Ahh, Adaptive Optics. Their proponents keep forgeting about that pesky atmosphere isn't just distorting light, but absorbing it. No matter how advanced optical adaptation becomes it can't resolve the photon that doesn't arrive.
hmm, now how many times have I heard that whine about the single button of the Mac being a bad thing. Even though I do have a right button (it executes ctrl+click), I've never been thwarted by such a trap. Then again if I want to save an image I just click+drag+drop it to a local folder. Using the context menu is too time-consuming. (oh and, uh, why not just view the source and find the src link?)
hmmm, but the link to the remaining content, that next page you were going to, is only available in the ad. The link you click passes a variable to the ad and it know where to forward you after you've been subjected to its "buy me goodness." If you block the ad, you get no link to the content.
Many sites overlay a div on top of the content, forcing you to wait a period.. or click...
Is there a way to detect these ads without disrupting content?
Simply put, No. Such an object is indistinguishable from any other DHTML element. The only way to id them is if they id'd themselves as advertisements in a uniform manner.
See above for my previous comments on the fallacious ad model of the web.
The crux of the problem is that web adverstisers got so caught up in the newness of the web that they forgot how advertising works. Simple brand reinforcement wasn't good enough.
The same in-your-face mentality is what has TV stations pumping audio on ads, too. We're immune to the crap, and have stopped paying attention. Instead of creating compelling ads they just make 'em louder.
I'd have to say that Safari has already gone the extra step. If pop-ups that should open on a click aren't coded just right, they still don't work and I have to re-enable pop-ups. Since it's a key-toggle, it's not cumbersome.
As for Flash...It can be very dependent on JS. Some methods for scripting it require a pop-up to be activated to which variables are passed. The pop-under is opened to the minimum window size and closes upon departure from the site, but blockers do hinder them and can render a Flash dependent site unusable. The advertisers have hindered web-development by making pop-up blockers necessary.
The problems spawned by advertising on the web continue to grow. Usenet spam: it's like trying to have a conversation at a small party that's been invaded by 20 pitchmen for every guest. Email spam, same, just more like an invasion on a phone call. Web ads, they're like having a puppy piddle on your shoe while your reading the newspaper -- you could just ignore it, but it's better to get it away from you.
The problem is that as long as even 0.0001% of users are stupid enough to click the pop-ups
If the click-thru drops enough they'll force it. The next thing d-clik will do is to add code to force the link, sending it to your browser when you close the window. Then the site will have a script that keeps reopening the page until you nav to a purchase page, or other required destination.
Since this is the result of Malware having installed itself on you winbox, and since this is only a vulnerability for windoze uses, I could tell you to switch to an OS that doesn't automatically enable, and aid, such attacks... but I'll let you learn on your own . . .
reinforce your brand... ads are (not) intended to provoke an instant reaction
This has been the achilles heel of web advertising, the expectation, nay requirement, for instant response. Nothing but click-through counts. It's such a falacious expectation. How many times have you seen an ad on TV and instantly dropped everything to go buy whatever?
I have to surmise, that this foolish expectation, that because you can be directly linked to a vendor, that the convenience of the web is so compelling, that your physical intertia against going to the store will be overcome, is unfortunately a product of the 'young entrepeneurs' who were the basis of early commercial www ventures. People who knew how to code, but had no understanding of how advertising works. They created this stupid model that requires instant response/gratification that persists. If the metrics were solely based on number of impressions, how many people see your ad, the pop-up would not have been invented.
If ads were better incorporated into the design of a page, instead of being shuffled off to a space that people can easily ignore, they would be more effective in their traditional role of brand re-inforcement.
The expectation that ads should equal purchases makes me think that we need Slartibartfast warning us from bowing our heads. (See HHG Resturaunt at the End of the Universe).
Patent... Currently lasts longer than the technology is likely to be useful.
Not quite. Patents are either 14 years (design), or 20 years(utility or plant). The period can be significantly shorter than the time for which the technology is useful (e.g., telephones).
It's more an approximation of twice the average development time. Which roughly allows 1/2 time on market for ROI and 1/2 profit. It's supposed to be a benign, temporary, monopoly. (Note I say supposed to be benign. Malignant abuse is another matter/. 'ed to death).
What bothered me more than anything else was the lack of a floppy eject button. You had to ask the GUI to eject... What the Mac introduced first was the notion that the user should not be in control of the computer.
Replacing a potentially damaging mechanical function with a safety feature is usurping the authority of the user. Electric fans were originally just metal blades with no protective shroud. Someone decided that maybe users could benefit from a little protection. A user might night intend to stick their hand into the spinning blade, but it could happen. Nor, would they want to eject a disk during a write operation, but it could happen.
If you really want to customize the function of a Mac the tools have been much more readily available (ResEdit and other resource hacks for classic Mac OS and with the Developer tools that ship with OS X). The 'do it this way' mentality of the Mac's design doesn't thwart users. It enables them to do more with one basic skill set. I'd rather a developer spend the time to make something work without my having to tweak every little thing. If I really feel the need to get under the hood, the tools are available. The average user wants a tool that works with minimal fuss. Helping the user take the most advantageous path for the most common operations aids them in doing what they want to do.
Your argument that the user must control every little aspect of a machine is a rant that argues for only computer scientists to use computers. I don't need to know how to forge a wrench to use one. I shouldn't need to forge every little function of my computer to make it do my work either.
I'd recommend a look at Project Gotham Racing 2, not only is the real-time light rendering stunning, so is the pov-linked audio effects. However, one of main reasons that game leverages the console so well is that M$ threw a lot of money at the developers to put as much into it as possible, e.g., bankrolling travel to cities around the world to photograph real locations for inclusion, putting Ferraris in a sound studio to record all those audio perspectives, etc.
It's not rarity that gives them value for some, or even most, people. It's nostalgic significance. At some point in the future, after people have figured out how to dispose of them, they will become rare because remaining examples are rare. In the meantime, people value them because of their love for all things Mac/Apple.
The Debears cartel keeps the cost of diamonds artificially high by controlling the supply (acquiring and closing every new source found). Advertising does more to create a perception that they are much rarer and therefore worth the cartel's prices.That inflated price is what makes the cost of making artifical copies feasible.
If Debears didn't control the market the price should drop. However, in their shadow, and outside of their control, conflict diamonds from Africa are sold to support dictatorships and genocide on that continent. (I had no intention when I started writing to go down this path, but...) Debears is as culpable for supporting the tyranny in Africa as any direct funder.
That aside, value of an original vs. copies. Copies are only valuable as substitutions for an unobtainable original. In rare instances a copy can surpass the value of an original, e.g. the original becomes so mass produced that it's devalued, but a knock-off that is just as well made, or better, is made by a mfr. that goes on to make better products. The knock-off, while still a copy, acquires added value from the producer's later reputation.
However, that is rare. Collectibility for anything boils down to one thing: Significance. Was it significant for innovation in design or function? Is it significant for who made it or when? Does it commemorate something, an event, a time of change, a point of change, etc.? Does it hold nostalgic significance?
Unless a copyist distinguishes himself significantly, his work will not surpass the value of a significant original. Most often, the presence of copies themselves makes originals more valuable.
The stack of paper dimension referred to the footprint. The case was supposed to take up no more space on a desk than a phone book or stack of paper trays. Vertically it's more like half a ream of paper. Compared to the case of paper plus size of the IBM PC, the higher resolution monitor (that displayed graphics, not just text), smaller footprint and faster 32-bit processor of the Mac really set it apart.
how come Sony doesn't get tons of nasty press... but Apple gets hate-movies...?
It's a love thing. Really, I'm serious. It's the hazard of loyalty. That loyalty has been cultivated personality that equates Apple and it's proponents on a human level. Mac users have a hard time seeing Apple as just another callous, bottom-line first organization. It's part of having built an OS from the the user's perspective. The engineering serves the user. The user isn't forced to serve the engineer's laziness. When people get accustomed to having things work well, they take offense. It's unexpected.
It's tough to live to such a standard, and some people take their loyalty, and any betrayal of it a little too far. Some cheated spouses will forgive. Others carry through quite acrimonious divorces. Sorry to say, those hate sites are aggrevied spouses.
That's one group, but there are those others that have never liked Apple or it's products. They just like those people who take an instant, unaccountable, dislike of another individual. Having taken a dislike, they will look for reasons to rationalize it. Using the thinnest of reasons, they will tear down the other's character without even knowing the other person.
The fact that Apple suffers from stupid attacks is testament to it's ability to make people think of it as a friend, a company that is looking out for their best interest. Despite the fact that it's a corporation, people ascribe the company a measure of humanity.
I can't think of another company that engenders such affection. Hate, yes, but the best example of that is M$, and the hate directed at them is, for the most part, a defense of the love of Apple (or Linux).
For the most part, we don't expect corporations to have our best interests at heart. Hell, we don't expect them to have a heart, just a cold avariscious greed to separate us from our earnings. So, when Sony, or another corporation, treats customer's poorly there is little protest.
We've learned to take corporate mistreatment with diffidence. Apple is very rare in this respect. We expect them to treat us well. When they act like any other corporation it's a betrayal of those expectations, and betrayal is one of the most aggrieved emotions.
It's seems to me that someone searching for Playboy or Playmates, is searching for similar materials, not the original. After all, how long does it take a web newbie to learn that the first place to look for 'company XLO' is at www.companyxlo.com? (the idiots who search yahoo for yahoo search engine, excluded)
Suppose a site is advertised with a tagline like "These Sluts aren't Playmates(r), They Play Mates." with a standard R-tm disclaimer. I've used the trademark to connote a meaning (an unnaturally pretty and ultimately inaccessable woman, you can look but dream of ever getting to actually touch) for contrast.
When a trademark acquires additional meaning it grows beyond its original and trademark use. Actually a success for the trademark. It's the greatest fault of trademarks that they attempt to control language while expanding it.
In my example, I've taken that expansion of the language, the trademark's acquired meaning, and used it to communicate an idea, an idea that is cumbersome to communicat otherwise. Their trademark has become associated with an idea. Restricting me from using that term restricts my freedom of expression. Allowing corporations to own words is just another step on the road to letting them control everything. When you control language, you control ideas.
Sure. Going after the bigger installed base opens a larger market. It also has more competition. You can reach more users on the smaller platform because it's users are ignored by the larger marketplace. Left-handed products cater to a smaller market and succeed because they are meeting the needs of an ignored population. They could compete for a share of the right-handed community and suffer. The costs of getting attention among greater competition makes the cost of success higher.
All non-niche desktop software companies (which is 99% of them) need to offer their products on MS OSs or they will fail.
Pure bullflop!
Let's say I get just 1% of the 10,000,000 Mac OS X users to buy my application. That's 100,000 installed users. At just $10 a copy I've made a cool million to distribute among, let's say, 5 developers and 2 marketers. We've each made over $100,000. Is that failure? Sure it's less than 0.01% of the entire computing market, but when the market is so large, ubiquity is a bogus measure of success.
Slashdot Mirror
So, who's handling the formal appointments to activist these days?
Unsolicited faxes are a crime. Businesses pushed for the law making it a crime. The Forbes editors need to take a look at who they're supporting here.
Adirondack Al? Sounds like they're running out of cartoon names to use when they have to dig that deep.
That shadow looks suspiciously Photoshopped.
Ahh, Adaptive Optics. Their proponents keep forgeting about that pesky atmosphere isn't just distorting light, but absorbing it. No matter how advanced optical adaptation becomes it can't resolve the photon that doesn't arrive.
hmm, now how many times have I heard that whine about the single button of the Mac being a bad thing. Even though I do have a right button (it executes ctrl+click), I've never been thwarted by such a trap. Then again if I want to save an image I just click+drag+drop it to a local folder. Using the context menu is too time-consuming. (oh and, uh, why not just view the source and find the src link?)
...can be blocked...
hmmm, but the link to the remaining content, that next page you were going to, is only available in the ad. The link you click passes a variable to the ad and it know where to forward you after you've been subjected to its "buy me goodness." If you block the ad, you get no link to the content.
Is there a way to detect these ads without disrupting content?
Simply put, No. Such an object is indistinguishable from any other DHTML element. The only way to id them is if they id'd themselves as advertisements in a uniform manner.
NY Times works fine for me with pop-ups blocked. You've got something else blocked that it needs (cookie, perhaps?).
The crux of the problem is that web adverstisers got so caught up in the newness of the web that they forgot how advertising works. Simple brand reinforcement wasn't good enough.
The same in-your-face mentality is what has TV stations pumping audio on ads, too. We're immune to the crap, and have stopped paying attention. Instead of creating compelling ads they just make 'em louder.
As for Flash...It can be very dependent on JS. Some methods for scripting it require a pop-up to be activated to which variables are passed. The pop-under is opened to the minimum window size and closes upon departure from the site, but blockers do hinder them and can render a Flash dependent site unusable. The advertisers have hindered web-development by making pop-up blockers necessary.
The problems spawned by advertising on the web continue to grow. Usenet spam: it's like trying to have a conversation at a small party that's been invaded by 20 pitchmen for every guest. Email spam, same, just more like an invasion on a phone call. Web ads, they're like having a puppy piddle on your shoe while your reading the newspaper -- you could just ignore it, but it's better to get it away from you.
If the click-thru drops enough they'll force it. The next thing d-clik will do is to add code to force the link, sending it to your browser when you close the window. Then the site will have a script that keeps reopening the page until you nav to a purchase page, or other required destination.
Since this is the result of Malware having installed itself on you winbox, and since this is only a vulnerability for windoze uses, I could tell you to switch to an OS that doesn't automatically enable, and aid, such attacks... but I'll let you learn on your own . . .
This has been the achilles heel of web advertising, the expectation, nay requirement, for instant response. Nothing but click-through counts. It's such a falacious expectation. How many times have you seen an ad on TV and instantly dropped everything to go buy whatever?
I have to surmise, that this foolish expectation, that because you can be directly linked to a vendor, that the convenience of the web is so compelling, that your physical intertia against going to the store will be overcome, is unfortunately a product of the 'young entrepeneurs' who were the basis of early commercial www ventures. People who knew how to code, but had no understanding of how advertising works. They created this stupid model that requires instant response/gratification that persists. If the metrics were solely based on number of impressions, how many people see your ad, the pop-up would not have been invented.
If ads were better incorporated into the design of a page, instead of being shuffled off to a space that people can easily ignore, they would be more effective in their traditional role of brand re-inforcement.
The expectation that ads should equal purchases makes me think that we need Slartibartfast warning us from bowing our heads. (See HHG Resturaunt at the End of the Universe).
Not quite. Patents are either 14 years (design), or 20 years(utility or plant). The period can be significantly shorter than the time for which the technology is useful (e.g., telephones).
It's more an approximation of twice the average development time. Which roughly allows 1/2 time on market for ROI and 1/2 profit. It's supposed to be a benign, temporary, monopoly. (Note I say supposed to be benign. Malignant abuse is another matter /. 'ed to death).
Replacing a potentially damaging mechanical function with a safety feature is usurping the authority of the user. Electric fans were originally just metal blades with no protective shroud. Someone decided that maybe users could benefit from a little protection. A user might night intend to stick their hand into the spinning blade, but it could happen. Nor, would they want to eject a disk during a write operation, but it could happen.
If you really want to customize the function of a Mac the tools have been much more readily available (ResEdit and other resource hacks for classic Mac OS and with the Developer tools that ship with OS X). The 'do it this way' mentality of the Mac's design doesn't thwart users. It enables them to do more with one basic skill set. I'd rather a developer spend the time to make something work without my having to tweak every little thing. If I really feel the need to get under the hood, the tools are available. The average user wants a tool that works with minimal fuss. Helping the user take the most advantageous path for the most common operations aids them in doing what they want to do.
Your argument that the user must control every little aspect of a machine is a rant that argues for only computer scientists to use computers. I don't need to know how to forge a wrench to use one. I shouldn't need to forge every little function of my computer to make it do my work either.
I'd recommend a look at Project Gotham Racing 2, not only is the real-time light rendering stunning, so is the pov-linked audio effects. However, one of main reasons that game leverages the console so well is that M$ threw a lot of money at the developers to put as much into it as possible, e.g., bankrolling travel to cities around the world to photograph real locations for inclusion, putting Ferraris in a sound studio to record all those audio perspectives, etc.
It's not rarity that gives them value for some, or even most, people. It's nostalgic significance. At some point in the future, after people have figured out how to dispose of them, they will become rare because remaining examples are rare. In the meantime, people value them because of their love for all things Mac/Apple.
If Debears didn't control the market the price should drop. However, in their shadow, and outside of their control, conflict diamonds from Africa are sold to support dictatorships and genocide on that continent. (I had no intention when I started writing to go down this path, but...) Debears is as culpable for supporting the tyranny in Africa as any direct funder.
That aside, value of an original vs. copies. Copies are only valuable as substitutions for an unobtainable original. In rare instances a copy can surpass the value of an original, e.g. the original becomes so mass produced that it's devalued, but a knock-off that is just as well made, or better, is made by a mfr. that goes on to make better products. The knock-off, while still a copy, acquires added value from the producer's later reputation.
However, that is rare. Collectibility for anything boils down to one thing: Significance. Was it significant for innovation in design or function? Is it significant for who made it or when? Does it commemorate something, an event, a time of change, a point of change, etc.? Does it hold nostalgic significance?
Unless a copyist distinguishes himself significantly, his work will not surpass the value of a significant original. Most often, the presence of copies themselves makes originals more valuable.
The stack of paper dimension referred to the footprint. The case was supposed to take up no more space on a desk than a phone book or stack of paper trays. Vertically it's more like half a ream of paper. Compared to the case of paper plus size of the IBM PC, the higher resolution monitor (that displayed graphics, not just text), smaller footprint and faster 32-bit processor of the Mac really set it apart.
It's a love thing. Really, I'm serious. It's the hazard of loyalty. That loyalty has been cultivated personality that equates Apple and it's proponents on a human level. Mac users have a hard time seeing Apple as just another callous, bottom-line first organization. It's part of having built an OS from the the user's perspective. The engineering serves the user. The user isn't forced to serve the engineer's laziness. When people get accustomed to having things work well, they take offense. It's unexpected.
It's tough to live to such a standard, and some people take their loyalty, and any betrayal of it a little too far. Some cheated spouses will forgive. Others carry through quite acrimonious divorces. Sorry to say, those hate sites are aggrevied spouses.
That's one group, but there are those others that have never liked Apple or it's products. They just like those people who take an instant, unaccountable, dislike of another individual. Having taken a dislike, they will look for reasons to rationalize it. Using the thinnest of reasons, they will tear down the other's character without even knowing the other person.
The fact that Apple suffers from stupid attacks is testament to it's ability to make people think of it as a friend, a company that is looking out for their best interest. Despite the fact that it's a corporation, people ascribe the company a measure of humanity.
I can't think of another company that engenders such affection. Hate, yes, but the best example of that is M$, and the hate directed at them is, for the most part, a defense of the love of Apple (or Linux).
For the most part, we don't expect corporations to have our best interests at heart. Hell, we don't expect them to have a heart, just a cold avariscious greed to separate us from our earnings. So, when Sony, or another corporation, treats customer's poorly there is little protest.
We've learned to take corporate mistreatment with diffidence. Apple is very rare in this respect. We expect them to treat us well. When they act like any other corporation it's a betrayal of those expectations, and betrayal is one of the most aggrieved emotions.
It's seems to me that someone searching for Playboy or Playmates, is searching for similar materials, not the original. After all, how long does it take a web newbie to learn that the first place to look for 'company XLO' is at www.companyxlo.com? (the idiots who search yahoo for yahoo search engine, excluded)
When a trademark acquires additional meaning it grows beyond its original and trademark use. Actually a success for the trademark. It's the greatest fault of trademarks that they attempt to control language while expanding it.
In my example, I've taken that expansion of the language, the trademark's acquired meaning, and used it to communicate an idea, an idea that is cumbersome to communicat otherwise. Their trademark has become associated with an idea. Restricting me from using that term restricts my freedom of expression. Allowing corporations to own words is just another step on the road to letting them control everything. When you control language, you control ideas.
Sure. Going after the bigger installed base opens a larger market. It also has more competition. You can reach more users on the smaller platform because it's users are ignored by the larger marketplace. Left-handed products cater to a smaller market and succeed because they are meeting the needs of an ignored population. They could compete for a share of the right-handed community and suffer. The costs of getting attention among greater competition makes the cost of success higher.
Let's say I get just 1% of the 10,000,000 Mac OS X users to buy my application. That's 100,000 installed users. At just $10 a copy I've made a cool million to distribute among, let's say, 5 developers and 2 marketers. We've each made over $100,000. Is that failure? Sure it's less than 0.01% of the entire computing market, but when the market is so large, ubiquity is a bogus measure of success.