see, you're proving my point here f/b employee with cognative dissonance:
that's what comes from freedom of information.
**it does not have to**
you didn't disprove my point, or offer any argument...you restated your unfounded contention...you're almost *worse* than Zuck...you're the dupe...
facebook could:
1. give the user control 100% control of interface, no bullshit U/X
2. have simple (not intentionally dense and complex) privacy controls for all data posted,
3. allow users to download and retain all data (the point of this whole discussion)
4. be a 'tech innovation giant' and make billions
the whole concept that companies must treat you like a data pig in a farm is ridiculous and you're a piece of crap for buying into it
if you want you can try to counter my contentions, but I wont' respond unless you address all 4 of my points and the great point they all make (f/b is abusing users pointlessly and dumbly)
It is propaganda, but it looks to me like they are testing some kind of whole system that does this...maybe it scrapes updates from some kind of internal database of action reports?
Whatever it is, it's like an "API" for tweeting a war...the IDF has been keen on using twitter as part of it's media relations...or propaganda depending on your view...
They had 18 year old IDF draftees posting pics of themselves with their rifles like it was summer camp...hashtaging with #phonecian
The writings of Zev Chafets are instructive here...you *have* to read between the lines, but his books tell it all...ex: in the troubles in the 80s, commanders were told to give everyone in their units Biblical names for when they had to interact with American troops...shit like that...
but the fact is it isn't abusive at all, if people considered it abusive they could switch to an alternative or not use social networking at all
millions of users disagree...and I think you know it...are you a paid commenter or f/b employee who can't handle the truth?
many posters (myself included) have laid out how facebook.com treats users like cattle in a casino and is legally defined as a business whose profits are threatened when governments give users rights over their data...
How does it 'abuse' its users? You mean because it sells information?
I laid it out in my post, directly after the sentence where I typed the portion you mention...
But I understand that you might genuinely be confused, because we have been conditioned to have such ridiculously low expectations from online services like facebook.com
it's not your fault you don't understand...
See, facebook.com could make a tidy profit *and* give users compete control over the interface (stupid news feed and other U/X bullshit), *not* design their privacy controls like a Casino...etc...but they chose not to...because people like you don't even know how fully your life choices are gamed out as a business model...
That means the Library of Congress has all my content archived.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the LoC is only storing the text characters in a Tweet. That means the photo is stored as a link to a file on Twitter's servers.
I'm not a hosting expert but I figure there's a way to 'mirror' the actual image files on your own server.
But really, the links should be fine...safer than a photo album. If Twitter was gone for some reason it's highly probable that other options would be limited as well given the circumstances it would require.
harder for their Products to move to a possible competitor's website
this should scare the siht out of every facebook employee and shareholder....
facebook.com is **easy** to compete against...google, yahoo, amazon...any of them could **take facebook down** with a non-abusive, non-user alienating 'social networking' site.
your cost is hosting, storage and retreival...throw out all the 'U/X' bullshit and facebook.com is **very simple**...it's text and pictures.
it's just **text and pictures**
the thing that keeps it from happening? it's twofold:
1. 'Tech entrepreneur' people **still** don't exactly understand business. Tech investors are idiots (funding a company that makes zero profit?!?) and the engineers and developers have to follow the money. Investors throw money at any project or app getting hype...it's the shotgun method, that's how the industry's funding pipeline works. It is *not* closely tied to quality of product.
Even Page and Brin make this mistake...ex: google+
2. Repsecting user privacy requires too much discipline. You can shear a sheep many times but skin them only once, as they say...tech companies are skinning more than shearing.
Millions of users are *easy pickings* and you have to WANT to respect them as humans and not game out their behavior to the Nth degree.
competitors who try to subvert facebook fall flat immediately after launch b/c users are savvy enough to see that the competing service aren't commited to their 'we like our users' rhetoric.
Facebook is an exercise in finding that 99% tolerance mark on user abuse.
This.
facebook's entire business model is based on abusing the user...using personal data as a commodity to trade for a free internet service is, in theory, acceptable within bounds.
facebook does that, but to the absolute maximum as a matter of defined business. It's in their IPO filing, under threats to profits...legislation that protects user's data and gives them control. End of story.
facebook is legally defined as a business that profits from selling your personal information and with, with mathematical certainty, abuse its users indefinitely
I was more or less with this AC until the last sentence:
I can't imagine anything that must interest Page less than geopolitics.
Yep. Troll.
**of course** one of the richest most powerful men in the world is interested in geopolitics. He makes decisions that are almost *above* traditional nation/state 'sphere of influence' type geopolitics.
One word: China
Because, you know, Google's business decisions there are the very definition of geopolitical decisions.
AC is a troll. Trollbots and paid commenters are **all over** anything with Schmidt or Cohen. I posted previously about Eric Schmidt and his harmful incompetence and it was a shtistorm.
Cohen is just as bad as Schmidt. He's one of those secretly trying to gather all the world's data into a supercomputer to spur the next step in human evolution or live forever or w/e and he doesn't care who gets in his way...
That or he's just willing to sell your privacy as a commodity...point is he's ethically compromised.
Seriously a substantial number of comments on these topics represent bots or paid commenters. Take heed!
a lead-encased water chamber makes sense given your numbers....maybe 30-40cm of a water tank/wall and make up the rest with lead...
also, isn't gold foil good for this? throw a layer of it in there if so...
lofting it into geosynchronous transfer orbit
I've always viewed the 'next step' in space as a 'next step' across the board of space tech...what I mean is, we will have to go back to the moon (with bots or humans) and on to asteroids and learn to harvest water and get it to our Mars stuff...
Now, going to the moon to harvest water **just to go to Mars** is too costly probably...but the idea is we expand in *all* directions in space or it doesn't work...so in that context, we'd be able to supply it from a moon base or asteroid.
I reject any notion that keeps humans earthbound...we *belong* out there and we have the technology to make it possible...we've just gotten a generation of complacent dorks happy to look at computer screens and think they're Neil Armstrong...
It's time to put humans up there...we can solve the problems with ingenuity and willpower
Apparently, no one on/. under the age of 30 has ever learned how to program...
laugh it up you old timers, the jokes on you!
See, it is *bad* for your industry when it is so dense and esoteric that neophyte workers either chose another profession or get burned out and quit...
I have theories as to why geeks keep their deep magic under such a stanglehold...but it really doesn't matter. We need to untangle the Kludge of languages running around the web, and work on more standards-based, common sense, best-for-the-job, open, scalable languages.
The problem I see here is a narrow idea of what a 'perk' can be.
Typically office environments are over regulated, and antagonistic managers use things humans *naturally need*...random breaks, flexible hours, snack food, wearing hawaiian shirts, etc. and turn them into a *commodity for you to earn.*
Its part of the archaic business model we all struggle against.
As a former employee, I'd definitely take the *cash* over gamed-out 'perks'...
However, as a current employer, I'd like to defend the idea of a 'perk' from those who despise the notion....
See, businesses have **economy of scale**
We can buy things in bulk...including things our employees wouldn't otherwise be able to afford on their own.
To me, as a business owner, THIS is a perk....a non-compensatory benefit that you get b/c you work for me.
Food, drinks, etc. are all in this category, but that's really minor league perks. If a division leader has a budget for stuff to help employee morale, a wise use of it would maximize the economy of scale and wholesale access...not just get a discount on pizza (although that's nice too sometimes)
ex: when I was a snowboarding instructor, one of our 'perks' was that the managers would let us buy as much as we wanted off of their 'pro form' from their corporate sponsors. Which means snowboarding gear at 50% of *wholesale*....that was a fskign 'perk'...and it helped our performance as employees!
Most biz perks are just gaming out your needs and using it as a carrot/stick...
how is there a discussion over whether parent is trolling?
this concerns me as a/. mod...
I know that when Hollywood is involved it brings out the fanboi bots but this is starting to get out of control.
Parent's post is exactly what a/. post should be. It takes a position, assumes a level of nerd-knowledge for the reader, is succinct, and has support for its claims.
heh...and of course he didn't reference TFA...so this is definitely not a 'troll' comment...
Alot of the comments claiming he is trolling however...some of those are PR bots...mods be aware
See, this isn't a response...and it sure as siht isn't a 'zinger' or a 'witty retort'
so the hell what, Cromium exists? That does not answer parent's point at all...
in fact, it actually proves you wrong and him right, if anything, b/c the link was to a Google product's homepage. exactly the kind of useless information the parent was bemoaning...
"Assad's regime is part of a centuries-old supply chain supported by oil money from BP(English Crown) and Royal Dutch Shell ('royal' is in the name) going back to the 1600s when the Aristocracy was not hiding behind legal companies.
For another instructive look at how this works, examine the life of Reza Shah. He did function as leader, but what concerns us is his status as **stooge for the oil interests**. His ideology is secondary...it's about what he will do with the oil.
Do tell how the Assad family is descended from the Ottoman Empire.
That's not what I meant and I think you know it. You saw the grammar flaw and wanted to show how smart you are.
The Ottoman Empire is related to all of this of course, depending on what era of history we're discussing. The relationships changed over time as technology developed, markets opened, different leaders, etc. But the point that a Global Aristocracy is manipulating these events on a long time scale is not proven or disprove on your question.
Assad's regime is supported by oil money from BP(English Crown) and Royal Dutch Shell ('royal' is in the name) going back to the 1600s when the Aristocracy was not hiding behind legal companies.
The oil comes from Iran and Syria and gets loaded onto boats in a port on the Mediterranean in Syria then sails to points west including your gas tank.
The whole premise of "artificial intelligence" being a "thing" that we "acheive" by a certain date (be it in relation to processor development or not)...it's bunk. Hokus Pokus. Used-car salesman terminology to describe basic computation and programming.
Points 3-5 ring especially true from where I sit as a researcher and former network engineer. Everything is a 'network' at some level. Adding more nodes and calling it 'neural' doesn't mean you've invented the wheel. It's just terminology describing a machine programed with input.
There is no 'singularity' of artificial intelligence, because the concept itself is abstract language to describe programed machine responses. It's *humans* like Kurzweil (whom I respect greatly) who add the **emotional** stuff to the concept and then try to call it something **new**...like a **salesman**
There may be a singularity-type event when all humans all over the world have a free persistent connection to the internet. That would be something...but it would be just a digital extention of the existing, geography-limited current social network of humans!
no...unless 'squid' or 'apple' is a brand...and the clothes...they weren't 'brands' either
you're one of the people that's ruining American business with your lack of understanding. Your error is you label any human communication 'marketing'. Human behavior is much more complex and cannot be predicted by 'marketing' tactics.
Yes, things that have alot of marketing sometime sell alot, and sometimes they bomb. Yes, if you **hit the customer over the head** until they have an Aneurism, yeah...by the law of averages, you might make your margins...especially if you can limit their choices in alternatives. This is **NOT** business thinking...this is exploitation. You're an idiot if you don't see the difference.
Your problem is caused by a mixture of unearned hubris and ignorance. you have no concept of how money is made. you're a perpetual employee...underling employee
selling X at price Y to someone who needs X and is willing to spend price Y...that's **as easy as falling off a log**
don't underestimate how hard it is to sell any product, even a very good one.....because it requires a lot of resources to convince people to buy something.
It is hard. But you didn't hit why. People LOVE buying things. It is competing **independently** in a gamed-out large corporate dominated environment.
Take an Asian market (mine is in Korea b/c i lived there for a year)...so much commerce happens in Asian open-air style markets. Billions of transactions. Virtually **zero** marketing...why? It isn't necessary because humans naturally exchange resources. It's part of our social/tribal nature evolved into fiat currency.
And humans will always need resources. Marx's theories are instructive here.
No, it is hard b/c our government sets the rules of the game, and the big players have games out every possible avenue of decision control and applied their MBA project management bullshit to it...it's done. Now we watch it play out and hit the margins where we can.
2. A second (some might say the more salient) reason why marketing budgets are so huge is American business philosophy is dumb and run like a casino. The going idea is 'perception is reality.'
If they can make you think you're getting a quality product, what does it matter if they cut corners? Sure this is good sense to a point, but as I said above, it has been gamed-out to the Nth degree and human needs are (as shown by history) typically secondary to short-term profit.
America (and by default the global economy) is a hucksters game...people shilling cheap junk. Business doesn't *have* to be this way, but government must provide incentives in the direction of long-term investment and consumers must have a free press to educate them.
Is that how hard up for "news" this site has gotten?
yeah, I thought it was interesting...the company is borderline criminal, almost certainly Republican-linked, and should have learned from Anon pwned that security company last year.
I don't read or comment at reddit.com, but in spite of its 'all AC all the time' quality I still visit the site. I checked out Obama's 'AMA' and a few odds and ends.
I did visit a few 'sub-reddits' (dumb name) once to get some design ideas and it helped but the comments were weeks apart.
Both reddit and 4chan and w/e else the kids use these days is worth noting on issues like free speech/Republitard legal trolling.
Where's Tim's outrage at the wholesale corporatization of his creation???
The fact that Tim Berhners-Lee isn't setting his hair on fire over this is telling. He should at least speak out against it in an Op/Ed or on a blog post. Fuck a tweet...anything.
IMHO, TBL did not 'create the internet' and does not speak for those interested in an open internet with cross-platform standards.
as in National Rifle Association. It's not about gun safety/open internet standards...it's about corporate $$$
The W3C is the general 'tech industry' representative in this fight. I know that technically of course W3C is a non-profit, but their statements and general position on DRM and HTML5 (which **W3C opposed, remember?) show they are practically working for teleco's and 'content providers'
If it wasn't for WHATWG as an alternative working group HTML5 would not exist. And CSS3 would still be in trial fucking beta.
Ditch the W3C. They are trolls in this discussion.
They suck at space. Space is a bitch of a place to try to do business. Operational decisions **must** be made by engineers and astronauts...not businesspeople or actuarial risk analysts.
First, I was happy to see SS1, but it was also sad. Why? It was 40's technology dressed up with plastic and circle windows. SS1 was mostly **hype**
2. SS1 was a C- business concept at best. Hype aside, people need stuff in space, so even though we all knew SS1 was kinda silly, we figured it would be the first of many (progreessively better) companies. It would *start a trend* so we endured and played along with the hype.
The progress never happened. Why? Geeks have great concepts but there is a disconnect between the concept and the execution. All the innovation gets stripped when you let sub-moronic 'investors' make the operational decisions.
Solution: We must speak with a united voice at what needs to happen next in space. No singularity bullshit. No ridiculously expensive missions to 'find life'...no...fuck that shit. We go to asteroids and the moon and we *fucking mine that shit*
I am embarrassed that we are celebrating this...it's like a grown man celebrating learning to ride a bicycle. Our space technology has regressed.
I know it's a trope for some, but I have to mention the X planes we had that achieved LEO in the 50s...**and** they took off and landed properly, on wheels...like a lady.
Yeah, we killed those planes.
Now we have the Air Force's space drone...which has got to be an insult to real astronauts who could certainly, easily pilot a full-size version of our space drone.
We **could** have a space plane **right now** but NASA beuracracy and their ridiculous 'risk management' proceedures that take human ability and decision out of the loop completely.
Slashdot Mirror
see, you're proving my point here f/b employee with cognative dissonance:
**it does not have to**
you didn't disprove my point, or offer any argument...you restated your unfounded contention...you're almost *worse* than Zuck...you're the dupe...
facebook could:
1. give the user control 100% control of interface, no bullshit U/X
2. have simple (not intentionally dense and complex) privacy controls for all data posted,
3. allow users to download and retain all data (the point of this whole discussion)
4. be a 'tech innovation giant' and make billions
the whole concept that companies must treat you like a data pig in a farm is ridiculous and you're a piece of crap for buying into it
if you want you can try to counter my contentions, but I wont' respond unless you address all 4 of my points and the great point they all make (f/b is abusing users pointlessly and dumbly)
It is propaganda, but it looks to me like they are testing some kind of whole system that does this...maybe it scrapes updates from some kind of internal database of action reports?
Whatever it is, it's like an "API" for tweeting a war...the IDF has been keen on using twitter as part of it's media relations...or propaganda depending on your view...
They had 18 year old IDF draftees posting pics of themselves with their rifles like it was summer camp...hashtaging with #phonecian
The writings of Zev Chafets are instructive here...you *have* to read between the lines, but his books tell it all...ex: in the troubles in the 80s, commanders were told to give everyone in their units Biblical names for when they had to interact with American troops...shit like that...
millions of users disagree...and I think you know it...are you a paid commenter or f/b employee who can't handle the truth?
many posters (myself included) have laid out how facebook.com treats users like cattle in a casino and is legally defined as a business whose profits are threatened when governments give users rights over their data...
it's all right there...I explained in my original post...read this if you genuinely want to know more: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3825581&cid=43922021
I laid it out in my post, directly after the sentence where I typed the portion you mention...
But I understand that you might genuinely be confused, because we have been conditioned to have such ridiculously low expectations from online services like facebook.com
it's not your fault you don't understand...
See, facebook.com could make a tidy profit *and* give users compete control over the interface (stupid news feed and other U/X bullshit), *not* design their privacy controls like a Casino...etc...but they chose not to...because people like you don't even know how fully your life choices are gamed out as a business model...
There's a better way to do all of this...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the LoC is only storing the text characters in a Tweet. That means the photo is stored as a link to a file on Twitter's servers.
I'm not a hosting expert but I figure there's a way to 'mirror' the actual image files on your own server.
But really, the links should be fine...safer than a photo album. If Twitter was gone for some reason it's highly probable that other options would be limited as well given the circumstances it would require.
this should scare the siht out of every facebook employee and shareholder....
facebook.com is **easy** to compete against...google, yahoo, amazon...any of them could **take facebook down** with a non-abusive, non-user alienating 'social networking' site.
your cost is hosting, storage and retreival...throw out all the 'U/X' bullshit and facebook.com is **very simple**...it's text and pictures.
it's just **text and pictures**
the thing that keeps it from happening? it's twofold:
1. 'Tech entrepreneur' people **still** don't exactly understand business. Tech investors are idiots (funding a company that makes zero profit?!?) and the engineers and developers have to follow the money. Investors throw money at any project or app getting hype...it's the shotgun method, that's how the industry's funding pipeline works. It is *not* closely tied to quality of product.
Even Page and Brin make this mistake...ex: google+
2. Repsecting user privacy requires too much discipline. You can shear a sheep many times but skin them only once, as they say...tech companies are skinning more than shearing.
Millions of users are *easy pickings* and you have to WANT to respect them as humans and not game out their behavior to the Nth degree.
competitors who try to subvert facebook fall flat immediately after launch b/c users are savvy enough to see that the competing service aren't commited to their 'we like our users' rhetoric.
This.
facebook's entire business model is based on abusing the user...using personal data as a commodity to trade for a free internet service is, in theory, acceptable within bounds.
facebook does that, but to the absolute maximum as a matter of defined business. It's in their IPO filing, under threats to profits...legislation that protects user's data and gives them control. End of story.
facebook is legally defined as a business that profits from selling your personal information and with, with mathematical certainty, abuse its users indefinitely
I was more or less with this AC until the last sentence:
Yep. Troll.
**of course** one of the richest most powerful men in the world is interested in geopolitics. He makes decisions that are almost *above* traditional nation/state 'sphere of influence' type geopolitics.
One word: China
Because, you know, Google's business decisions there are the very definition of geopolitical decisions.
AC is a troll. Trollbots and paid commenters are **all over** anything with Schmidt or Cohen. I posted previously about Eric Schmidt and his harmful incompetence and it was a shtistorm.
Cohen is just as bad as Schmidt. He's one of those secretly trying to gather all the world's data into a supercomputer to spur the next step in human evolution or live forever or w/e and he doesn't care who gets in his way...
That or he's just willing to sell your privacy as a commodity...point is he's ethically compromised.
Seriously a substantial number of comments on these topics represent bots or paid commenters. Take heed!
nice figuring...
a lead-encased water chamber makes sense given your numbers....maybe 30-40cm of a water tank/wall and make up the rest with lead...
also, isn't gold foil good for this? throw a layer of it in there if so...
I've always viewed the 'next step' in space as a 'next step' across the board of space tech...what I mean is, we will have to go back to the moon (with bots or humans) and on to asteroids and learn to harvest water and get it to our Mars stuff...
Now, going to the moon to harvest water **just to go to Mars** is too costly probably...but the idea is we expand in *all* directions in space or it doesn't work...so in that context, we'd be able to supply it from a moon base or asteroid.
I reject any notion that keeps humans earthbound...we *belong* out there and we have the technology to make it possible...we've just gotten a generation of complacent dorks happy to look at computer screens and think they're Neil Armstrong...
It's time to put humans up there...we can solve the problems with ingenuity and willpower
Apparently, no one on /. under the age of 30 has ever learned how to program...
laugh it up you old timers, the jokes on you!
See, it is *bad* for your industry when it is so dense and esoteric that neophyte workers either chose another profession or get burned out and quit...
I have theories as to why geeks keep their deep magic under such a stanglehold...but it really doesn't matter. We need to untangle the Kludge of languages running around the web, and work on more standards-based, common sense, best-for-the-job, open, scalable languages.
The problem I see here is a narrow idea of what a 'perk' can be.
Typically office environments are over regulated, and antagonistic managers use things humans *naturally need*...random breaks, flexible hours, snack food, wearing hawaiian shirts, etc. and turn them into a *commodity for you to earn.*
Its part of the archaic business model we all struggle against.
As a former employee, I'd definitely take the *cash* over gamed-out 'perks'...
However, as a current employer, I'd like to defend the idea of a 'perk' from those who despise the notion....
See, businesses have **economy of scale**
We can buy things in bulk...including things our employees wouldn't otherwise be able to afford on their own.
To me, as a business owner, THIS is a perk....a non-compensatory benefit that you get b/c you work for me.
Food, drinks, etc. are all in this category, but that's really minor league perks. If a division leader has a budget for stuff to help employee morale, a wise use of it would maximize the economy of scale and wholesale access...not just get a discount on pizza (although that's nice too sometimes)
ex: when I was a snowboarding instructor, one of our 'perks' was that the managers would let us buy as much as we wanted off of their 'pro form' from their corporate sponsors. Which means snowboarding gear at 50% of *wholesale*....that was a fskign 'perk'...and it helped our performance as employees!
Most biz perks are just gaming out your needs and using it as a carrot/stick...
how is there a discussion over whether parent is trolling?
this concerns me as a /. mod...
I know that when Hollywood is involved it brings out the fanboi bots but this is starting to get out of control.
Parent's post is exactly what a /. post should be. It takes a position, assumes a level of nerd-knowledge for the reader, is succinct, and has support for its claims.
heh...and of course he didn't reference TFA...so this is definitely not a 'troll' comment...
Alot of the comments claiming he is trolling however...some of those are PR bots...mods be aware
See, this isn't a response...and it sure as siht isn't a 'zinger' or a 'witty retort'
so the hell what, Cromium exists? That does not answer parent's point at all...
in fact, it actually proves you wrong and him right, if anything, b/c the link was to a Google product's homepage. exactly the kind of useless information the parent was bemoaning...
jeez way to prove his point for him
fine, here:
"Assad's regime is part of a centuries-old supply chain supported by oil money from BP(English Crown) and Royal Dutch Shell ('royal' is in the name) going back to the 1600s when the Aristocracy was not hiding behind legal companies.
For another instructive look at how this works, examine the life of Reza Shah. He did function as leader, but what concerns us is his status as **stooge for the oil interests**. His ideology is secondary...it's about what he will do with the oil.
That's not what I meant and I think you know it. You saw the grammar flaw and wanted to show how smart you are.
The Ottoman Empire is related to all of this of course, depending on what era of history we're discussing. The relationships changed over time as technology developed, markets opened, different leaders, etc. But the point that a Global Aristocracy is manipulating these events on a long time scale is not proven or disprove on your question.
Assad's regime is supported by oil money from BP(English Crown) and Royal Dutch Shell ('royal' is in the name) going back to the 1600s when the Aristocracy was not hiding behind legal companies.
The oil comes from Iran and Syria and gets loaded onto boats in a port on the Mediterranean in Syria then sails to points west including your gas tank.
The whole premise of "artificial intelligence" being a "thing" that we "acheive" by a certain date (be it in relation to processor development or not)...it's bunk. Hokus Pokus. Used-car salesman terminology to describe basic computation and programming.
Points 3-5 ring especially true from where I sit as a researcher and former network engineer. Everything is a 'network' at some level. Adding more nodes and calling it 'neural' doesn't mean you've invented the wheel. It's just terminology describing a machine programed with input.
There is no 'singularity' of artificial intelligence, because the concept itself is abstract language to describe programed machine responses. It's *humans* like Kurzweil (whom I respect greatly) who add the **emotional** stuff to the concept and then try to call it something **new**...like a **salesman**
There may be a singularity-type event when all humans all over the world have a free persistent connection to the internet. That would be something...but it would be just a digital extention of the existing, geography-limited current social network of humans!
what in my comment (you just quoted the whole thing...be more specific if you expect a response) woud indicate otherwise?
no...unless 'squid' or 'apple' is a brand...and the clothes...they weren't 'brands' either
you're one of the people that's ruining American business with your lack of understanding. Your error is you label any human communication 'marketing'. Human behavior is much more complex and cannot be predicted by 'marketing' tactics.
Yes, things that have alot of marketing sometime sell alot, and sometimes they bomb. Yes, if you **hit the customer over the head** until they have an Aneurism, yeah...by the law of averages, you might make your margins...especially if you can limit their choices in alternatives. This is **NOT** business thinking...this is exploitation. You're an idiot if you don't see the difference.
Your problem is caused by a mixture of unearned hubris and ignorance. you have no concept of how money is made. you're a perpetual employee...underling employee
get me a cup of
The backlash is from nerds who have had to confront the fact they are easily entertained...comic is *awesome* and is obviously 'art'
He probably made a full frame 5 minute animated short movie using high-level animation software then saved it as a .gif
With a few tweaks he could write a program to update the comic page with the new frame
selling X at price Y to someone who needs X and is willing to spend price Y...that's **as easy as falling off a log**
It is hard. But you didn't hit why. People LOVE buying things. It is competing **independently** in a gamed-out large corporate dominated environment.
Take an Asian market (mine is in Korea b/c i lived there for a year)...so much commerce happens in Asian open-air style markets. Billions of transactions. Virtually **zero** marketing...why? It isn't necessary because humans naturally exchange resources. It's part of our social/tribal nature evolved into fiat currency.
And humans will always need resources. Marx's theories are instructive here.
No, it is hard b/c our government sets the rules of the game, and the big players have games out every possible avenue of decision control and applied their MBA project management bullshit to it...it's done. Now we watch it play out and hit the margins where we can.
2. A second (some might say the more salient) reason why marketing budgets are so huge is American business philosophy is dumb and run like a casino. The going idea is 'perception is reality.'
If they can make you think you're getting a quality product, what does it matter if they cut corners? Sure this is good sense to a point, but as I said above, it has been gamed-out to the Nth degree and human needs are (as shown by history) typically secondary to short-term profit.
America (and by default the global economy) is a hucksters game...people shilling cheap junk. Business doesn't *have* to be this way, but government must provide incentives in the direction of long-term investment and consumers must have a free press to educate them.
yeah, I thought it was interesting...the company is borderline criminal, almost certainly Republican-linked, and should have learned from Anon pwned that security company last year.
I don't read or comment at reddit.com, but in spite of its 'all AC all the time' quality I still visit the site. I checked out Obama's 'AMA' and a few odds and ends.
I did visit a few 'sub-reddits' (dumb name) once to get some design ideas and it helped but the comments were weeks apart.
Both reddit and 4chan and w/e else the kids use these days is worth noting on issues like free speech/Republitard legal trolling.
Where's Tim's outrage at the wholesale corporatization of his creation???
The fact that Tim Berhners-Lee isn't setting his hair on fire over this is telling. He should at least speak out against it in an Op/Ed or on a blog post. Fuck a tweet...anything.
IMHO, TBL did not 'create the internet' and does not speak for those interested in an open internet with cross-platform standards.
as in National Rifle Association. It's not about gun safety/open internet standards...it's about corporate $$$
The W3C is the general 'tech industry' representative in this fight. I know that technically of course W3C is a non-profit, but their statements and general position on DRM and HTML5 (which **W3C opposed, remember?) show they are practically working for teleco's and 'content providers'
If it wasn't for WHATWG as an alternative working group HTML5 would not exist. And CSS3 would still be in trial fucking beta.
Ditch the W3C. They are trolls in this discussion.
Ditch the DRM notions while you're at it.
They suck at space. Space is a bitch of a place to try to do business. Operational decisions **must** be made by engineers and astronauts...not businesspeople or actuarial risk analysts.
First, I was happy to see SS1, but it was also sad. Why? It was 40's technology dressed up with plastic and circle windows. SS1 was mostly **hype**
2. SS1 was a C- business concept at best. Hype aside, people need stuff in space, so even though we all knew SS1 was kinda silly, we figured it would be the first of many (progreessively better) companies. It would *start a trend* so we endured and played along with the hype.
The progress never happened. Why? Geeks have great concepts but there is a disconnect between the concept and the execution. All the innovation gets stripped when you let sub-moronic 'investors' make the operational decisions.
Solution: We must speak with a united voice at what needs to happen next in space. No singularity bullshit. No ridiculously expensive missions to 'find life'...no...fuck that shit. We go to asteroids and the moon and we *fucking mine that shit*
mining = money = more spaceflight
I am embarrassed that we are celebrating this...it's like a grown man celebrating learning to ride a bicycle. Our space technology has regressed.
I know it's a trope for some, but I have to mention the X planes we had that achieved LEO in the 50s...**and** they took off and landed properly, on wheels...like a lady.
Yeah, we killed those planes.
Now we have the Air Force's space drone...which has got to be an insult to real astronauts who could certainly, easily pilot a full-size version of our space drone.
We **could** have a space plane **right now** but NASA beuracracy and their ridiculous 'risk management' proceedures that take human ability and decision out of the loop completely.
anger!