Don't assume your way of doing it is the only right way. My wife and I regularly open things addressed to the other. I view us as one unit and I have no problem with this arrangement.
There is a marketing term for this - Zombie Brand. Basically a name has a certain recognition with people and companies want to capitalize on this. Rather than building their own brand equity, a new company wants to borrow this recognition from its target market.
Memorex is an example of this. They were bought and disbanded in the 80's only to later become an Imation brand in name only. Who (over the age of 30) doesn't remember the catch phrase "is it live? or is it Memorex". Imation wanted to tap into this to increase their profitability.
Heck, I could argue that Star Trek: TNG et all are guilty of this as well.
You are 100% spot on. Going through a marketing class you see folks have spent years studying these psychological facets and know how to take advantage of them. As humans, we are not 100% rational, present company included.
I tend to be more rational and less materialistic than most (more of my money goes to schooling and charity than I spend on everything else combined) yet I see myself fall into some of these traps.
So while I never intend to be in marketing, it is good to know how the enemy thinks:)
It is a perfectly fair comparison. In fact, this info comes from a marketing class and is used as an example of how you can use psychological games to get folks to pay more. No... this wasn't the exact term used in the class... terms like "price discrimination and segmentation" are used.
But the bottom line, the rationale you are citing is used by retailers to extract more money out of you than you logically should.
ROI is not applicable here.... at least not in the way you are looking at it. My investment is the drive across town, not the purchase price of the item. In instance one you say that your drive is worth less than $50. In the second you say that your drive is worth more than the $50 savings.
This reminds me of the results of a survey. People were asked "If you found out that this $100 piece of software were only $50 across town, would you leave this store, drive across town and buy it cheaper?" The answer was almost always less. Others were asked "If you found out that this $1,000 computer were available for $950 across town, would you leave this store and by it cheaper?" Fewer than half said yes.
So why is the value of our time less for more expensive products? It seems people are fundamentally illogical. Yes, I know... I must be new here.
Did you look at the picture? How do the mirrors reflect the light onto something on the ground and still be able to have more than one row of the mirrors?
Ummmm. No. This has virtually nothing to do with donations. What you are running into is human nature. People generally do not pay for things they can get for free. You will find exceptions of course, but by and large this is true. Although your very generous coaster purchase clearly stands in stark contrast to the rest of us.
Wikipedia is no longer the center of attention that it was. It has a great deal of value and I would not mind seeing some advertising to help support it.
I remember in a math class, we were given series of numbers and we were supposed to determine the function that created them. For example:
1, 4, 9,16 Obviously asking for y=x^2 0, 1, 0, -1 Going for a sinusoidal wave
etc. etc.
Now, me being the smartass I am and completely bored decide to prove that an infinite number of functions can produce these series. So after digging in, figure out that if given a series of n items that I can reproduce it with at least one polynomial function with largest term of cx^n-1 terms and an infinite number of polynomial functions with largest term of cx^n.
So basically one can create a function to describe the limited information you have but not really answer what the "real" answer is.
This is what string theory reminds me of. You observe some things and find some convoluted explanation for it. If you get a data set that destroys the theory, you add another term to your equation and shout "VOILA" and declare that you have enhanced your theory.
Contrast this to the theory of relativity where new observations support its validity. Bottom line: string theory is not science.
Most people don't want to learn anything, most people want to use the same thing that they were brought up using. The vast majority of people don't want to advance
I like to learn. However, I don't want to waste what energy/time I have into learning another #$(* gadget. If you can show me how it is going to improve my life, make me more productive, etc, I don't have time.
Now, reading about new exoplanets, looking up science experiments to do with the kids, that is worth my energy. A new OS... not so much. yeah I have changed a lot in the last 20 years, and I know there are others a lot like me.
I've read case studies about product life cycles... watching something go from cutting edge, proprietary and lucrative to being a virtual commodity with low (normal?) profit margins. yet it is weird living through this with the PC. I remember my first PC around '79... very expensive and not able to do much. Today, PCs are way overpowered for what 99% of the population needs. New features are not driving much in the way of additional sales.
Google looks to make the "PC" experience consistent for everyone with much less fussing and fewer options. While I rebel against this myself, I must admit that for most folks, Google's offering seems to make a lot of sense.... most people just want to get on the net, send an email and check out facebook. Google offers this without having to configure anything.
So yeah, we have moved from the wild frontier to the "just another product" category. In some ways I will miss it... in others I think it is overdue. And no, Google isn't the first offering like this.... however it is the first from a company with enough financial, technical and social connections to make it work.
FTA: "... At least, that’s the theory. “I can’t tell you for a fact, but the hypothesis is that we are amplifying residual intention,” says Remsberg. “This allows for an intensive level of training, which appears to capitalize on neuroplasticity, the ability of the brain to rewire around regions destroyed by stroke.” (Remsberg expands on this idea in the video on page 3.)
If larger studies prove that the device is as effective as the early results seem to suggest, Tibion exoskeletons could become standard equipment at the 15,000 skilled nursing facilities and 2,000 rehabilitation hospitals in the United States"
So, I would say that this is still being investigated.
Here is the difference between a journalist writing something and what a scientist says.
Journalist: "Bionic Leg That Rewires Stroke Victims' Brains"
FTA: "And this movement provides proprioceptive feedback that, over time, helps patients’ brains rewire themselves, so that they are eventually able to carry out the motion on their own"
Slashdot Mirror
Profit > revenue? Wow, I'd love to have that kind of profit margin.
Don't assume your way of doing it is the only right way. My wife and I regularly open things addressed to the other. I view us as one unit and I have no problem with this arrangement.
I used to wank to it.
There is a marketing term for this - Zombie Brand. Basically a name has a certain recognition with people and companies want to capitalize on this. Rather than building their own brand equity, a new company wants to borrow this recognition from its target market.
Memorex is an example of this. They were bought and disbanded in the 80's only to later become an Imation brand in name only. Who (over the age of 30) doesn't remember the catch phrase "is it live? or is it Memorex". Imation wanted to tap into this to increase their profitability.
Heck, I could argue that Star Trek: TNG et all are guilty of this as well.
Sorry, I accidentally used my fourth account to make fun of my third account.
~CmdrTaco
"Funny. I worked with a guy who had IBS. It's no laughing matter"
When I saw "funny" followed by "it's no laughing matter", I assumed the "funny" was sarcastic. Oh well.
Wait a minute.... in another post, seven minutes prior to this you posted:
"A spoonful of sugar helps the irritable bowel syndrome go away..... bowel syndrome go away..... bowel syndrome go away..... ;-)"
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922774&cid=34651852
"Study proves sugar pills alleviate IBS in 60% of patients!" - zigzaggy
"I realize its a serious condition and I hope you don't think I was trying to make light of IBS," - DarkOx
So, did you just out your alt account?
Boy you like to make things a lot more complicated than they really are...
Don't feed the trolls.
You are 100% spot on. Going through a marketing class you see folks have spent years studying these psychological facets and know how to take advantage of them. As humans, we are not 100% rational, present company included.
I tend to be more rational and less materialistic than most (more of my money goes to schooling and charity than I spend on everything else combined) yet I see myself fall into some of these traps.
So while I never intend to be in marketing, it is good to know how the enemy thinks :)
It is a perfectly fair comparison. In fact, this info comes from a marketing class and is used as an example of how you can use psychological games to get folks to pay more. No... this wasn't the exact term used in the class... terms like "price discrimination and segmentation" are used.
But the bottom line, the rationale you are citing is used by retailers to extract more money out of you than you logically should.
You are correct, I meant "yes".
ROI is not applicable here.... at least not in the way you are looking at it. My investment is the drive across town, not the purchase price of the item. In instance one you say that your drive is worth less than $50. In the second you say that your drive is worth more than the $50 savings.
This reminds me of the results of a survey. People were asked "If you found out that this $100 piece of software were only $50 across town, would you leave this store, drive across town and buy it cheaper?" The answer was almost always less. Others were asked "If you found out that this $1,000 computer were available for $950 across town, would you leave this store and by it cheaper?" Fewer than half said yes.
So why is the value of our time less for more expensive products? It seems people are fundamentally illogical. Yes, I know... I must be new here.
Did you look at the picture? How do the mirrors reflect the light onto something on the ground and still be able to have more than one row of the mirrors?
Sorry. I will have to remember never to question Pope Hawking. My apologies.
The problem is that real scientists have problems with "string theory" as a science? Which unquestionable group should I follow?
Ummmm. No. This has virtually nothing to do with donations. What you are running into is human nature. People generally do not pay for things they can get for free. You will find exceptions of course, but by and large this is true. Although your very generous coaster purchase clearly stands in stark contrast to the rest of us.
Wikipedia is no longer the center of attention that it was. It has a great deal of value and I would not mind seeing some advertising to help support it.
I remember in a math class, we were given series of numbers and we were supposed to determine the function that created them. For example:
1, 4, 9 ,16 Obviously asking for y=x^2
0, 1, 0, -1 Going for a sinusoidal wave
etc. etc.
Now, me being the smartass I am and completely bored decide to prove that an infinite number of functions can produce these series. So after digging in, figure out that if given a series of n items that I can reproduce it with at least one polynomial function with largest term of cx^n-1 terms and an infinite number of polynomial functions with largest term of cx^n.
So basically one can create a function to describe the limited information you have but not really answer what the "real" answer is.
This is what string theory reminds me of. You observe some things and find some convoluted explanation for it. If you get a data set that destroys the theory, you add another term to your equation and shout "VOILA" and declare that you have enhanced your theory.
Contrast this to the theory of relativity where new observations support its validity. Bottom line: string theory is not science.
I see nothing in his comment to suggest this.
I was shown this video as part of a marketing class. It greatly oversimplifies the changes we have seen, but damn is it a slick presentation.
Most people don't want to learn anything, most people want to use the same thing that they were brought up using. The vast majority of people don't want to advance
I like to learn. However, I don't want to waste what energy/time I have into learning another #$(* gadget. If you can show me how it is going to improve my life, make me more productive, etc, I don't have time.
Now, reading about new exoplanets, looking up science experiments to do with the kids, that is worth my energy. A new OS... not so much. yeah I have changed a lot in the last 20 years, and I know there are others a lot like me.
I've read case studies about product life cycles... watching something go from cutting edge, proprietary and lucrative to being a virtual commodity with low (normal?) profit margins. yet it is weird living through this with the PC. I remember my first PC around '79... very expensive and not able to do much. Today, PCs are way overpowered for what 99% of the population needs. New features are not driving much in the way of additional sales.
Google looks to make the "PC" experience consistent for everyone with much less fussing and fewer options. While I rebel against this myself, I must admit that for most folks, Google's offering seems to make a lot of sense.... most people just want to get on the net, send an email and check out facebook. Google offers this without having to configure anything.
So yeah, we have moved from the wild frontier to the "just another product" category. In some ways I will miss it... in others I think it is overdue. And no, Google isn't the first offering like this.... however it is the first from a company with enough financial, technical and social connections to make it work.
So, I would say that this is still being investigated.
To be fair, I should put the article's title here, not the summary's:
"Can Tibion’s Bionic Leg Rewire Stroke Victims’ Brains?"
Here is the difference between a journalist writing something and what a scientist says.
Journalist: "Bionic Leg That Rewires Stroke Victims' Brains"
FTA: "And this movement provides proprioceptive feedback that, over time, helps patients’ brains rewire themselves, so that they are eventually able to carry out the motion on their own"
Draw your own conclusions