Sounds more like you are purposefully being obtuse in effort to support your point. You listed specific methods of advertising you find distasteful, and I absolutely agree; there are many many ways to do advertising wrong.
I then listed a few examples of advertising done right, and certainly don't fall under the umbrella the term "plague", effectively disproving your initial assertion.
So it's certain methods of advertisement that you dislike. I can agree with that.
However, to lump all advertisements in the same boat is absurd. Tell me, do you watch movie trailers? How about trailers for shows? I watched the Stranger Things 2 trailer a few weeks ago and thought it was very well done. That's an advertisement.
Ever watch Austin Powers? Those blatant product placements were amazing. Again; advertisement.
Zombieland? Amazing, and again, advertisements.
There are good methods of advertising, but you miss that when you inappropriately extrapolate from your negative dataset.
I noticed your signature. You realize, I hope, that that's a form of advertisement.
Your complaint seems more focused on the delivery of the content, and I agree; there are a lot of offensive ways to deliver advertisements. Yours is not one of them. Popups/popunders/window closers/fullscreens/ect... are all annoying and should not be used, I'll agree with that. But to straight call all methods of advertising a plague is ridiculously naive.
Advertising is not a plague, actually. It's a tool. Yes, it CAN be a plague, but if done correctly it can introduce you to products or services which are interesting to you.
It's for verification of purchase after the fact, not to prevent fraudulent purchases at the time of transaction.
Mind you, it's still kinda stupid because if someone is planning on disputing a charge they can just fuck up their signature at time of transaction BUT it's worth the clarification.
Offended might be the wrong word. What's actually happening is far worse ( for the NFL ).
Let me ask you this: Why do people cheer for specific teams? Rosters change, coaches come and go, management and owners change. Hell, you can't even rely on a team to stay in the same city. When you come right down to it, people are fans of nothing more than a name. So how does that work? How does slavish devotion to a name result in very serious amounts of cash being extracted from fans?
Tribalism. Humanity is, at it's core, tribal. Fans view these teams as "their tribe", which enables all the other behaviors that follow. And as long as that reality is maintained, the cash will continue to flow.
Enter the protests; the protesting players are no longer a part of the tribe. They are shattering that reality. Without realizing it, fans are waking up to the fact that it's just a team name and one they can live without.
So offended is probably the wrong word. If you offend a friend, you can apologize and everything is fine. The NFL protests, however, are creating a dynamic where the fans can't go back to being in the same tribe as their team's players. Even if the players profusely apologize ( which I doubt, given their recent remarks ), the fans will always have doubts, and those doubts will translate into a very serious loss of revenue.
Preface: I have no political or philosophical position on whether NFL players should stand or kneel for the pledge. I'm speaking not of their "cause", but rather of it's effects.
The primary reason most people I know still have cable is because of sports ( football, baseball primarily ). With the NFL players doing what they can to offend and drive away their base, I wonder if we'll see a dramatic acceleration from this quarter forward as more people realize that spending 100+ bucks a month just to get sports is a waste of cash.
I can't speak for AC, but I'm considerably older than my 20s, and I agree with his/her perspective. In my experience, unions have only two practical outcomes; they protect the deadwood and they hold back the performers, effectively normalizing everything to the lowest common denominator.
Yes, because if there's one thing that comes to mind when people think about interacting with a Microsoft product, it's the quality of the experience./sarcasm
Ok, ya. Fair enough. That's even worse though; a quality UI design isn't really all that hard, yet MS has repeatedly failed to do it for decades now.
It really should be embarrassing how much they fuck this stuff up.
MS was handed a built in majority in the mobile market by way of their market penetration in business desktop and productivity software, and they apparently did everything they could to piss it away. The *moment* they saw what RIM was up to with the blackberry, they should have been thinking to themselves, "We could be doing that so much better, and providing a much better experience".
Instead, they let RIM eat their lunch, then Apple, then Google. All the while kinda half-assing multiple doomed attempts in what is reminiscent of a shakespearean tragedy.
I remember years ago when the Geforce was brand new. As in; the original was fresh to market by 1 or so years. Those were the days of the Coppermine 333 which you could clock to 500 without breaking a sweat. Quack 3 Arena absolutely *flew*. It was glorious.
Anyway, the geforce. Another company, I believe it was voodoo at the time, came out with their response to the geforce which ran a tad faster...lo and behold, Nvidia released a driver update which significantly boosted the performance of the cards already out there, taking the speed crown back definitively.
The point is this has been common practice since forever. It's not anything to get riled about, it just is.
Wow, really? I've had the exact opposite behavior with Edge. It was "stickier" than Chrome ( random, if brief, pauses during page load and scrolling ).
Mind you, it might have had something to do with the ads that chrome didn't load that Edge did. When I tried Edge it didn't have any adblocker worth talking about. Not sure if that's changed since then.
You aren't wrong, and I'll be the first to admit my idea is a pipedream. However, if you think public infrastructure would be any more snooped on than our current infrastructure I have some bad news for you.
If anything, the use of public funds to create a public infrastructure should result in more legal-required transparency, not less. It might actually result in more privacy controls, which would be an interesting side-effect.
I have a solution. The infrastructure "generally" belongs to the ISPs, right? I'm on board with personal freedom, so I tend to side with property owners to do with their property as they will. Yes, I know that would suck for the customers, but I have a solution for that...
Congress pass a law which allows privately held ISPs to filter and shape traffic however they will. Same bill would explicitly allow city/county/state/fed entities to setup their own infrastructure AND create a federal fund that these entities can apply for to help build out their own infrastructure. ISPs would be barred from making any changes for 5-10 years, during which time they pay a new tax into the "build out" fund.
Private property is private property, and no one should be forced to restrict their use of such. So we make the infrastructure public, and introduce serious competition into the market.:D
Maybe, so? Doesn't mean they're wrong, just means they're assholes.
Personally, I my concern is more on the sustainability of the system. As it currently stands, it's impossible to sustain but worse; if you have your normally high wage earners saddled with life long student debt, the economy take a huge hit. That, in turn, will effect us all.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds more like you are purposefully being obtuse in effort to support your point. You listed specific methods of advertising you find distasteful, and I absolutely agree; there are many many ways to do advertising wrong.
I then listed a few examples of advertising done right, and certainly don't fall under the umbrella the term "plague", effectively disproving your initial assertion.
So it's certain methods of advertisement that you dislike. I can agree with that.
However, to lump all advertisements in the same boat is absurd. Tell me, do you watch movie trailers? How about trailers for shows? I watched the Stranger Things 2 trailer a few weeks ago and thought it was very well done. That's an advertisement.
Ever watch Austin Powers? Those blatant product placements were amazing. Again; advertisement.
Zombieland? Amazing, and again, advertisements.
There are good methods of advertising, but you miss that when you inappropriately extrapolate from your negative dataset.
I noticed your signature. You realize, I hope, that that's a form of advertisement.
Your complaint seems more focused on the delivery of the content, and I agree; there are a lot of offensive ways to deliver advertisements. Yours is not one of them. Popups/popunders/window closers/fullscreens/ect... are all annoying and should not be used, I'll agree with that. But to straight call all methods of advertising a plague is ridiculously naive.
Advertising is not a plague, actually. It's a tool. Yes, it CAN be a plague, but if done correctly it can introduce you to products or services which are interesting to you.
It's for verification of purchase after the fact, not to prevent fraudulent purchases at the time of transaction.
Mind you, it's still kinda stupid because if someone is planning on disputing a charge they can just fuck up their signature at time of transaction BUT it's worth the clarification.
How the hell am I supposed to control a potential employer's starting offer?
Wouldn't it be hilarious if 2018 turned out to be the year of the desktop because of mobile phone adoption?
It certainly goes a long ways in explaining the comment section around here.
Offended might be the wrong word. What's actually happening is far worse ( for the NFL ).
Let me ask you this: Why do people cheer for specific teams? Rosters change, coaches come and go, management and owners change. Hell, you can't even rely on a team to stay in the same city. When you come right down to it, people are fans of nothing more than a name. So how does that work? How does slavish devotion to a name result in very serious amounts of cash being extracted from fans?
Tribalism. Humanity is, at it's core, tribal. Fans view these teams as "their tribe", which enables all the other behaviors that follow. And as long as that reality is maintained, the cash will continue to flow.
Enter the protests; the protesting players are no longer a part of the tribe. They are shattering that reality. Without realizing it, fans are waking up to the fact that it's just a team name and one they can live without.
So offended is probably the wrong word. If you offend a friend, you can apologize and everything is fine. The NFL protests, however, are creating a dynamic where the fans can't go back to being in the same tribe as their team's players. Even if the players profusely apologize ( which I doubt, given their recent remarks ), the fans will always have doubts, and those doubts will translate into a very serious loss of revenue.
Preface: I have no political or philosophical position on whether NFL players should stand or kneel for the pledge. I'm speaking not of their "cause", but rather of it's effects.
The primary reason most people I know still have cable is because of sports ( football, baseball primarily ). With the NFL players doing what they can to offend and drive away their base, I wonder if we'll see a dramatic acceleration from this quarter forward as more people realize that spending 100+ bucks a month just to get sports is a waste of cash.
Part of me thinks this is gimmicky and stupid.
The rest of me wants to work in one, or look into converting my home office into a tree house, complete with a rope ladder and a secret password.
I can't speak for AC, but I'm considerably older than my 20s, and I agree with his/her perspective. In my experience, unions have only two practical outcomes; they protect the deadwood and they hold back the performers, effectively normalizing everything to the lowest common denominator.
...that zero zucks were given.
I'll show myself out.
Yes, because if there's one thing that comes to mind when people think about interacting with a Microsoft product, it's the quality of the experience. /sarcasm
Ok, ya. Fair enough. That's even worse though; a quality UI design isn't really all that hard, yet MS has repeatedly failed to do it for decades now.
It really should be embarrassing how much they fuck this stuff up.
MS was handed a built in majority in the mobile market by way of their market penetration in business desktop and productivity software, and they apparently did everything they could to piss it away. The *moment* they saw what RIM was up to with the blackberry, they should have been thinking to themselves, "We could be doing that so much better, and providing a much better experience".
Instead, they let RIM eat their lunch, then Apple, then Google. All the while kinda half-assing multiple doomed attempts in what is reminiscent of a shakespearean tragedy.
Fuck. Drunk posting. Guilty as charged. ...although now I really want to play it.
This is how smart businesses operate.
I remember years ago when the Geforce was brand new. As in; the original was fresh to market by 1 or so years. Those were the days of the Coppermine 333 which you could clock to 500 without breaking a sweat. Quack 3 Arena absolutely *flew*. It was glorious.
Anyway, the geforce. Another company, I believe it was voodoo at the time, came out with their response to the geforce which ran a tad faster...lo and behold, Nvidia released a driver update which significantly boosted the performance of the cards already out there, taking the speed crown back definitively.
The point is this has been common practice since forever. It's not anything to get riled about, it just is.
Wow, really? I've had the exact opposite behavior with Edge. It was "stickier" than Chrome ( random, if brief, pauses during page load and scrolling ).
Mind you, it might have had something to do with the ads that chrome didn't load that Edge did. When I tried Edge it didn't have any adblocker worth talking about. Not sure if that's changed since then.
Yes, I'm the family tech. Most new equipment comes with Chrome.
I don't know anyone who uses Edge on Windows, why would anyone willingly choose to download and install it on a different OS?
Together we rise, and together we fall.
If it's all the same to you, I'd really rather not entrust censorship to Google, Facebook or any entity.
Perhaps people can stop being so fucking gullible instead?
You aren't wrong, and I'll be the first to admit my idea is a pipedream. However, if you think public infrastructure would be any more snooped on than our current infrastructure I have some bad news for you.
If anything, the use of public funds to create a public infrastructure should result in more legal-required transparency, not less. It might actually result in more privacy controls, which would be an interesting side-effect.
I have a solution. The infrastructure "generally" belongs to the ISPs, right? I'm on board with personal freedom, so I tend to side with property owners to do with their property as they will. Yes, I know that would suck for the customers, but I have a solution for that...
Congress pass a law which allows privately held ISPs to filter and shape traffic however they will. Same bill would explicitly allow city/county/state/fed entities to setup their own infrastructure AND create a federal fund that these entities can apply for to help build out their own infrastructure. ISPs would be barred from making any changes for 5-10 years, during which time they pay a new tax into the "build out" fund.
Private property is private property, and no one should be forced to restrict their use of such. So we make the infrastructure public, and introduce serious competition into the market. :D
Maybe, so? Doesn't mean they're wrong, just means they're assholes.
Personally, I my concern is more on the sustainability of the system. As it currently stands, it's impossible to sustain but worse; if you have your normally high wage earners saddled with life long student debt, the economy take a huge hit. That, in turn, will effect us all.