Earlier this month, Fox said it will offer viewers of its shows on Hulu the option to watch a 30-second interactive ad instead of a typical 2 1/2-minute commercial break.
Ads that are better at interrupting the flow of attention an audience, that's exactly what we wanted.
Fox says the shorter ads, which require viewers to engage with them online, are more effective because they guarantee the audience's full attention.
This Fox executive is a bit late. They may have guaranteed the audience's full attention, at the very beginning, but now they've just trained the audience to mindlessly click through them, or go else where for their show. That's the problem when you're just copying someone else's idea. It's hardly novel or effective by the time you do the same yourself.
And besides who watches Hulu anymore? I used to love Hulu when it first began, but Hulu is pretty much useless now.
In my 30's? Check. Born in Cali? Check. Born at home? Check! I escaped this one thanks to the awful experience my parents had at the hospital with my brother.
You didn't escape anything.
If they have your brother's dna on file, then they're just one brother away from identifying your dna.
It is indeed bs. This developer has a super low threshold for what he considers to be a threat.
If you don't fix it in 24 hours (because maybe you have a real life or a family or you're sick or any number of other very valid reasons) then the threats start.
"Well if you're not going to take this seriously, we'll have to start using another project."
So what? It's not like his project can satisfy everyone. Also, it's not like he's going to lose any revenue as a result of this action.
If he wants to talk about real threats, then he should try publishing a mobile app on an app store. There, the users are absolutely ruthless. And it doesn't matter if the app is paid, or free, or open source, or proprietary, or painted pink, or whatever... If your app has a feature (that some users consider to be missing), users will not only uninstall your app right away, but they'll also rate your application only one star until their particular feature request gets implemented.
And such reviews don't get posted 24 hours after the fact, they get posted within a few seconds or a few minutes of having tried your app (and in some cases, they even get posted within a few seconds of having read the app's description because the description and the screenshots themselves may be able to show the user what features the app has).
And when this happens to you, you don't start making sweeping generalizations about open source vs. proprietary software. The fact is, the more popular your app is, the bigger the sample size of users it's going to have, and the bigger the sample size of users it's going to have, the more you'll have to read through negative reviews posted by self-centered users. That's just a fact of life for developers. And if you don't have the stomach to read those user reviews, may be you should consider doing like in South Park, and have someone censor negative email messages, negative tweets, and negative user reviews before any of them reach you.
Shenzhen, China is the capital of the world for making electronics. It actually makes perfect sense that we see hardware-based crowd-sourced projects from that city.
Bringing a non-trivial hardware consumer product, at a reasonable price, to market is hard. It's a lot harder than software.
And yet even in Canada, the designation "Sanitary Engineer", meaning janitor, and the designations "Software Engineer" or "Train Engineer", are still common place.
So as long as those people don't abbreviate their title and don't refer themselves as simply Engineers, then they should be fine. The same goes for "Software Architect". In some jurisdictions, the term "architect" is protected as well, but as long as a "Software Architect" doesn't drop the qualifier "Software" from his title and doesn't start thinking that this term "Software Architect" qualifies him from formally designing buildings in real life, then he should be fine also.
From a company/CEO that endorses SOPA (despite its retraction after the boycott), Gitmo/water boarding (despite the later change after the public outcry), and goes out of its way to help law enforcement cease assets against its own customers without even a court order.
Putting sensors everywhere in the street to surveil passers-by seems like a perfect continuation of the same fascist big brother government-knows-better mindset. I'm not sure changing the CEO is going to change anything about the company itself, except may be get a CEO that is better at keeping his mouth shut (than the last one).
In my community, there were fliers left on every door requesting that people not hand out candy from their homes due to concerns about children with dietary restrictions and "safety."
Hospital finally admits bill was in error but sorry they sold it to the bill collector so not their problem and the damn bill collector ain't gonna stop calling
You need to learn your rights and visit the Federal Trade Commission's web site.
Of course, even once you learn your rights, don't expect them to listen to you. You may need to put it in writing and send the bill collector a registered letter.
That editorial summary tried to blame the business, but it did a piss poor job of it. Had the editor actually read the article, then they would have gotten great ammo from it.
The fact is. That business didn't notify any of the affected customers when it found out about the breach. And two, there seems to be anecdotal evidence that this information is out there, even if it's incomplete, and that scammers have been using the little bit of information they do have to get the rest through social engineering.
In other words, there seems to be no incentive in the UK to disclose security breaches of financial details to its affected customers.
Even in Europe, I've seen pictures of x-rays and medical records in medical textbooks.
Surely, all those textbooks are not all breaking the law, there must be some kind of way to maintain the privacy of people.
Like I don't know, may be deleting the name of the patient and any other identifying information like the day and the month of their birth. Or may be, asking those patients to sign a release form. It's not like a dentist is going to showcase the work of his unsuccessful procedures. He will mostly likely only ask the patients that had successful procedures and that are extremely grateful to him/her.
In most cases, employees are banned from calling 911 to reduce the chances of false alarms that would generate callouts.
I don't believe you.
Whenever I've needed 911 at work, I've always called 911 first, then alerted security. It's always been the right call, even where the policy is to do it the other way.
Please name your employer where that was the case, where they banned you from calling 911, and they didn't have EMTs on-site. Any employer that would do this in this day and age would be exposing itself a ton of liability.
Having internal EMTs in large complexes like Amazon's is often government-mandated. Those EMTs are there for a reason. And that's because their response time is going to be so much faster than external EMTs.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know for sure, but I believe the pilots are supposed to *only* use the certified avionics systems in the aircraft
No, it's also important that they're able to make these kinds of calculations before they enter the cockpit as well.
...they use iPads even though they're really, really, really not supposed to.
iPads are not the problem. It's the fact that they didn't double check those results through another method that is really the problem.
Earlier this month, Fox said it will offer viewers of its shows on Hulu the option to watch a 30-second interactive ad instead of a typical 2 1/2-minute commercial break.
Ads that are better at interrupting the flow of attention an audience, that's exactly what we wanted.
Fox says the shorter ads, which require viewers to engage with them online, are more effective because they guarantee the audience's full attention.
This Fox executive is a bit late. They may have guaranteed the audience's full attention, at the very beginning, but now they've just trained the audience to mindlessly click through them, or go else where for their show. That's the problem when you're just copying someone else's idea. It's hardly novel or effective by the time you do the same yourself.
And besides who watches Hulu anymore? I used to love Hulu when it first began, but Hulu is pretty much useless now.
In my 30's? Check.
Born in Cali? Check.
Born at home? Check! I escaped this one thanks to the awful experience my parents had at the hospital with my brother.
You didn't escape anything.
If they have your brother's dna on file, then they're just one brother away from identifying your dna.
and you know it's just a cheap disposable digital watch when there is no way to replace its battery.
The people that scream the loudest about it, are of course the ones abusing the system and hastening its demise...
The false promise of "unlimited" data hurts everyone, not just the people that are using the most.
As consumers, we can't make educated choices about ISPs if they are allowed to continually oversubscribe and bait and switch customers
It is indeed bs. This developer has a super low threshold for what he considers to be a threat.
If you don't fix it in 24 hours (because maybe you have a real life or a family or you're sick or any number of other very valid reasons) then the threats start.
"Well if you're not going to take this seriously, we'll have to start using another project."
So what? It's not like his project can satisfy everyone. Also, it's not like he's going to lose any revenue as a result of this action.
If he wants to talk about real threats, then he should try publishing a mobile app on an app store. There, the users are absolutely ruthless. And it doesn't matter if the app is paid, or free, or open source, or proprietary, or painted pink, or whatever... If your app has a feature (that some users consider to be missing), users will not only uninstall your app right away, but they'll also rate your application only one star until their particular feature request gets implemented.
And such reviews don't get posted 24 hours after the fact, they get posted within a few seconds or a few minutes of having tried your app (and in some cases, they even get posted within a few seconds of having read the app's description because the description and the screenshots themselves may be able to show the user what features the app has).
And when this happens to you, you don't start making sweeping generalizations about open source vs. proprietary software. The fact is, the more popular your app is, the bigger the sample size of users it's going to have, and the bigger the sample size of users it's going to have, the more you'll have to read through negative reviews posted by self-centered users. That's just a fact of life for developers. And if you don't have the stomach to read those user reviews, may be you should consider doing like in South Park, and have someone censor negative email messages, negative tweets, and negative user reviews before any of them reach you.
Shenzhen, China is the capital of the world for making electronics. It actually makes perfect sense that we see hardware-based crowd-sourced projects from that city.
Bringing a non-trivial hardware consumer product, at a reasonable price, to market is hard. It's a lot harder than software.
And yet even in Canada, the designation "Sanitary Engineer", meaning janitor, and the designations "Software Engineer" or "Train Engineer", are still common place.
So as long as those people don't abbreviate their title and don't refer themselves as simply Engineers, then they should be fine. The same goes for "Software Architect". In some jurisdictions, the term "architect" is protected as well, but as long as a "Software Architect" doesn't drop the qualifier "Software" from his title and doesn't start thinking that this term "Software Architect" qualifies him from formally designing buildings in real life, then he should be fine also.
Sorry. My bad.
"help law enforcement seize assets against its own customers"
From a company/CEO that endorses SOPA (despite its retraction after the boycott), Gitmo/water boarding (despite the later change after the public outcry), and goes out of its way to help law enforcement cease assets against its own customers without even a court order.
Putting sensors everywhere in the street to surveil passers-by seems like a perfect continuation of the same fascist big brother government-knows-better mindset. I'm not sure changing the CEO is going to change anything about the company itself, except may be get a CEO that is better at keeping his mouth shut (than the last one).
I would have been really impressed had they managed to install OS X or Windows through this manner.
They probably didn't want to be classified as malicious.
In my community, there were fliers left on every door requesting that people not hand out candy from their homes due to concerns about children with dietary restrictions and "safety."
Hopefully, not everyone obeyed that flyer.
Trust me we did all that except small claims court.
No, you didn't. From your own description, you did all that except contact the debt collector.
I keep getting robo calls from debt collectors for a student loan that predates my birth.
Pre-birth education is cool. Your fetus must have been hell of smart.
Hospital finally admits bill was in error but sorry they sold it to the bill collector so not their problem and the damn bill collector ain't gonna stop calling
You need to learn your rights and visit the Federal Trade Commission's web site.
Of course, even once you learn your rights, don't expect them to listen to you. You may need to put it in writing and send the bill collector a registered letter.
Yes, the FedEx drivers sued too, and they actually won. They're no longer contractors.
Hacksaw blades? For crying out loud, what century is this again?
Drugs, you can stuff in your orifices, but hacksaw blades, not so much.
That editorial summary tried to blame the business, but it did a piss poor job of it. Had the editor actually read the article, then they would have gotten great ammo from it.
The fact is. That business didn't notify any of the affected customers when it found out about the breach. And two, there seems to be anecdotal evidence that this information is out there, even if it's incomplete, and that scammers have been using the little bit of information they do have to get the rest through social engineering.
In other words, there seems to be no incentive in the UK to disclose security breaches of financial details to its affected customers.
They give kids no homework, they insist kids go to bed early, eat big breakfasts, and dedicate themselves to taking the tests.
A teacher's union would never say that. That's a straw man argument.
Teachers know that television, computer games, and the internet, are the number one reason many kids are not getting enough sleep.
Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because Sony might have taken an exclusive license.
That is no excuse.
If he didn't have the information, he should have waited until he did.
And the original copyright holder is just too nice. He should have charged Sony the amount Sony would have charged him for copyright infringement.
You're not good at math Gorbachev.
$0 times 100 is still $0. He was licensing those visuals for free.
Even in Europe, I've seen pictures of x-rays and medical records in medical textbooks.
Surely, all those textbooks are not all breaking the law, there must be some kind of way to maintain the privacy of people.
Like I don't know, may be deleting the name of the patient and any other identifying information like the day and the month of their birth. Or may be, asking those patients to sign a release form. It's not like a dentist is going to showcase the work of his unsuccessful procedures. He will mostly likely only ask the patients that had successful procedures and that are extremely grateful to him/her.
In most cases, employees are banned from calling 911 to reduce the chances of false alarms that would generate callouts.
I don't believe you.
Whenever I've needed 911 at work, I've always called 911 first, then alerted security. It's always been the right call, even where the policy is to do it the other way.
Please name your employer where that was the case, where they banned you from calling 911, and they didn't have EMTs on-site. Any employer that would do this in this day and age would be exposing itself a ton of liability.
Having internal EMTs in large complexes like Amazon's is often government-mandated. Those EMTs are there for a reason. And that's because their response time is going to be so much faster than external EMTs.
911 first, always.
Don't be stupid.
If you've been trained to call security first, ask them why during that training. During training, they can answer all the questions you want.
If corporate has EMTs on staff 2 minutes away, and you bypass them, you could be killing the person you're trying to rescue.
You should get an Android TV then. The indexed content of all those apps is available through one search box (or one voice search).