Why dont these clowns combine these things with cellphones too while they are at it, I want as much functionality out of my devices as possible,
Ie: cellphone, calculator, gameboy type games, addressbook, GPS, Camera, audio snipit recorder, mp3 player, email/webbrowser and everything else you can thing of ALL IN ONE DEVICE.
oh yea, by the way it needs to fit into my shirt pocket. if you dont think it can be done, Google "smart dust" while you are laughing at me. then post a reply as to exactly "why not." I want my portable device to look like a Star Trek (tm) "Tri-Corder" even if it does cost a bundle to produce I would make it a point to buy one A.S.A.P.
Here is my list of Priorities: Air, Water, Food, Housing, Tricorder, car, home pc, other.
(your milage may vary)
As they say, it is usually not enough to post a reply just because you agree with sombodys comment, but in this case I think I should make an exception.
Companies everywhere keep trying to put restrictions on what we do with things we *own*, and that's just not right - economically, morally, or socially. It saddens me so many people are willing to accept the situation without question.
I agree with 100% of what you are saying here. but consider that the consumer gets what he pays for, It is sad that having a "bad idea" doesn't mean you are going to fail, if you have enough people throwing money at you, you can do almost anything and get away from it. Its too bad we are preaching to the choir here on slashdot as we relive this conversation every day in one form or another. The only way to stop it is to educate the masses. Go out and tell people what you think at every opprotunity EVEN IF it puts you at risk of being labeled a "Zelot or Fanatic" things that are worth standing up for are just that, But we arent going to get anywhere talking amongst ourselves, time to get it in action.
"Lets not to call the ignorant, stupid, but instead,
educate these slaves into freedom."
Im not suggesting that we start using popups to ask permission to use popups, dont be obtuse. I am suggesting that the website who is "hosting" the popups (or ANY sort of invasive advertisment) use a level of respect for the "potential customer" previously un-implemented.
This could be done by simply posting a link on the page that asks the user if he/she would like to support you by viewing the advertisments affiliated with your service or product. If the "potential customer" DOES happen to be interested in the product he is apparently seeking, he may be more inclined to view these advertisments than some one who is not likely to purchase anything in the first place. Of course this approach would not work so well in the case where your popups are totally unrelated to the product which is being offered on the website. IE: if i am looking at a website about toilet paper, i probably dont want to think about buying a car at the moment. i want to see advertisments about toilet paper. Maybe even go so far as consider other bathroom accesories such as cleaning materials or soaps.
the current business model is flawed, ineffective, antiquated, and just plain annoying to 90% (or more) of those "potential customers" you claim to "value" so much. Treat the customer with respect, dont insult peoples intelligence, and dont open browsers the customers didnt specifically ask for, and you might even start making more money.
And, to speak to your analogy of the Television Market of commercials, Popups are the equivilent of the TV program in question changing the channel to QVC. Nesting Advertisments within the page its self is the equivilent of a commercial break, and i dont mind skipping over a few advertisments to read the article so long as it doesnt interrupt the flow of my reading so much i feel like im being attacked.
As a general rule (for your marketing department)
Anything that makes your "potential customer" hate you cant be good. something to think about.
that are rapidly becoming illegal or at the least highly regulated on the interent. Why is it legal to pop up unwanted windows under OR over the browser without the Expressed Written Concent of the END USER.
I suppose they would argue that by viewing the site said concent is implied, however its hard to know what you are signing up for when you click a link and WHAM you get attacked by unwanted windows containing advertisments, often times, inappropriate material to say the least.
would be nice to see a question on the home page of these popup serving pages like: "Would you like to see our ads?"
Unrealistic, yes. but so are some of the laws being proposed that TAKE away from the user experience, and they seem to be passing through as laws easy enough.
I was under the misguided conception that people have the right to say anything they want, likewise other people have the right to choose if they want to believe it, and choose where to get the information that guides there decisions.
I have been calling Gator "Spyware" for years and it's not going to change now especially not just for my websites. and SURE not just because Gator would prefer "adware."
Call it like you see it. There is a difference between Liable (slander) such as "Spyware like Gator is evil" and fact baised observations like "Gator is Spyware"
I'm just calling it like I see it, and thats not going to change any time soon. If that makes me a "criminal" in the eyes of Ggator, so be it.
Why cant the Producers of HDTV programming include an option on the disk to "reformat" the data so it could be backward compatable to the older DVD player? Giving the consumer more options.
Probably because they don't want backward compatibility. Its all about selling more products and services, Especially if it is at the cost of the consumers who have ALREADY purchased the older products, who would then be forced to "upgrade."
This reminds me of the drug dealer who give away the drug untill the user is hooked, then jacks up the price. Capitolism at its fines (or lowest) whichever.
Problem is, the consumer falls for it very nearly EVERY time. We get what we pay for, quite literally.
Dont like it? DONT BUY IT!
This Post was brought to you by the letters R. I. A and A, and the number 0
I see you point, and you are right.
The point is the consumer has a choice, buy into the restrictions or stay with the "old model"
I for one (probably like you) will be staying with the "old model" untill this sort of propriotary bs is weeded out.
I honestly think if the consumers were aware of these things at "purchase time" companies wouldnt as often get away with it.
It all comes down to educating the average consumer, IMHO. In other words an educated consumer makes for a healthy market.
Anything can be stolen, that goes for the credit card in your wallet just as well as the cell phone in your (other) pocket.
Cellphones can be Password Protected. My point is, while you have a valid point, solutions exist.
This is the kind of Technology I like to see.
Should be interesting for Americans to see other countries are able to innovate aswell.
I for one think we should integrade as many technologies into the cell phone as possible
IE: Camera, Phone, Email, addressbook, Global Positioning System, Environment Controls for Home Central Air system, Universal Entertainment Remote for TV DVD etc... calculator, the list goes on and on, sure why not make purchases with it too. Model it after the Star Trek (tm) Tri-corder and Beam me up Scotty!
What if Ford Motor company suddenly decided to include a clause in the contract that stipulates, something like: "if you purchase a Ford vehicle, you agree to purchase all accessory and or replacement parts from Ford Directly" ?
I think you would see allot more Chevy's running arround town.
let the FCC pass all the regulations they want. I for one will be sticking to Regular Tv/DVD combo, At least untill the FCC decides to make THAT illegal too.
I expect one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement,
Given a sufficiently large group of people, extreme "subcultures" happens with any cult, cause, religion, belief, movement, organisation or group. This does not mean the idea is a bad one, it just proves the group is successfully strong in numbers to have attracted people from MANY backgrounds who naturally have different "solutions" to the "problem." (in other words, every village has its idiots) and you cant please everybody.
However, this is a perfect example of the kind of negative "press" that can frustrate an already angry "Zealot"
into becoming a "terrorist" for the "cause".
so to add to your comment, I would say, yes. If you dont have anything constructive to say, say nothing, ignore it. BUT, if you can respond with any intelligence in a positive way, go for it, the "Zealots" need all the help they can get.
Perhaps if we gave a second look as to why these "Zealots" are so passionate about their ideas, we might become a bit more tolerant to their views, or at the very least begin to understand what drove them crazy.
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" --FDR
Wikipidia is a good example of a good quality, free form content/knowledge baise.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiPedia
"As far as I see it, the biggest impediment to a successfully open source journal is peer review."
As far as i see it, this it totally wrong. So long as the journal is made public during the peer review process, and the actual "peers" (the readers) can take part in the process. (maybe a standard can be made for displaying the pages "draft status" as it makes its way to becoming a "finished" work. However, with that said, in an ever growing subject as science, I dont think we are ready to call any paper "finished" that is at least untill we solve ALL of the mysteries of the universe. New discoveries are made daily, constantly improving upon if not overturning entirly previous works thought to be "finished. the theory behind TRUE "peer review" by definition allows for a continuous update, in accordance with everchanging technology. Such a thing is "the wiki way".
Of course, the quality of the content depends upon the quality of the contributor, but, as another slashdotter said earlier this week in reference to an unrelated issue you can usually tell the difference between the "cream that rises to the top" and the "crap that floats." I have found this also to be true about the content found in wiki's and wiki clones.
Dont get me Wrong, I welcome ANY efforts to make process in publication of such "journals" or (any media for that matter) more open;)
Slashdot Mirror
Why dont these clowns combine these things with cellphones too while they are at it, I want as much functionality out of my devices as possible,
Ie: cellphone, calculator, gameboy type games, addressbook, GPS, Camera, audio snipit recorder, mp3 player, email/webbrowser and everything else you can thing of ALL IN ONE DEVICE.
oh yea, by the way it needs to fit into my shirt pocket. if you dont think it can be done, Google "smart dust" while you are laughing at me. then post a reply as to exactly "why not." I want my portable device to look like a Star Trek (tm) "Tri-Corder" even if it does cost a bundle to produce I would make it a point to buy one A.S.A.P.
Here is my list of Priorities: Air, Water, Food, Housing, Tricorder, car, home pc, other. (your milage may vary)
Beam me up Scotty!
As they say, it is usually not enough to post a reply just because you agree with sombodys comment, but in this case I think I should make an exception.
Companies everywhere keep trying to put restrictions on what we do with things we *own*, and that's just not right - economically, morally, or socially. It saddens me so many people are willing to accept the situation without question.
I agree with 100% of what you are saying here. but consider that the consumer gets what he pays for, It is sad that having a "bad idea" doesn't mean you are going to fail, if you have enough people throwing money at you, you can do almost anything and get away from it. Its too bad we are preaching to the choir here on slashdot as we relive this conversation every day in one form or another. The only way to stop it is to educate the masses. Go out and tell people what you think at every opprotunity EVEN IF it puts you at risk of being labeled a "Zelot or Fanatic" things that are worth standing up for are just that, But we arent going to get anywhere talking amongst ourselves, time to get it in action.
"Lets not to call the ignorant, stupid, but instead, educate these slaves into freedom."
Im not suggesting that we start using popups to ask permission to use popups, dont be obtuse. I am suggesting that the website who is "hosting" the popups (or ANY sort of invasive advertisment) use a level of respect for the "potential customer" previously un-implemented.
This could be done by simply posting a link on the page that asks the user if he/she would like to support you by viewing the advertisments affiliated with your service or product. If the "potential customer" DOES happen to be interested in the product he is apparently seeking, he may be more inclined to view these advertisments than some one who is not likely to purchase anything in the first place. Of course this approach would not work so well in the case where your popups are totally unrelated to the product which is being offered on the website. IE: if i am looking at a website about toilet paper, i probably dont want to think about buying a car at the moment. i want to see advertisments about toilet paper. Maybe even go so far as consider other bathroom accesories such as cleaning materials or soaps.
the current business model is flawed, ineffective, antiquated, and just plain annoying to 90% (or more) of those "potential customers" you claim to "value" so much. Treat the customer with respect, dont insult peoples intelligence, and dont open browsers the customers didnt specifically ask for, and you might even start making more money.
And, to speak to your analogy of the Television Market of commercials, Popups are the equivilent of the TV program in question changing the channel to QVC. Nesting Advertisments within the page its self is the equivilent of a commercial break, and i dont mind skipping over a few advertisments to read the article so long as it doesnt interrupt the flow of my reading so much i feel like im being attacked.
As a general rule (for your marketing department) Anything that makes your "potential customer" hate you cant be good. something to think about.
If hostptals were oil fields these "other countries" would be on U.S. terrorist list.
that are rapidly becoming illegal or at the least highly regulated on the interent. Why is it legal to pop up unwanted windows under OR over the browser without the Expressed Written Concent of the END USER.
I suppose they would argue that by viewing the site said concent is implied, however its hard to know what you are signing up for when you click a link and WHAM you get attacked by unwanted windows containing advertisments, often times, inappropriate material to say the least. would be nice to see a question on the home page of these popup serving pages like: "Would you like to see our ads?"
Unrealistic, yes. but so are some of the laws being proposed that TAKE away from the user experience, and they seem to be passing through as laws easy enough.
Just Say no to pop-ups/pop-unders
I was going to mod you down, but then I noticed...your right :)
I was under the misguided conception that people have the right to say anything they want, likewise other people have the right to choose if they want to believe it, and choose where to get the information that guides there decisions.
I have been calling Gator "Spyware" for years and it's not going to change now especially not just for my websites. and SURE not just because Gator would prefer "adware."
Call it like you see it. There is a difference between Liable (slander) such as "Spyware like Gator is evil" and fact baised observations like "Gator is Spyware"
I'm just calling it like I see it, and thats not going to change any time soon. If that makes me a "criminal" in the eyes of Ggator, so be it.
Why cant the Producers of HDTV programming include an option on the disk to "reformat" the data so it could be backward compatable to the older DVD player? Giving the consumer more options.
Probably because they don't want backward compatibility. Its all about selling more products and services, Especially if it is at the cost of the consumers who have ALREADY purchased the older products, who would then be forced to "upgrade."
This reminds me of the drug dealer who give away the drug untill the user is hooked, then jacks up the price. Capitolism at its fines (or lowest) whichever.
Problem is, the consumer falls for it very nearly EVERY time. We get what we pay for, quite literally.
Dont like it? DONT BUY IT!
This Post was brought to you by the letters R. I. A and A, and the number 0
I see you point, and you are right.
The point is the consumer has a choice, buy into the restrictions or stay with the "old model"
I for one (probably like you) will be staying with the "old model" untill this sort of propriotary bs is weeded out.
I honestly think if the consumers were aware of these things at "purchase time" companies wouldnt as often get away with it.
It all comes down to educating the average consumer, IMHO. In other words an educated consumer makes for a healthy market.
Anything can be stolen, that goes for the credit card in your wallet just as well as the cell phone in your (other) pocket. Cellphones can be Password Protected. My point is, while you have a valid point, solutions exist.
This is the kind of Technology I like to see.
Should be interesting for Americans to see other countries are able to innovate aswell.
I for one think we should integrade as many technologies into the cell phone as possible IE: Camera, Phone, Email, addressbook, Global Positioning System, Environment Controls for Home Central Air system, Universal Entertainment Remote for TV DVD etc... calculator, the list goes on and on, sure why not make purchases with it too. Model it after the Star Trek (tm) Tri-corder and Beam me up Scotty!
Broadband killed the Broadcast.... etc, enough said. With the rate of Tech advance what difference does it make.
What if Ford Motor company suddenly decided to include a clause in the contract that stipulates, something like: "if you purchase a Ford vehicle, you agree to purchase all accessory and or replacement parts from Ford Directly" ? I think you would see allot more Chevy's running arround town. let the FCC pass all the regulations they want. I for one will be sticking to Regular Tv/DVD combo, At least untill the FCC decides to make THAT illegal too.
I expect one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement,
Given a sufficiently large group of people, extreme "subcultures" happens with any cult, cause, religion, belief, movement, organisation or group. This does not mean the idea is a bad one, it just proves the group is successfully strong in numbers to have attracted people from MANY backgrounds who naturally have different "solutions" to the "problem." (in other words, every village has its idiots) and you cant please everybody.
However, this is a perfect example of the kind of negative "press" that can frustrate an already angry "Zealot" into becoming a "terrorist" for the "cause".
so to add to your comment, I would say, yes. If you dont have anything constructive to say, say nothing, ignore it. BUT, if you can respond with any intelligence in a positive way, go for it, the "Zealots" need all the help they can get.
Perhaps if we gave a second look as to why these "Zealots" are so passionate about their ideas, we might become a bit more tolerant to their views, or at the very least begin to understand what drove them crazy. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" --FDR
a new place to throw pennies/spit from.
"Journals have become *very* expensive."
;)
Only the ones that aren't free.
Wikipidia is a good example of a good quality, free form content/knowledge baise.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiPedia
"As far as I see it, the biggest impediment to a successfully open source journal is peer review."
As far as i see it, this it totally wrong. So long as the journal is made public during the peer review process, and the actual "peers" (the readers) can take part in the process. (maybe a standard can be made for displaying the pages "draft status" as it makes its way to becoming a "finished" work. However, with that said, in an ever growing subject as science, I dont think we are ready to call any paper "finished" that is at least untill we solve ALL of the mysteries of the universe. New discoveries are made daily, constantly improving upon if not overturning entirly previous works thought to be "finished. the theory behind TRUE "peer review" by definition allows for a continuous update, in accordance with everchanging technology. Such a thing is "the wiki way".
Of course, the quality of the content depends upon the quality of the contributor, but, as another slashdotter said earlier this week in reference to an unrelated issue you can usually tell the difference between the "cream that rises to the top" and the "crap that floats." I have found this also to be true about the content found in wiki's and wiki clones.
Dont get me Wrong, I welcome ANY efforts to make process in publication of such "journals" or (any media for that matter) more open