They don't want to use targeted ads because targeted ads generally need to sell something useful - something that has a utility related to the site it is being advertised on.
1,000 free smileys and monkey-punching giveaways don't really relate to anything.
Their products are crap so they have to make up for it with blinky and annoying advertising.
I'm not the first to say it, but I can't help but chiming in.
For the love of god, this doesn't need treatment. It may be a little harder on the parents but that doesn't warrant trying to break a child's head. WTF are these parents thinking?
Would these same parents give their flat-chested daughters breast implants, or send their gay sons to military school? It's all the same: trying to force their child to conform.
ADHD and the like often lead to people that are beautifully creative in adulthood. That is, if they aren't programmed to suppress their individuality.
Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable
Ha! I doubt Adobe is spending much money on Photoshop R&D. The program is finished, basically. The only features they've been adding for the last little while - text on a path, layer sets, layer sets within layer sets, scaling layer effects - are all features that have been obvious for many versions and that users have been screaming for.
All Adobe is doing now is slowly adding obvious features that should have been there many versions ago. Some, like non-square pixels, seem particularly glaring but others, such as text on a path, are more underhanded.
And if you think this is a new trend, think of the hundred layer limit. The only reason the limit ever existed was to increase sales of the next version. So lame.
The problem is a lack of highly educated workers willing to work for the minimum wage or lower
However there is no lack of CEOs willing to work for hundreds of times the entry level wage at their own companies.
An educated worker can barely live off of minimum wage, much less pay back the student loans required to get such an education. Asking them to work for minimum wage is not just insulting, it's morally reprehensible. These corporations should be boycotted, if a boycott large enough to affect them could be organized.
These companies are also eliminating the chance of a technical worker to climb the corporate ladder. They aren't going to promote an Indian worker to any job outside of India. So even more of the company's decisions will be made by people with commerce educations and not technical ones.
I hope that in the long run this kills these companies off. Of course, I also hope this doesn't continue for long enough for there to even be a long run.
However I can readily supply evidence that quality has dropped and that history hasn't clouded our minds: the Beatles.
When a band is widely regarded as the best band ever, yet still the highest selling band by RIAA's own admission, you say that music quality is a constant? That band alone, with 150% the sales of the number two slot (who is also a great band of days past, Led Zeppelin) is, mathmatically, a very convincing argument that music quality is dropping.
The problem with music quality is that record companies have realised that they don't need good bands to stick around like they used to. All they need is a constant supply of one hit wonders or one album wonders and they're laughing. They're laughing even harder because they don't have to renegotiate contracts more favourable to successful artists!
The lack of quality music being put out by the majors is a problem in more ways than one. With the Internet their strategy of pumping and dumping artists falls apart because they've trained all their consumers to go for the quick fix - singles they hear on the radio or MTV. Where consumers used to buy a whole album so they could listen to all the gems that the radio wouldn't play kids nowadays don't care for anything besides the latest chart-topper. Even if they have tried buying a few albums they've learned it isn't really worth it because the non-single tracks are poor. The internet offers a cheaper alternative to addict-like consumers that have no concept of brand loyalty.
Suing the people interested in your product will never be a good idea. You won't scare them into buying your music, you'll only scare them away. And with the Internet that is becoming increasingly viable. Whereas non-RIAA music used to be difficult to obtain, now it's just as easy to find as any other music on the Internet. And this will only get easier.
The real solution isn't online stores like iTunes although they're a good idea that will certainly help. If RIAA members would market brand loyalty and respect for physically owning new things CD prices would rise. This is similar to used cars, or even budget cars like KIA: why do so many people buy new cars when used cars are so readily available at greatly reduced cost? You may think it's for convenience, or reliability, but that's only because the automakers' marketting is so pervasive. If you've ever tried dealing with a few car salesmen you might notice there is little convenience to be had in buying a car that way.
If the RIAA members were flexible enough to change their business strategy they would have no problems dealing with digital copying. But they are not. They don't realise that letting kids build up an addiction to possessing hundreds of songs would translate into massive sales when they become adults. They're trying to hold on to an outdated business model. And they're ignoring that tenant of business: supply and demand. Supply is currently high. They must use marketing to compensate and increase demand.
It costs a lot to make movies when you have to cover the $20 million given to Arnold Schwarzenegger five times for movies that still lost money. It also costs a lot of money to continue letting Kevin Costner make big budget flops. If the movie industry stopped making obviously poor choices then it wouldn't be so bad.
But even still, you can't complain about prices when you pay the same amount to see the ultra-low budget Blair Witch and the ultra-high budget Phantom Menace in the same summer?
The reason restaurants don't do this isn't because customers would be confused, it's because it would cost too much! They would need enough employees to hold everything and a constant supply of everything on the menu.
However, if they did do this customers would be very happy: instead of picturing what your food might look like you could see exactly! And of course if it was an actual plate of food right there, well, they could probably just give it to you. Then you get to order with more accuracy and get your food immediately. Sounds great.
This really makes me angry. I avoided joining SOCAN and have released all my music over the internet free of SOCAN. Most of it has been played in the States anyways, where I'm also free of the RIAA and such.
It's cost me a lot of potential money as well. One morning radioshow played my song very frequently they told me, and that I would be getting royalties for it. However since I don't belong to the proper Unions and such I didn't see a dime.
I must admit though, with stunts like this and SOCAN's other anti-piracy initiative, the levy on all blank media, it's getting worse here instead of better.
Well, a working patent system would work as you described, but currently the patent system isn't working.
In your scenario the current patent system would allow the company to patent the invention themselves, regardless of whether the inventor already has a patent. Then the company can sue the inventor for violating their patent. Even if the inventor might eventually win in court the amount of money needed to do so virtually guarantees that the company that stole his idea will be able to do so as well as stop anyone else from making a similar product.
But if there is no patent system then the inventor is free to sell his invention himself or pitch it to any number of other companies, even after the first company has already stole the idea.
My feelings on this are simple: do it right or don't do it at all.
If the government can't create a system that approves patents corrently then there should be no approval process at all, and thus, no patents at all. It would be better to let the market protect innovators, however weak the protection, than to let a flawed patent office allow innovators to be harmed by those that would exploit the flaws.
I'd bet that the reason most women have such different tastes in games isn't because they're female and think all that much different but because they haven't been the target of gaming promotions and thus haven't done as much videogaming.
When I was a kid that's all my friends and I wanted to do. My sister, on the other hand, wasn't interested. So now I've got a decade or so general gaming experience and she has relatively none. If she decides to start playing games now she'll want games that are more simple and easy. For one thing she hasn't developed the hand coordination that I have and thus most games will be beyond her abilities.
When you watch an experienced player do something complex such as advanced tricks in ssx or tony hawk the hand control they need is equivelent to playing chords on a guitar. I should know, I also play guitar. This isn't the sort of thing you can pick up in a single afternoon, or even a few days.
Once more girls do some serious gaming they'll quickly become acclimated to more complex games. This means that young girls of today will become advanced gamers soon. The real question is will they also become desensitized to violence as their male equivelents have?
Ya, viruses. That's likely when the carts aren't on the internet.
And even if they did get a virus - by magic maybe? - I highly doubt it would alter the cart to compel you to buy a certain brand. I think it would do the most annoying thing possible - probably something involving expletives and extremely irritating noises. Think babies crying.
A smart marketter would recognise this as a terrific opportunity to get a leg up on the competition. Very often the most recognized brand is the first one. If Mozilla gets a powerful brand at the start then they're one step ahead of IE7 when it eventually comes out.
However IE is very much so branded. That versy simple lower case e and world hybrid icon equates to "Internet" for most users. I've watched so many confused friends search for it on my computer when I've removed it altogether from my start menu. They ignore the internet link at the top of the start menu because it's a flame and not a little globe.
A great example of a new browser brand is Apple's Safari. It's still round and blue so that users feel comfortable with it representing a web browser, however it's distinctive enough to build a brand on. Mozilla could only hope for something that good.
I'm a web developer. This is the last think I need. Microsoft has done some questionable things but this is not one of them.
The Eolas guy has tried to sound like he's a pro open software activist but all this is hurting is my industry. I'll probably have to say goodbye to Flash, Quicktime, Real, etc.
However, what if that guy who can't fight was a security guard? Maybe he's not armed, or armed with a gun known to jam frequently. Perhaps his bullet proof vest has just been recalled. Sure it's still morally reprehensible to exploit any of his weaknesses but shouldn't he be as well equiped as possible?
Now, what if instead of a security guard he was a regular employee with all access to sensitive data? And instead of a company, he worked at the Pentagon? Shouldn't he be protected by the best security guards and systems possible?
This is where Valve is to blame. They did not provide the most current and available security measures to their employees. This is especially gratuitous since the Outlook patches are available free of charge, unlike upgraded vests and weapons!
Biology: first documented case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck species. Links and pictures are available from the official Web site, linked above.
And just why did you think we'd like to see actual pictures of said necrophilia?
If their compensation is already earned then they have less motivation to find a job their client will like. If the employee quits after just one month because they couldn't stand the job the headhunter still gets to keep their money.
However if they're being payed a portion of money earned at the new job it is in their best interests to find a job that the employee is likely to stay at for a year.
Slashdot Mirror
Think my Windows box will be upset when it knows how much I hate it?"
Like a parot born with tentacles, I think it would understand.
They don't want to use targeted ads because targeted ads generally need to sell something useful - something that has a utility related to the site it is being advertised on.
1,000 free smileys and monkey-punching giveaways don't really relate to anything.
Their products are crap so they have to make up for it with blinky and annoying advertising.
How can we trust TheForce.net? Aren't they owned by Lucas?
Wouldn't that make them highly filtered by Lucas' cronies?
Seems like looking to ABC for Disney spoilers.
I'm not the first to say it, but I can't help but chiming in.
For the love of god, this doesn't need treatment. It may be a little harder on the parents but that doesn't warrant trying to break a child's head. WTF are these parents thinking?
Would these same parents give their flat-chested daughters breast implants, or send their gay sons to military school? It's all the same: trying to force their child to conform.
ADHD and the like often lead to people that are beautifully creative in adulthood. That is, if they aren't programmed to suppress their individuality.
Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable
Ha! I doubt Adobe is spending much money on Photoshop R&D. The program is finished, basically. The only features they've been adding for the last little while - text on a path, layer sets, layer sets within layer sets, scaling layer effects - are all features that have been obvious for many versions and that users have been screaming for.
All Adobe is doing now is slowly adding obvious features that should have been there many versions ago. Some, like non-square pixels, seem particularly glaring but others, such as text on a path, are more underhanded.
And if you think this is a new trend, think of the hundred layer limit. The only reason the limit ever existed was to increase sales of the next version. So lame.
I feel sorry for the guy, even if he did break the law.
For those of you with an interest in his career, here is the relevant IMDB link. I can't place him myself, perhaps someone could find a picture?
The problem is a lack of highly educated workers willing to work for the minimum wage or lower
However there is no lack of CEOs willing to work for hundreds of times the entry level wage at their own companies.
An educated worker can barely live off of minimum wage, much less pay back the student loans required to get such an education. Asking them to work for minimum wage is not just insulting, it's morally reprehensible. These corporations should be boycotted, if a boycott large enough to affect them could be organized.
These companies are also eliminating the chance of a technical worker to climb the corporate ladder. They aren't going to promote an Indian worker to any job outside of India. So even more of the company's decisions will be made by people with commerce educations and not technical ones.
I hope that in the long run this kills these companies off. Of course, I also hope this doesn't continue for long enough for there to even be a long run.
Bullshit. I'd like to see your proof of that.
However I can readily supply evidence that quality has dropped and that history hasn't clouded our minds: the Beatles.
When a band is widely regarded as the best band ever, yet still the highest selling band by RIAA's own admission, you say that music quality is a constant? That band alone, with 150% the sales of the number two slot (who is also a great band of days past, Led Zeppelin) is, mathmatically, a very convincing argument that music quality is dropping.
The problem with music quality is that record companies have realised that they don't need good bands to stick around like they used to. All they need is a constant supply of one hit wonders or one album wonders and they're laughing. They're laughing even harder because they don't have to renegotiate contracts more favourable to successful artists!
The lack of quality music being put out by the majors is a problem in more ways than one. With the Internet their strategy of pumping and dumping artists falls apart because they've trained all their consumers to go for the quick fix - singles they hear on the radio or MTV. Where consumers used to buy a whole album so they could listen to all the gems that the radio wouldn't play kids nowadays don't care for anything besides the latest chart-topper. Even if they have tried buying a few albums they've learned it isn't really worth it because the non-single tracks are poor. The internet offers a cheaper alternative to addict-like consumers that have no concept of brand loyalty.
Suing the people interested in your product will never be a good idea. You won't scare them into buying your music, you'll only scare them away. And with the Internet that is becoming increasingly viable. Whereas non-RIAA music used to be difficult to obtain, now it's just as easy to find as any other music on the Internet. And this will only get easier.
The real solution isn't online stores like iTunes although they're a good idea that will certainly help. If RIAA members would market brand loyalty and respect for physically owning new things CD prices would rise. This is similar to used cars, or even budget cars like KIA: why do so many people buy new cars when used cars are so readily available at greatly reduced cost? You may think it's for convenience, or reliability, but that's only because the automakers' marketting is so pervasive. If you've ever tried dealing with a few car salesmen you might notice there is little convenience to be had in buying a car that way.
If the RIAA members were flexible enough to change their business strategy they would have no problems dealing with digital copying. But they are not. They don't realise that letting kids build up an addiction to possessing hundreds of songs would translate into massive sales when they become adults. They're trying to hold on to an outdated business model. And they're ignoring that tenant of business: supply and demand. Supply is currently high. They must use marketing to compensate and increase demand.
It costs a lot to make movies when you have to cover the $20 million given to Arnold Schwarzenegger five times for movies that still lost money. It also costs a lot of money to continue letting Kevin Costner make big budget flops. If the movie industry stopped making obviously poor choices then it wouldn't be so bad.
But even still, you can't complain about prices when you pay the same amount to see the ultra-low budget Blair Witch and the ultra-high budget Phantom Menace in the same summer?
The reason restaurants don't do this isn't because customers would be confused, it's because it would cost too much! They would need enough employees to hold everything and a constant supply of everything on the menu.
However, if they did do this customers would be very happy: instead of picturing what your food might look like you could see exactly! And of course if it was an actual plate of food right there, well, they could probably just give it to you. Then you get to order with more accuracy and get your food immediately. Sounds great.
But the light is the color of money!
This really makes me angry. I avoided joining SOCAN and have released all my music over the internet free of SOCAN. Most of it has been played in the States anyways, where I'm also free of the RIAA and such.
It's cost me a lot of potential money as well. One morning radioshow played my song very frequently they told me, and that I would be getting royalties for it. However since I don't belong to the proper Unions and such I didn't see a dime.
I must admit though, with stunts like this and SOCAN's other anti-piracy initiative, the levy on all blank media, it's getting worse here instead of better.
I'm feeling more American every day.
Well, a working patent system would work as you described, but currently the patent system isn't working.
In your scenario the current patent system would allow the company to patent the invention themselves, regardless of whether the inventor already has a patent. Then the company can sue the inventor for violating their patent. Even if the inventor might eventually win in court the amount of money needed to do so virtually guarantees that the company that stole his idea will be able to do so as well as stop anyone else from making a similar product.
But if there is no patent system then the inventor is free to sell his invention himself or pitch it to any number of other companies, even after the first company has already stole the idea.
My feelings on this are simple: do it right or don't do it at all.
If the government can't create a system that approves patents corrently then there should be no approval process at all, and thus, no patents at all. It would be better to let the market protect innovators, however weak the protection, than to let a flawed patent office allow innovators to be harmed by those that would exploit the flaws.
No, It's actually Ex-Windows.
I'd bet that the reason most women have such different tastes in games isn't because they're female and think all that much different but because they haven't been the target of gaming promotions and thus haven't done as much videogaming.
When I was a kid that's all my friends and I wanted to do. My sister, on the other hand, wasn't interested. So now I've got a decade or so general gaming experience and she has relatively none. If she decides to start playing games now she'll want games that are more simple and easy. For one thing she hasn't developed the hand coordination that I have and thus most games will be beyond her abilities.
When you watch an experienced player do something complex such as advanced tricks in ssx or tony hawk the hand control they need is equivelent to playing chords on a guitar. I should know, I also play guitar. This isn't the sort of thing you can pick up in a single afternoon, or even a few days.
Once more girls do some serious gaming they'll quickly become acclimated to more complex games. This means that young girls of today will become advanced gamers soon. The real question is will they also become desensitized to violence as their male equivelents have?
Ya, viruses. That's likely when the carts aren't on the internet.
And even if they did get a virus - by magic maybe? - I highly doubt it would alter the cart to compel you to buy a certain brand. I think it would do the most annoying thing possible - probably something involving expletives and extremely irritating noises. Think babies crying.
A smart marketter would recognise this as a terrific opportunity to get a leg up on the competition. Very often the most recognized brand is the first one. If Mozilla gets a powerful brand at the start then they're one step ahead of IE7 when it eventually comes out.
However IE is very much so branded. That versy simple lower case e and world hybrid icon equates to "Internet" for most users. I've watched so many confused friends search for it on my computer when I've removed it altogether from my start menu. They ignore the internet link at the top of the start menu because it's a flame and not a little globe.
A great example of a new browser brand is Apple's Safari. It's still round and blue so that users feel comfortable with it representing a web browser, however it's distinctive enough to build a brand on. Mozilla could only hope for something that good.
This wouldn't be a problem with closed course software.
I'm just sayin. With closed source software domain name hijacking and pop-up windows are an unavoidable part of your day.
I'm a web developer. This is the last think I need. Microsoft has done some questionable things but this is not one of them.
The Eolas guy has tried to sound like he's a pro open software activist but all this is hurting is my industry. I'll probably have to say goodbye to Flash, Quicktime, Real, etc.
Welcome back, 1995!
However, what if that guy who can't fight was a security guard? Maybe he's not armed, or armed with a gun known to jam frequently. Perhaps his bullet proof vest has just been recalled. Sure it's still morally reprehensible to exploit any of his weaknesses but shouldn't he be as well equiped as possible?
Now, what if instead of a security guard he was a regular employee with all access to sensitive data? And instead of a company, he worked at the Pentagon? Shouldn't he be protected by the best security guards and systems possible?
This is where Valve is to blame. They did not provide the most current and available security measures to their employees. This is especially gratuitous since the Outlook patches are available free of charge, unlike upgraded vests and weapons!
Biology: first documented case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck species. Links and pictures are available from the official Web site, linked above.
And just why did you think we'd like to see actual pictures of said necrophilia?
Hmm, I'm not sure I have all the details. Could you possibly make your summary any longer?
Also, with synopsis like that it looks like you're well on your way to becoming an MSU prof yourself!
Your logic is backward.
If their compensation is already earned then they have less motivation to find a job their client will like. If the employee quits after just one month because they couldn't stand the job the headhunter still gets to keep their money.
However if they're being payed a portion of money earned at the new job it is in their best interests to find a job that the employee is likely to stay at for a year.