With all the battles that need to be fought to make our world a better place, battling against Craigslist seems pretty far down on the list of priorities. I know it'd be a nice, high-profile feather in a prosecutor's cap and all but, seriously, it would be nice if tax payer's dollars were spent on worthy causes first before people try to pad their resume.
Artists don't make millions of dollars. Marketers do. Artists have long, successful, comfortable careers. Marketers create phenomenons that are able to retire after three years of "work."
Frasier? Seriously? You're blaming the end of Frasier on reality TV? Really? It didn't have anything to do with the fact that the show had an ELEVEN year run? It wasn't about the fact that the show ran its course, as all shows do? It died because of reality TV? Seriously?
I understand your basic point and actually agree with it in large part. Reality TV has changed the way networks view TV but to say that a show which had an exceptionally long run on TV ended because of reality TV rather than it just being the natural course of things is actually hurting your point rather than reinforcing it.
"Having to look over your shoulder at your usage all the time would seem to render that less attractive."
And this is precisely why I have not bought an iPhone yet. Being in Canada, I have to deal with Rogers' plans which are quite limited and, if I'm going to spend a stupid amount of money on a smart phone, I want to be able to use it's internet capabilities without ever worrying about how much data is being transmitted. Unless and until Rogers changes that (or another option becomes available that lacks a limit), I'll continue to do without. That said, for every person like me, I strongly suspect there's someone out there who knows they don't come close to their data limit each month and would be eager to pay less to have a data plan that fits their needs...
"Almost all successful marketing targeting women focus on image and lifestyle that they all "wish" they had."
Um, here's a secret - most successful marketing targets people's desire to have "that" lifestyle. It isn't just marketing targeting women - it's all marketing. For example, Lexus commercials (which typically target affluent men) portray the sophisticated man with power and influence and an attractive wife. That's the _lifestyle_ they are selling. The car is just the means to that lifestyle - buy "this" car and you will have "this" lifestyle. It has nothing to do with women - it's a gender neutral marketing strategy. And it works.
"There's a level of consumer sophistication they're missing."
Uh, you mean like all of it. By the sounds of it, it completely and utterly lacks any hint of sophistication. In fact, the best way to market to women (especially tech-savvy women) is to utilize a great deal of sophistication which makes their complete lack of it quite ironic...
I dislike it when humans mess with nature like this. It's pretty simple and I'm surprised that people who are smarter than I am can't see it - you make your blood poisonous to mosquitoes => mosquitoes get poisoned => mosquito gets eaten by predator before it dies => predator gets poisoned => evolution takes over. Do we know how the mosquitoes will evolve in order to adapt to the poison? No. Do we know how mosquito predators will evolve to adapt to the poison? No. Do we know the impact on the environment as predators/prey habits change? No. Do we know how this very simple little poison will impact nature, on a much larger scale? No.
And, if anyone thinks that such a small thing cannot possibly have a drastic effect on nature, I recommend you look up the impact that the simple introduction of rabbits to Australia had on the entire continent. 24 rabbits and a continent has been devastated, to put it mildly. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia )
If we can't see the long term impact that something is going to have on nature, we should stop fucking with it. To me, this is such a horribly bad idea...
Um, yes. It is the same choice twice. Which is proof that one should never post a reply to/. before they've completed their morning coffee... With luck most people will know what I was trying to say rather than what my fingers butchered...
Ok, I like the game, quite a lot. I've played it off and on since it launched. I'll probably go back to it for another spin soon because I've gotten a hankering for superhero ass-kicking again. But. Let's be honest here, the game is not growing. It might be holding steady with periodic increases or decreases in subscription rates but it most certainly is not growing...
Which would you prefer, a world in which you know you'll never stumble upon a picture of your home or car or face on the internet because your privacy is so secure or a world in which it is illegal for you to take a photo outdoors because you may have someone's home, car, or face in the frame and thus be breaking privacy laws? That's an important question for you to ask yourself before you take a stance on this issue...
Wolverine is struggling because it sucked. People went to see it and warned their friends away because, though there were some good elements to the movie, it was terrible, as a whole. Horrendous script and patchwork story - it was a movie by committee. We know that a good movie can be made with a superhero character (Batman, and Ironman to name two recent examples) but Wolverine was everything that is bad about a superhero movie.
Star Trek, however, is not going to struggle because it's about as perfect a reboot of the Star Trek franchise as one could hope for. Sure, hardcore Trekkies might rage about this or that and it isn't a flawless movie so someone will try to prove their movie critic cred by picking it apart but the reality is that it's an excellent movie that people are going to recommend to their friends.
Simple lesson to be learned - make a good movie and you'll have long term success. Make a hot movie and you'll have a great opening weekend. Make both and you'll have a great opening weekend and long term success. It's not rocket science.
"...but it's pretty obvious that mainstream bands like NIN are an acceptable part of American culture."
Ok, I like Nine Inch Nails. Quite a bit. But, let's be real - what America are you living in that makes you think that NIN are an acceptable part of American culture? First, I would imagine that a majority of Americans have never, in their lives, even heard of NIN (which makes it obvious they aren't remotely a part of "American culture"). Second, I would imagine that a very large percentage (possibly even a majority) of Americans who have heard of NIN dislike them, greatly. I would imagine their music actually offends more people than it entertains (making the acceptable part of your statement very questionable). Their music may entertain a lot of people but it's also a style that many people dislike, strongly.
So, again, while I like NIN a great deal and think that Trent Reznor is doing some spectacular things to push music into the new era, I am curious what America you live in that you think they are even vaguely an acceptable part of American culture.
I would be nice if people could come up with vaguely realistic Apple rumours to increase their page hits rather than inane drivel like this. If anyone even remotely thinks this rumour is true then they have absolutely no clue. Period.
Two companies you've never heard of merge to create a unified company you won't remember in a week and present no danger what-so-ever to Microsoft nor IBM. I mean, seriously. Let's be real here.
It's sickening to watch massive corporations give up on the ideals of commercialism (competing for the consumer's dollars on the basis of quality, service, and price) and instead simply doing business through legislation (make it illegal for your competition to exist...). I feel like I'm watching someone's Cyberpunk or Shadowrun campaign come together as megacorps take control of governments... It's all sickening...
I urge all Canadian slashdotters to write to the CRTC and lodge a complaint. If they receive enough complaints from informed people (and I'd like to think we're a relatively informed lot), they will hopefully take action and put an end to Bell's shenanigans. Until they are put in their place, they will continue to abuse their infrastructure monopoly.
While I think it's cool that his name is appearing in the space station, I think it's idiotic for them to not name the node Colbert. They had a public vote for the name. They allowed write in suggestions. The write in suggestion won because a TV personality made sure to make it a big deal. Name the node Colbert and, maybe, that TV personality will keep NASA in people's minds. If people are thinking about NASA a lot, it will be easier for NASA to do business (get funding, recruit minds, etc., etc., etc.). It's just stupid for them to not name it what the people voted for. What does it cost them? Oh noes! The name of the node isn't something "proper" like Tranquility! Whatever. Such a stupid decision.
So, the key is to pirate songs so much that the labels have no choice but to offer legal, high quality downloads for free. Ok. Not what I expected but I'm willing to do my part...
Whoever first injected DRM (and all the related schemes) into the product development process was absolutely brilliant. It's like making a car that will fall apart a year after the warranty runs out, thereby encouraging the buyer to come back and buy a new car except, in this case, the car falls apart days after being released into the wild meaning the company needs to continue employing their DRM team so they can come up with yet a new scheme that will again crumble in a matter of days. It's planned obsolescence at warp speed. Pure brilliance. Whoever got the DRM ball rolling has guaranteed that they'll have work for as long as companies think that DRM will actually work, which appears to be a very long time, despite evidence to the contrary...
When movies are being made to attract the largest viewing audience possible (and thus generate the largest revenue possible), we should not be the least bit surprised that movie companies are shying away from constricting their possible market. An R-rated movie cuts out a rather sizable chunk of the typical theater-going audience. It's a bold move to restrict your audience so much but one that does not make good "business sense." Not surprising that the studios are moving away from that.
Slashdot Mirror
With all the battles that need to be fought to make our world a better place, battling against Craigslist seems pretty far down on the list of priorities. I know it'd be a nice, high-profile feather in a prosecutor's cap and all but, seriously, it would be nice if tax payer's dollars were spent on worthy causes first before people try to pad their resume.
Are they trying to make their legal system look like a circus? If they are, they're succeeding, in spades.
Artists don't make millions of dollars. Marketers do. Artists have long, successful, comfortable careers. Marketers create phenomenons that are able to retire after three years of "work."
Frasier? Seriously? You're blaming the end of Frasier on reality TV? Really? It didn't have anything to do with the fact that the show had an ELEVEN year run? It wasn't about the fact that the show ran its course, as all shows do? It died because of reality TV? Seriously?
I understand your basic point and actually agree with it in large part. Reality TV has changed the way networks view TV but to say that a show which had an exceptionally long run on TV ended because of reality TV rather than it just being the natural course of things is actually hurting your point rather than reinforcing it.
"Having to look over your shoulder at your usage all the time would seem to render that less attractive."
And this is precisely why I have not bought an iPhone yet. Being in Canada, I have to deal with Rogers' plans which are quite limited and, if I'm going to spend a stupid amount of money on a smart phone, I want to be able to use it's internet capabilities without ever worrying about how much data is being transmitted. Unless and until Rogers changes that (or another option becomes available that lacks a limit), I'll continue to do without. That said, for every person like me, I strongly suspect there's someone out there who knows they don't come close to their data limit each month and would be eager to pay less to have a data plan that fits their needs...
"Almost all successful marketing targeting women focus on image and lifestyle that they all "wish" they had."
Um, here's a secret - most successful marketing targets people's desire to have "that" lifestyle. It isn't just marketing targeting women - it's all marketing. For example, Lexus commercials (which typically target affluent men) portray the sophisticated man with power and influence and an attractive wife. That's the _lifestyle_ they are selling. The car is just the means to that lifestyle - buy "this" car and you will have "this" lifestyle. It has nothing to do with women - it's a gender neutral marketing strategy. And it works.
"There's a level of consumer sophistication they're missing."
Uh, you mean like all of it. By the sounds of it, it completely and utterly lacks any hint of sophistication. In fact, the best way to market to women (especially tech-savvy women) is to utilize a great deal of sophistication which makes their complete lack of it quite ironic...
I dislike it when humans mess with nature like this. It's pretty simple and I'm surprised that people who are smarter than I am can't see it - you make your blood poisonous to mosquitoes => mosquitoes get poisoned => mosquito gets eaten by predator before it dies => predator gets poisoned => evolution takes over. Do we know how the mosquitoes will evolve in order to adapt to the poison? No. Do we know how mosquito predators will evolve to adapt to the poison? No. Do we know the impact on the environment as predators/prey habits change? No. Do we know how this very simple little poison will impact nature, on a much larger scale? No.
And, if anyone thinks that such a small thing cannot possibly have a drastic effect on nature, I recommend you look up the impact that the simple introduction of rabbits to Australia had on the entire continent. 24 rabbits and a continent has been devastated, to put it mildly. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia )
If we can't see the long term impact that something is going to have on nature, we should stop fucking with it. To me, this is such a horribly bad idea...
Neil Gaiman says it best.
Um, yes. It is the same choice twice. Which is proof that one should never post a reply to /. before they've completed their morning coffee... With luck most people will know what I was trying to say rather than what my fingers butchered...
Ok, I like the game, quite a lot. I've played it off and on since it launched. I'll probably go back to it for another spin soon because I've gotten a hankering for superhero ass-kicking again. But. Let's be honest here, the game is not growing. It might be holding steady with periodic increases or decreases in subscription rates but it most certainly is not growing...
Which would you prefer, a world in which you know you'll never stumble upon a picture of your home or car or face on the internet because your privacy is so secure or a world in which it is illegal for you to take a photo outdoors because you may have someone's home, car, or face in the frame and thus be breaking privacy laws? That's an important question for you to ask yourself before you take a stance on this issue...
Wolverine is struggling because it sucked. People went to see it and warned their friends away because, though there were some good elements to the movie, it was terrible, as a whole. Horrendous script and patchwork story - it was a movie by committee. We know that a good movie can be made with a superhero character (Batman, and Ironman to name two recent examples) but Wolverine was everything that is bad about a superhero movie.
Star Trek, however, is not going to struggle because it's about as perfect a reboot of the Star Trek franchise as one could hope for. Sure, hardcore Trekkies might rage about this or that and it isn't a flawless movie so someone will try to prove their movie critic cred by picking it apart but the reality is that it's an excellent movie that people are going to recommend to their friends.
Simple lesson to be learned - make a good movie and you'll have long term success. Make a hot movie and you'll have a great opening weekend. Make both and you'll have a great opening weekend and long term success. It's not rocket science.
Lots of people claimed that the Wii would fail because it's graphics weren't adequate for what hardcore gamers wanted. Nintendo proved them wrong.
I'm just sayin'.
"...but it's pretty obvious that mainstream bands like NIN are an acceptable part of American culture."
Ok, I like Nine Inch Nails. Quite a bit. But, let's be real - what America are you living in that makes you think that NIN are an acceptable part of American culture? First, I would imagine that a majority of Americans have never, in their lives, even heard of NIN (which makes it obvious they aren't remotely a part of "American culture"). Second, I would imagine that a very large percentage (possibly even a majority) of Americans who have heard of NIN dislike them, greatly. I would imagine their music actually offends more people than it entertains (making the acceptable part of your statement very questionable). Their music may entertain a lot of people but it's also a style that many people dislike, strongly.
So, again, while I like NIN a great deal and think that Trent Reznor is doing some spectacular things to push music into the new era, I am curious what America you live in that you think they are even vaguely an acceptable part of American culture.
Allow me to say, it's about damn time.
I would be nice if people could come up with vaguely realistic Apple rumours to increase their page hits rather than inane drivel like this. If anyone even remotely thinks this rumour is true then they have absolutely no clue. Period.
Two companies you've never heard of merge to create a unified company you won't remember in a week and present no danger what-so-ever to Microsoft nor IBM. I mean, seriously. Let's be real here.
It's sickening to watch massive corporations give up on the ideals of commercialism (competing for the consumer's dollars on the basis of quality, service, and price) and instead simply doing business through legislation (make it illegal for your competition to exist...). I feel like I'm watching someone's Cyberpunk or Shadowrun campaign come together as megacorps take control of governments... It's all sickening...
I urge all Canadian slashdotters to write to the CRTC and lodge a complaint. If they receive enough complaints from informed people (and I'd like to think we're a relatively informed lot), they will hopefully take action and put an end to Bell's shenanigans. Until they are put in their place, they will continue to abuse their infrastructure monopoly.
While I think it's cool that his name is appearing in the space station, I think it's idiotic for them to not name the node Colbert. They had a public vote for the name. They allowed write in suggestions. The write in suggestion won because a TV personality made sure to make it a big deal. Name the node Colbert and, maybe, that TV personality will keep NASA in people's minds. If people are thinking about NASA a lot, it will be easier for NASA to do business (get funding, recruit minds, etc., etc., etc.). It's just stupid for them to not name it what the people voted for. What does it cost them? Oh noes! The name of the node isn't something "proper" like Tranquility! Whatever. Such a stupid decision.
Trust me, Marketing Majors and MBAs do make everything harder...
So, the key is to pirate songs so much that the labels have no choice but to offer legal, high quality downloads for free. Ok. Not what I expected but I'm willing to do my part...
Whoever first injected DRM (and all the related schemes) into the product development process was absolutely brilliant. It's like making a car that will fall apart a year after the warranty runs out, thereby encouraging the buyer to come back and buy a new car except, in this case, the car falls apart days after being released into the wild meaning the company needs to continue employing their DRM team so they can come up with yet a new scheme that will again crumble in a matter of days. It's planned obsolescence at warp speed. Pure brilliance. Whoever got the DRM ball rolling has guaranteed that they'll have work for as long as companies think that DRM will actually work, which appears to be a very long time, despite evidence to the contrary...
When movies are being made to attract the largest viewing audience possible (and thus generate the largest revenue possible), we should not be the least bit surprised that movie companies are shying away from constricting their possible market. An R-rated movie cuts out a rather sizable chunk of the typical theater-going audience. It's a bold move to restrict your audience so much but one that does not make good "business sense." Not surprising that the studios are moving away from that.