added battery life, for the simple reason that the processor is not the major consumer of power in a notebook.
Just another chip manufacturer trying to hype it's product over features Cough*MHZ*Cough that do little for the average user.
Can you explain to my why, if it were possible, Slashdot shouldn't give you the boot?
Because the ads still appear on my screen, which is what the advertisers are paying Slashdot for.
. ..they are simply wasting their money serving you. Why shouldn't they cut you off?
Actually, they are wasting the advertisers money.
If you want to use resources free of charge, expect to pay for them by being exposed to advertisements. If you don't like the exposure, stop using the resource!
Slashdot is offered to the public, free of charge. There is no clause that says that you have to like or even look at the ads. There is nothing that says that you can't use some means like editing your hosts file to block them entirely. Advertisers pay anyway because they know that a small minority of users will click the ads and buy products.
I would gladly pay for an ad free Slashdot.
And just how many products have you bought through Slashdot banners? Not many (if any) I'll bet. So why shouln't you, or the thousands of other freeloaders get kicked off?
(Hint: if the number of posters dropped dramatically, the site would be less entertaining for users who do click on the ads.)
Advertising is simply the act of making information known. As such, my original criticism of Marketing stands. It is the research of means to convince people to buy products, period. Where it does not find demand, it seeks to create it by manipulation. As such, it is Marketing that is at the root of these obnoxious solicitations, not Advertising.
In the context of this discussion, to draw a distinction between Advertising and Marketing, as if Advertising were some distant cousin or rouge offshoot, is completely spurious.
However they should be disallowed to get coke.com because that should go to a random person not qualified for a.coke domain.
I think this could be resolved w/o resorting to company specific TLDs. Let's remeber, these TLDs are supposed to signify something (ahem, bizness?). Why not just enforce rules regarding the registration of existing TLDs:.com for commercial organizations;.net for networking organizations;.org for non-business organizations.
Why should Coke get to monopolize domains that clearly have nothing to do with their enterprise? They have no more claim to coca-cola.org or coca-cola.net than they do to coca-cola.edu or coca-cola.gov.
Honestly, cocacola.biz (for example) should legitimately go to them...
Automatically granting.biz domains to those that already control the equivalent.com domains defies the logic of introducing new TLDs in the first place.
But this is absolutely untrue. Advertizing is frequently about convincing people to buy things that they don't need, but
You both agreed with my point and contradicted yourself. Strange.
Believe it or not, I've actually been offered decent money by at least one company in exchange for my opinions. ..I know plenty of people in my profession who are offered free equipment in exchange for their opinions
Thanks so much for your unbiased contribution to this thread.
unless you live in a basic shack and buy only food to keep yourself alive then, I bet you buy things that you don't need on occassion.
Most of your argument is based on the assumption that we only need things that are necessary for survival. This, itself, assumes that basic survival is man's only necessity, and that everything else is just a lark.
In fact, there are many other things that I need, and I have no trouble finding them without prompting from advertisers. I can buy groceries without someone soliciting me every 5 feet. If I didn't know what a grocery store was, necessity would compel me to figure it out.
I have never once bought anything through a banner ad or pop-up. Yet, I still manage to assemble the trappings of modern life. As such, the money spent by countless advertisers trying to get my attention would have been better spent developing their products to a level of quality that would compel people to seek it out.
You are missing the point. The adjective "gonzo" modifies "porn" in the same way that it modifies "advertising" or anything else.
Thus, "gonzo porn" is to "tasteful erotica", as "gonzo advertising" is to "marketing information sent upon request", or as "gonzo volence" is to "frank portrayal of the occasional brutality of the human condition".
In order to do this, you have to sell something that people actually want. Unfortunately, most companies churn out crap that no-one wants or needs. These companies have little alternative to obnoxious, agressive marketing tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that cracking the means by which the data is protected from being retrieved for free would still be a violation of the DMCA.
I keep thinking I should pack a disposable in my backpack/glove compartment/office just for those special occassions where I wouldn't otherwise have a camera handy.
Good idea, in case you ever witness a car accident or crime.
Is Japan so far behind. . .?
Nice troll. I'll bite. . .
Of course, that doesn't stop me from wanting one. This is just screaming "Hack Me!".
Perhaps they figure that no Japanese person would waste their time hacking a cheap disposable camera so that they can get low quality digital pictures for free.
How much time do you waste reloading film into standard disposable cameras, just to save a few bucks.
I agree that there may be a problem with people hacking them.
It is a simple matter to take apart a standard disposable camera and load new film into it, yet these are still on the market. Why would digital cameras be any different?
The average user isn't giong to bother with hacking into a sufficently cheap disposable product.
My copy of 1984 has no mention of anal probing. Is this a situation similar to the abridging of Clockwork Orange in the US?
Why use IE??????? because its bloated too!
.
Maybe so, but it is installed and running by default (on Windows). Why waste even more resources on yet another piece of cumbersome software?
As far as Mozilla taking IEs marketshare, its simple. .
So, basically, they use the same manipulative and anti-competitive practices that M$ used to push IE.
And you thought it was a pain to take your hands off the keyboard to use the mouse!
All true, but, surely there is a way to start a company without VC money.
It seems to me that the CEOs are just as culpable as the VCs. Both are looking to get rich quick. If the original posters CEO was willing to start small and build gradually, they might have survived.
You forgot, "how to program in Perl."
I have absolutely no business discussing anything realted to EE but. . .
Doesn't the "scanning" aspect of the original poster's idea eliminate the need for an array of LEDs? In effect, wouldn't it be like waving your single keychain light around a larger than 4 square inch area, but fast enough so that you don't notice the motion?
A crappy looking site AND a pop-up. Thanks, for the heads up.
Point taken. My only (remaining) quibble is that even when a company does focus on #2, it is all to easy for it to devolve into rationalizations of why what they are producing already IS what the consumer wants/needs, and thus further devolve into justifications for obnoxious advertising.
Essentially, the entire process becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, after which it is just a matter of getting the word out to consumers, through ads.
Granted, this is not the way that the process SHOULD work.
And yet when we look at these laptops with their lower power processors, there is VERY little added battery life, for the simple reason that the processor is not the major consumer of power in a notebook.
Just another chip manufacturer trying to hype it's product over features Cough*MHZ*Cough that do little for the average user.
Can you explain to my why, if it were possible, Slashdot shouldn't give you the boot?
.they are simply wasting their money serving you. Why shouldn't they cut you off?
Because the ads still appear on my screen, which is what the advertisers are paying Slashdot for.
. .
Actually, they are wasting the advertisers money.
If you want to use resources free of charge, expect to pay for them by being exposed to advertisements. If you don't like the exposure, stop using the resource!
Slashdot is offered to the public, free of charge. There is no clause that says that you have to like or even look at the ads. There is nothing that says that you can't use some means like editing your hosts file to block them entirely. Advertisers pay anyway because they know that a small minority of users will click the ads and buy products.
I would gladly pay for an ad free Slashdot.
And just how many products have you bought through Slashdot banners? Not many (if any) I'll bet. So why shouln't you, or the thousands of other freeloaders get kicked off?
(Hint: if the number of posters dropped dramatically, the site would be less entertaining for users who do click on the ads.)
Advertising is simply the act of making information known. As such, my original criticism of Marketing stands. It is the research of means to convince people to buy products, period. Where it does not find demand, it seeks to create it by manipulation. As such, it is Marketing that is at the root of these obnoxious solicitations, not Advertising.
In the context of this discussion, to draw a distinction between Advertising and Marketing, as if Advertising were some distant cousin or rouge offshoot, is completely spurious.
However they should be disallowed to get coke.com because that should go to a random person not qualified for a .coke domain.
.com for commercial organizations; .net for networking organizations; .org for non-business organizations.
I think this could be resolved w/o resorting to company specific TLDs. Let's remeber, these TLDs are supposed to signify something (ahem, bizness?). Why not just enforce rules regarding the registration of existing TLDs:
Why should Coke get to monopolize domains that clearly have nothing to do with their enterprise? They have no more claim to coca-cola.org or coca-cola.net than they do to coca-cola.edu or coca-cola.gov.
Honestly, cocacola.biz (for example) should legitimately go to them...
.biz domains to those that already control the equivalent .com domains defies the logic of introducing new TLDs in the first place.
Automatically granting
First come first serve would have resulted in a bunch of idiots registering names and then selling them off.
As opposed to the idiots at NeuLevel?
They don't agree because I don't recognize this specious distinction.
But this is absolutely untrue. Advertizing is frequently about convincing people to buy things that they don't need, but
.I know plenty of people in my profession who are offered free equipment in exchange for their opinions
You both agreed with my point and contradicted yourself. Strange.
Believe it or not, I've actually been offered decent money by at least one company in exchange for my opinions. .
Thanks so much for your unbiased contribution to this thread.
Well I see you're a subscriptor to Adbusters.
Nope. Don't need it.
unless you live in a basic shack and buy only food to keep yourself alive then, I bet you buy things that you don't need on occassion.
Most of your argument is based on the assumption that we only need things that are necessary for survival. This, itself, assumes that basic survival is man's only necessity, and that everything else is just a lark.
In fact, there are many other things that I need, and I have no trouble finding them without prompting from advertisers. I can buy groceries without someone soliciting me every 5 feet. If I didn't know what a grocery store was, necessity would compel me to figure it out.
I have never once bought anything through a banner ad or pop-up. Yet, I still manage to assemble the trappings of modern life. As such, the money spent by countless advertisers trying to get my attention would have been better spent developing their products to a level of quality that would compel people to seek it out.
You are missing the point. The adjective "gonzo" modifies "porn" in the same way that it modifies "advertising" or anything else.
Thus, "gonzo porn" is to "tasteful erotica", as "gonzo advertising" is to "marketing information sent upon request", or as "gonzo volence" is to "frank portrayal of the occasional brutality of the human condition".
Course, if you also realize that 'gonzo' also is a method of filming low-budget porno, this book takes on a whole new meaning.
"Gonzo" is not a method of filming porn. It has no meaning specific to porn. It is just an adjective roughly equivalent to "outrageous" (gonzo).
In order to do this, you have to sell something that people actually want. Unfortunately, most companies churn out crap that no-one wants or needs. These companies have little alternative to obnoxious, agressive marketing tactics.
Please explain to me why, for all of this research and data mining, these companies have not been able to divine the simplest of truths:
I don't want any of their crap, and I don't want to see and ads for their crap.
Marketing is not about selling people the things they want. Marketing is about convincing people to buy things that they don't need!