Well, I'd agree that word of mouth advertising is very good for bringing an obscure product into the spotlight, or improving a brand's image based on other people's positive testimonials, but do we really have a significant number of people that would be more inclined to buy a Mini if their "cool friend" has this RFID tag that makes a billboard display some pointless message each time they drive by? Is the Mini still that obscure of a brand?
Draw this as an interesting parallel: I think we can all agree that some beer commercials are quite clever or at least somewhat funny. They lead to people talking about them all the time. They are the fodder of viral emails. These ad garner their due recognition amongst the general public. Does it make the average beer drinker more inclined to buy that brand of beer? Does it really sell more beer in proportion to its success versus, say, one that's informative about the benefits of drinking that brand of beer?
Yeah, perhaps I'm still missing the point of where this billboard idea will massively succeed in its purpose (to get more Minis sold). Personally, if I were in charge of the advertising budget, I'd be looking for other ideas to spend it on...or at least massively refine this one so that it would be a lot more effective at its intended goal.
A company is going to roll out advertisement for people who already own their product? This might be a good idea with soda-pop, fast food and other consumables, but how does it sell more cars? One might argue that it strengthens brand loyalty within their consumer, but if one buys a mini, I would have to believe that there's already a strong consumer loyalty present to encourage someone to buy an overpriced, lower fuel economy compact car.
I'd settle for a hack that would say "Stop looking to billboard for support in gloating over your car purchase and watch where in hell you're going instead!"
Got an ex-spouse that wants to exact revenge or simply aire their visceral hatred for you? Here's another online enabler for them to post all those wonderful pictures.:-D
Instead of inductively coupling, how about a system that allows for incidental direct connection?
Imagine a "pad" that was made up of a grid of anchored stainless steel ball bearings. Devices would have conductive contact surfaces that incidentally make contact in some fashion when placed on the pad. A microprocessor senses a decrease in resistance and routes 5V between two or more appropriate points on the grid, powering the device. The device would be responsible to step up/down to the appropriate voltage. The pad would have overcurrent and thermal protection to prevent damage and fire due to something like a coin or a twist-tie being dropped onto the pad.
As a feature to tell that a connection has been established, as well as part of the "cool factor" Put LEDs into the grid that are switched on by the microprocessor when a connection has been established.
Okay, the downsides, as I look into with every idea: Those nice leather cases would have to go, or otherwise be redesigned. Also, if you use contacts that corrode easily, then you may have a problem, too. Then there's the potential for scratches on the case of whatever you're charging from coming in contact with the metal ball surfaces.
Just a silly idea I guess...Think of it as the ultimate universal drop-in charger
Someone did something similar using a high-powered LASER to levitate an object. The LASER basically hit a specially designed absorption surface that heated the air in close proximity, causing rapid expansion, thus producing thrust much like a rocket motor. Of course the problem was that anything that got in between the path of the LASER and the object was pretty much toasted.
So let me get this right. So instead of being a frustrated consumer because I'm spending $6.00 for a new power adaptor each time I get a new phone/MP3 player/etc. I now can get frustrated over buying a proprietary inductive coil pick-up unit that I have to jury-rig to the back of my already too small phone/MP3 player...and likely spend 3 times the amount.
If IEEE or someone introduced an open standard for this type of technology, then perhaps it has a much better chance at taking off and being adopted, but as long as developing companies continue with the "this is our super-secret, Tesla-like, magic energy transfer system," it just isn't going to get off the ground.
On something related, how inefficient is the coupling mechanism? There's been some light rumblings in the news about how much power is wasted by wall transformers when not in use. I wonder how this would compare out? Does the reduced efficiency in the inductive coupling means that is only on when its being used outweight the loss of direct connection from a half-dozen wall transformers that people usually leave plugged in? Incidentally, many conventional wall transformers are being replaced by wall micro switching supplies, that go into a power-saving standby more when not in use. Are we promoting a puported user comfort over additional power comsumption? Then again, it could be considered trivial since it may only amount to a $0.25 difference on a typical electricity bill.
Then, of course, you'll eventually get the Electromagnetic freaks coming after these and denouncing them as causing cancer or something. I'll just tell the one I know to go set a bridge rectifier on top of it and it will solve her problem (she wears switching diodes in her bra to reduce harmful electromagnet radiation!).
Bottom line: Don't forget the unintended consequences and implications, I guess
1. You don't "run out of ballots" like in Milwaukee.
2. It's harder to stuff a ballot box without someone that's at the least technically savvy.
3. No "hanging chads", improperly marked ballots, or ballots that need to be discarded and reissued because the voter made a mistake in marking their ballot before submitting it.
4. Recount (with the above mentioned idea) doesn't require someone to physically feed scan sheets, one by one, into a machine, where they can jam or get defiled somewhat easily.
5. Additional storage devices (again, like the idea) are more difficult to forge than paper ballots. Each of the devices could have a traceable serial number written into it from the beginning for traceability purposes (to trace the device, not who voted). A device with an invalid serial number would raise suspicions.
A better solution is there, it just needs to be developed a lot more than it is in its present day form.
The problems have to be something that can be sensationalized in the main stream media before they become damaging...or at least make for a good viral email warning ("Sonya Soandso had her Sony Vaio in the back seat of her car. The battery exploded, killing the three occupants." type of thing). Once the media latches on, sensationalizes it and starts damning the company responsible, then does the damage occur.
The rootkit was (is) essentially innocuous to most computer users...it was there with the rest of the spyware and other crap infecting their machine and they really didn't know or care. It's the minority Slashdot types that were the ones who knew better and actually cared. Had the vulnerability resulted in successful mass identity theft or other monetary loss that most people could understand, the results would have been much different.
The failure rate on the batteries was too low to create much of a stir. It only made news because the mechanism of the failure resulted in personal injury. Had one in maybe ten batteries exhibited this characteristic, then it would have been all over the news like bad Tylenol.
Bottom line, not enough people felt the effects of the problems, and of those who did, most didn't understand the cause, or who was to blame for that matter.
But then again, it was also probably the tendency of Sony not to want license out its technology. Though, I think by now, they've begun to learn their lesson.
Well, the storage capacity was the reason that VHS cassettes won out over BetaMax, even though Beta was a better technology. A small irony was that VHS-C (the little camcorder tapes) had to be developed later because of the bulkiness of VHS cassettes (which were essentially bigger to hold more tape than beta).
I've heard the debate go both ways about the pros and cons of electronic voting systems vs traditional ballots. Of course, each has their vulnerabilities.
If electronic voting machine developers are so bent on eliminating the paper trail, what about an electronic log that's designed with a physical limitation, such as one-time write memory? The machine would just burn a log entry after each voter finished voting. When you're done, you have a non-rewriteable memory storage device that reads something like voter 34 voted for W,X, and Y, voter 35 voted for X, Y and Z (think database record fields).
With something like this, you can go back and to some degree forensically reconstruct the ballots if a bug is suspected or found. Something like this would make it harder to make up a stack of forged ballots (a timestamp) or run the same scan sheet through the ballot scanner multiple times.
Sure, there's still vulnerabilities (missing log storage devices, perhaps even forged log storage devices), but it's something harder to forge than just using a pen and a ballot...and it isn't just a numerical count, either.
FWIW, during the last election. The city of Milwaukee ran out of ballots and several polling locations simply copied an unused ballot on a photocopier for additional ballots (!). Yes, they use the pen-marked scan ballots. Now there's an invitation for fraud.
You are correct. The couple would receive a briefcase of some large sum of money (something like $20,000, IIRC) if, and only if, they pushed the button on the box. So, the moral dilemma was whether or not they would sacrifice the life of someone they don't know in a convenient and totally "hidden-from-view" fashion for personal monetary gain, or, would they forego the reward let someone they don't know live.
The demonic twist is at the end, where the box is reclaimed by its issuer, and the couple is informed that it will be rewired for its next user. One of the mysterious things about the box, is that it doesn't contain anything connected to the button.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'd agree that word of mouth advertising is very good for bringing an obscure product into the spotlight, or improving a brand's image based on other people's positive testimonials, but do we really have a significant number of people that would be more inclined to buy a Mini if their "cool friend" has this RFID tag that makes a billboard display some pointless message each time they drive by? Is the Mini still that obscure of a brand?
Draw this as an interesting parallel: I think we can all agree that some beer commercials are quite clever or at least somewhat funny. They lead to people talking about them all the time. They are the fodder of viral emails. These ad garner their due recognition amongst the general public. Does it make the average beer drinker more inclined to buy that brand of beer? Does it really sell more beer in proportion to its success versus, say, one that's informative about the benefits of drinking that brand of beer?
Yeah, perhaps I'm still missing the point of where this billboard idea will massively succeed in its purpose (to get more Minis sold). Personally, if I were in charge of the advertising budget, I'd be looking for other ideas to spend it on...or at least massively refine this one so that it would be a lot more effective at its intended goal.
Without getting technical, if they can make RFID work with at-speed tollbooths, they can make it work with billboards.
(damn you, Illinois Tri-state)
A company is going to roll out advertisement for people who already own their product? This might be a good idea with soda-pop, fast food and other consumables, but how does it sell more cars? One might argue that it strengthens brand loyalty within their consumer, but if one buys a mini, I would have to believe that there's already a strong consumer loyalty present to encourage someone to buy an overpriced, lower fuel economy compact car.
I'd settle for a hack that would say "Stop looking to billboard for support in gloating over your car purchase and watch where in hell you're going instead!"
Got an ex-spouse that wants to exact revenge or simply aire their visceral hatred for you? Here's another online enabler for them to post all those wonderful pictures. :-D
Sometimes, I sure wish I could!
Instead of inductively coupling, how about a system that allows for incidental direct connection?
Imagine a "pad" that was made up of a grid of anchored stainless steel ball bearings. Devices would have conductive contact surfaces that incidentally make contact in some fashion when placed on the pad. A microprocessor senses a decrease in resistance and routes 5V between two or more appropriate points on the grid, powering the device. The device would be responsible to step up/down to the appropriate voltage. The pad would have overcurrent and thermal protection to prevent damage and fire due to something like a coin or a twist-tie being dropped onto the pad.
As a feature to tell that a connection has been established, as well as part of the "cool factor" Put LEDs into the grid that are switched on by the microprocessor when a connection has been established.
Okay, the downsides, as I look into with every idea: Those nice leather cases would have to go, or otherwise be redesigned. Also, if you use contacts that corrode easily, then you may have a problem, too. Then there's the potential for scratches on the case of whatever you're charging from coming in contact with the metal ball surfaces.
Just a silly idea I guess...Think of it as the ultimate universal drop-in charger
Someone did something similar using a high-powered LASER to levitate an object. The LASER basically hit a specially designed absorption surface that heated the air in close proximity, causing rapid expansion, thus producing thrust much like a rocket motor. Of course the problem was that anything that got in between the path of the LASER and the object was pretty much toasted.
So let me get this right. So instead of being a frustrated consumer because I'm spending $6.00 for a new power adaptor each time I get a new phone/MP3 player/etc. I now can get frustrated over buying a proprietary inductive coil pick-up unit that I have to jury-rig to the back of my already too small phone/MP3 player...and likely spend 3 times the amount.
If IEEE or someone introduced an open standard for this type of technology, then perhaps it has a much better chance at taking off and being adopted, but as long as developing companies continue with the "this is our super-secret, Tesla-like, magic energy transfer system," it just isn't going to get off the ground.
On something related, how inefficient is the coupling mechanism? There's been some light rumblings in the news about how much power is wasted by wall transformers when not in use. I wonder how this would compare out? Does the reduced efficiency in the inductive coupling means that is only on when its being used outweight the loss of direct connection from a half-dozen wall transformers that people usually leave plugged in? Incidentally, many conventional wall transformers are being replaced by wall micro switching supplies, that go into a power-saving standby more when not in use. Are we promoting a puported user comfort over additional power comsumption? Then again, it could be considered trivial since it may only amount to a $0.25 difference on a typical electricity bill.
Then, of course, you'll eventually get the Electromagnetic freaks coming after these and denouncing them as causing cancer or something. I'll just tell the one I know to go set a bridge rectifier on top of it and it will solve her problem (she wears switching diodes in her bra to reduce harmful electromagnet radiation!).
Bottom line: Don't forget the unintended consequences and implications, I guess
1. You don't "run out of ballots" like in Milwaukee.
2. It's harder to stuff a ballot box without someone that's at the least technically savvy.
3. No "hanging chads", improperly marked ballots, or ballots that need to be discarded and reissued because the voter made a mistake in marking their ballot before submitting it.
4. Recount (with the above mentioned idea) doesn't require someone to physically feed scan sheets, one by one, into a machine, where they can jam or get defiled somewhat easily.
5. Additional storage devices (again, like the idea) are more difficult to forge than paper ballots. Each of the devices could have a traceable serial number written into it from the beginning for traceability purposes (to trace the device, not who voted). A device with an invalid serial number would raise suspicions.
A better solution is there, it just needs to be developed a lot more than it is in its present day form.
The problems have to be something that can be sensationalized in the main stream media before they become damaging...or at least make for a good viral email warning ("Sonya Soandso had her Sony Vaio in the back seat of her car. The battery exploded, killing the three occupants." type of thing). Once the media latches on, sensationalizes it and starts damning the company responsible, then does the damage occur.
The rootkit was (is) essentially innocuous to most computer users...it was there with the rest of the spyware and other crap infecting their machine and they really didn't know or care. It's the minority Slashdot types that were the ones who knew better and actually cared. Had the vulnerability resulted in successful mass identity theft or other monetary loss that most people could understand, the results would have been much different.
The failure rate on the batteries was too low to create much of a stir. It only made news because the mechanism of the failure resulted in personal injury. Had one in maybe ten batteries exhibited this characteristic, then it would have been all over the news like bad Tylenol.
Bottom line, not enough people felt the effects of the problems, and of those who did, most didn't understand the cause, or who was to blame for that matter.But then again, it was also probably the tendency of Sony not to want license out its technology. Though, I think by now, they've begun to learn their lesson.
Well, the storage capacity was the reason that VHS cassettes won out over BetaMax, even though Beta was a better technology. A small irony was that VHS-C (the little camcorder tapes) had to be developed later because of the bulkiness of VHS cassettes (which were essentially bigger to hold more tape than beta).
I've heard the debate go both ways about the pros and cons of electronic voting systems vs traditional ballots. Of course, each has their vulnerabilities.
If electronic voting machine developers are so bent on eliminating the paper trail, what about an electronic log that's designed with a physical limitation, such as one-time write memory? The machine would just burn a log entry after each voter finished voting. When you're done, you have a non-rewriteable memory storage device that reads something like voter 34 voted for W,X, and Y, voter 35 voted for X, Y and Z (think database record fields).
With something like this, you can go back and to some degree forensically reconstruct the ballots if a bug is suspected or found. Something like this would make it harder to make up a stack of forged ballots (a timestamp) or run the same scan sheet through the ballot scanner multiple times.
Sure, there's still vulnerabilities (missing log storage devices, perhaps even forged log storage devices), but it's something harder to forge than just using a pen and a ballot...and it isn't just a numerical count, either.
FWIW, during the last election. The city of Milwaukee ran out of ballots and several polling locations simply copied an unused ballot on a photocopier for additional ballots (!). Yes, they use the pen-marked scan ballots. Now there's an invitation for fraud.
You are correct. The couple would receive a briefcase of some large sum of money (something like $20,000, IIRC) if, and only if, they pushed the button on the box. So, the moral dilemma was whether or not they would sacrifice the life of someone they don't know in a convenient and totally "hidden-from-view" fashion for personal monetary gain, or, would they forego the reward let someone they don't know live. The demonic twist is at the end, where the box is reclaimed by its issuer, and the couple is informed that it will be rewired for its next user. One of the mysterious things about the box, is that it doesn't contain anything connected to the button.