Who says getting a ticket is a bad thing? Now we have some publicity for this woman. Even though her website was not listed in the article, I'm sure subsequent ones will. Further, this is a great case that could easily fall under the same lines of argumentation that the cameras on stop lights have.
Have some vision. Let's go about this paragraph by paragraph.
How well would these wok in high traffic areas? I could see something like this in Kansas or some other place where you have time to hit the reciver, change the ad and such, but in a high traffic area?...would it try to pick up if you driving a Ford POS or a Beemer and then chose the ad based on that?
Nope, the billboard cannot pick up what type of car you have... at least not until cars emit some sort of RF ID.
So here's how it works. I have this billboard that polls all the local traffic that it can poll. After having a demographic created, I can simply tune my add for the one most suited to that demographic. Then, as traffic changes quickly, each billboad is up for a set time (say a minute or 30 sec). Once this time limit has been reached, the billboard polls again.
What if I am listening to Art Bell? Would it show me an ad for the latest book on Shadow Gov? Jim Rome? How to have a take a not suck? Kim Kommando? Your a loser and need to return your computer right now? Top 40? All you $$$ belong to us - The RIAA? (off topic rant I know)
I'm hoping that is nothing more than a joke. Ever notice that during sports games there are a lot of beer and food ads? That's the kind of marketting changes they mean. People who watch certain shows are more likely to buy certain products. Same with radio.
Why is CNN, a Time Warner owned channel, on cable services besides Time Warner's own cable service? Isn't Time Warner selling its cable channel to a competing cable service and helping the competing cable service? Why is the competing cable service buying the rights to air CNN when they're essentially funding a competitor?
I think this example is the reverse point you are trying to make. Your example is more akin to Best Buy branding an MP3 player and having it sold at Circuit City. The point I was attempting to make, and obviously did so poorly, is that HP has no real outlet for their merchandise except for 3rd party vendors. Since this is the case, the argument that they are trying to turn into that same 3rd party vendor (aka Best Buy) seems to be conflicting until HP provides its own outlet fr merchandise. Now back to your example. Time Warner already has a stake in cable television before the advent of CNN. They make money by providing the cable service and they further make money by advertising revenue from CNN. This advertising revenue is increased by number of households viewing the channel, so allowing all providers to access CNN (which they pay fees to the station to do so) boosts revenue. This analogy does not seem comparable to HP though. HP can only make money (under their current model) iff the Best Buy places, Ingram Micro type venders, and VARs continue to sell their products. If Time Warner got rid of CNN or only allowed Time Warner customers to get the station, they would still have a product or service to sell and an outlet to sell it. Further, Time Warner's cable service is a matter of regional feasibility. Assume anyone in the US or world or whatnot could get TW cable. Maybe then it would be a sound business move to only allow TW customers to get CNN, but since that is not the case at least they are able to make money even when people choose the only provider they have access to. The Microsoft example follows this exact line of reasoning and thus seems a poor analogy also.
That why you have to wait for the store to open. If they offered better service, convinence (whether it be one-click shopping or less restrictive DRM or such), and prices, then you would choose it just like a brick and mortar store where certain similiar qualities like service, price, convinence (easy to get to, easy to find the stuff you're looking for in the store) convinced you to buy from there.
And I believe that I stated that I was aking the exact opposite assumption in my original post. Currently the market is flooded with nearly identical digital music vendors. Assuming HP is just another Napster 2.0 or Musicmatch or whathaveyou, there would be no reason to choose it over any other.
That may be the case for Dell and Gateway, however HP is different. Most people would be hard pressed to find a local HP store (I mean a chain that is analogous to the Gateway Country stores). No, rather HP ius a brand sold by Best Buys and Curcuit City and the likes. Now this doesn't make sense. How can HP be turn into the very place that sells their gear? That doesn't seem possible. HP cannot represent themselves as a Best Buy - like electronic merchandise store becaue they would be competing with the entity that sells their stuff. Further, even if I do accept such a premise, it does not provide me with a sufficient reason to choose the HP music store unless HP designs a portable music player that is totally proprietary and I got suckered into buying it.
With half a bajillion companies now offering song downloads at $0.99 and none coming to us without some sort of DRM involved, why would we choose one over another? The Apple iTunes store has had so much success because of (1) the sales success of the ipod and (2) the ease on integration of iTunes and OS X. Now let's turn this into a look at HP. HP's MP3 player (while the MP3 player in question is purely speculative since it has not been released) is probably no different than any other MP3 player and I doubt they could be much better than the Neuros. So this gives us no need to choose the HP music store over any other store. Further, HP hardware is not proprietary in the sense that getting music from the HP store would either be a required method of getting music or the easiest because of a lack of other sources. This seems to tell me one thing: HP's journey into online digital music sales will most likely be short lived.
To claim that there is a gene or a number of genes that leads to a propensity to have a heart attack seems to be putting the cart before the horse. While opinions differ, there seems to be no clearcut answer the the question "What is a gene?" Now we can talk about cistones and amino acid sequences, but such a question runs deeper than that. Richard Dawkins, author of the "Selfish Gene Theory" claims that genes are active replicators or that genes replicate for the purpose of increasing its population and not for the expression of a phenotype. Other gene claims are that genes are difference makers. A given gene or set of genes is either because of its existence the difference maker in expressed phenotype. This is the assumption that this article seems to use. However, developmental systems theorists seem to have a more robust and empirically correct claim which states that genetics is only one aspect of a larger scheme of phenotypic expression. In other words, mitochondria, DNA, environment, nutrition, and the like all have a hand in the expression of a phenotype. Thus, for any gene that is considered "a gene for X" X is only expressed when the organism has the right combination of other features already expressed. Because of this, it seems faulty for such a claim to be made, that there is a causal connection between strictly DNA and the organism's probability of a heart attack.
can only be obtained iff either no one is able to access it or it is removed from the hands of machines. ALL other security methods may be compromised, and even these are not fool proof. They are just more fool proof.
Anti-spam legislation is useless for two major reasons. First, state sponsored anti-spam laws are ineffective at holding spammers accountable for spamming. The methods of hijacking misconfigured international email servers allows an effective anonymous status to those who send the spam. Second, I don't see why home users cannot effectively use whitelist filtering to control inbox spam issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says getting a ticket is a bad thing? Now we have some publicity for this woman. Even though her website was not listed in the article, I'm sure subsequent ones will. Further, this is a great case that could easily fall under the same lines of argumentation that the cameras on stop lights have.
Radeon 9800 Card Hauppage PVR 350 SB Audigy 2 Platinum Klipsch 5.1 GMX That should be a good starting point.
That may be the case for Dell and Gateway, however HP is different. Most people would be hard pressed to find a local HP store (I mean a chain that is analogous to the Gateway Country stores). No, rather HP ius a brand sold by Best Buys and Curcuit City and the likes. Now this doesn't make sense. How can HP be turn into the very place that sells their gear? That doesn't seem possible. HP cannot represent themselves as a Best Buy - like electronic merchandise store becaue they would be competing with the entity that sells their stuff. Further, even if I do accept such a premise, it does not provide me with a sufficient reason to choose the HP music store unless HP designs a portable music player that is totally proprietary and I got suckered into buying it.
With half a bajillion companies now offering song downloads at $0.99 and none coming to us without some sort of DRM involved, why would we choose one over another? The Apple iTunes store has had so much success because of (1) the sales success of the ipod and (2) the ease on integration of iTunes and OS X. Now let's turn this into a look at HP. HP's MP3 player (while the MP3 player in question is purely speculative since it has not been released) is probably no different than any other MP3 player and I doubt they could be much better than the Neuros. So this gives us no need to choose the HP music store over any other store. Further, HP hardware is not proprietary in the sense that getting music from the HP store would either be a required method of getting music or the easiest because of a lack of other sources. This seems to tell me one thing: HP's journey into online digital music sales will most likely be short lived.
To claim that there is a gene or a number of genes that leads to a propensity to have a heart attack seems to be putting the cart before the horse. While opinions differ, there seems to be no clearcut answer the the question "What is a gene?" Now we can talk about cistones and amino acid sequences, but such a question runs deeper than that. Richard Dawkins, author of the "Selfish Gene Theory" claims that genes are active replicators or that genes replicate for the purpose of increasing its population and not for the expression of a phenotype. Other gene claims are that genes are difference makers. A given gene or set of genes is either because of its existence the difference maker in expressed phenotype. This is the assumption that this article seems to use. However, developmental systems theorists seem to have a more robust and empirically correct claim which states that genetics is only one aspect of a larger scheme of phenotypic expression. In other words, mitochondria, DNA, environment, nutrition, and the like all have a hand in the expression of a phenotype. Thus, for any gene that is considered "a gene for X" X is only expressed when the organism has the right combination of other features already expressed. Because of this, it seems faulty for such a claim to be made, that there is a causal connection between strictly DNA and the organism's probability of a heart attack.
can only be obtained iff either no one is able to access it or it is removed from the hands of machines. ALL other security methods may be compromised, and even these are not fool proof. They are just more fool proof.
Anti-spam legislation is useless for two major reasons. First, state sponsored anti-spam laws are ineffective at holding spammers accountable for spamming. The methods of hijacking misconfigured international email servers allows an effective anonymous status to those who send the spam. Second, I don't see why home users cannot effectively use whitelist filtering to control inbox spam issues.