A recent purchase of a high def tv my decision was swayed away from Sony, although of the 2 models I was considering I liked their picture better. In the end I decided that with streaming media becoming more commonplace that I did not want to be party to Sony's continuing locking down of content. It may be early days in the country that I live (NZ) for streaming media, but Sony's competition won my purchase on precisely this point. Once bitten, twice shy.
Before PS existed all this manipulation just happened with lighting, camera angles, makeup and experienced pre-production. It just so happens that it is easier and requires less people to do this in front of a computer. If you think advertising is somehow more manipulative now, you're fooling yourself about the history of sales.
Eh? The piece is about how simple it was for Jack to press a button and make this instance all go away. But he didn't want to because that's just too easy and doesn't cause a fuss or get you anywhere in his crusade.
BTW you can't "earn your way to heaven", that was Jesus point. The distance between man and God can only be bridged by God and on his terms, not ours.
Customer: I'd like to buy and apple please
Shop assistant: is that the iPod Touch or Granny Smith?
Give me a break Apple. Dare I say that supermarkets existed well before a technology company started using fruit as a logo...
Personally I think the giant red writing underneath that says Woolworths gives the game away! Besides if someone can't read that, they're hardly going to spring for a piece of technology that's infinitely more complex to use.
I watched a fascinating presention by Dan Pink at TED.com about the efficiency of employees when given a task with performance bonus in proportion to how well they executed the task. A common scenario in todays business world.
The result was so long as the task was simple the bonus was a good incentive. As soon as any level of complexity was added to the task that required a higher level of cognition the bonus became detrimental to performance.
It would seem to me that many of these studies fall into a similar category of looking at "productivity". Is what is being measured being accurately applied to the real workforce where tasks, decisions and projects are invariably much more complex?
Do any of the numbskulls who propose this sort of stuff actually spend more time than the nanosecond knee jerk to think it through?
For people who want to stop trolls and name calling idiots on the internet, they have a funny way of doing the same thing through a different medium.
"Haha you can't call me names anymore I changed the law and it says you can't nyah-nyah-nyah-na-nyah"
Seeing the TOS posted makes it clear that Google had the power to do what they did, however it still worries me that just because it is sensitive commercial information that somehow that allows a company/bank to get a court order to make Google act.
Does this mean the next time I hit send on some innappropriate email if I've got the $$$ I can get it deleted by court order? What did the bank prove to the court that forced Google to act?
The banks system failed, no one elses. As Scarr pointed out: "I haven't seen anyone ask what this would mean if the email was accidentally sent to a personally owned URL". Does this mean my website host has the same power as Google in this sort of case?
I'm guessing that this really is only going to apply for the has-been athletes. My understanding is that most popular sports games who want accurate current hot-property athlete likenesses pay to get them using services like 3D scanning/modelling.
I agree, this should terrify all users of gmail or even of google's services, obviously their prioritites lie in appeasing those companies with money and influence. I would have thought that this raises an issue of who actually 'owns' the email account for services such as these and where the lines of privacy/ownership get drawn for cases such as these.
In a way it is nice that the email address is domant because this process can be hammered out without some poor Joe Bloggs stuck in the middle. The principles and actions can and should be scrutinised (as they are slowly being) to avoid these cases becoming more prevalent everytime a company screws up monumentally.
Surely this treads close to the line of handing a free fix to a crack addict? You'd think it was almost criminal in itself...I thought many parole conditions state that offenders like these stay away from technology for a given period of time...perhaps that doesn't count when you are already in jail!
Regardless of how moot, obviously it is in the best interests (now) to try and make this terrible decision "go away". I'm glad that the judge has adjourned it and I hope in the interveening time both parties are forced to disclose why suddenly they've had a change of heart.
If it was a technical issue and Google was able to act without this court drama then good, we'll know for next time. However it is very disturbing how this case played out so easily without any involvement of the person who's account was in question!
Does anyone else wonder how the hell this judgement ever happened? I can understand covering your mistakes can be a pain but who on earth sent the email in the first place?
"the bank mistakenly sent names, addresses, social security numbers and loan information of more than 1,300 customers to a Gmail address"
I can't say that I've ever sent an email to the wrong person. Forgotten to attach something, yes, accidently mailed 1300 confidential pieces of info on an email, umm Not Even Close.
I really really want this to be a business email so that the bank is forced to reimburse the poor person who's email account gets randomly shut down. They should just out of principle, it might help lessen the blow.
Surely this is the easiest thing to solve when someone throws down a 'prove it' challenge. Send them a phone and let them test the service. Show them the hardware and the network. It's not like the publicity is a problem as EVERYONE knows it is already coming...isn't it? If there are bugs still to be sorted that's understandable but nothing...? Call me a skeptic.
I realise that Sony and Chris Brown are the winners here and that their use and posting of the video on youtube is questionable. However while Sony may have found a way to monetise this viral video they should also consider the possibility that sharing any of this bonus revenue (they didn't count on it or invest anything but minimal effort to monetise it) with the newly married couple would further raise the value of the exercise. Whatever "payment" wouldn't need to be much but it is a golden opportunity to be seen as recognising that Sony aren't the originators of the popularity driving their sales. We enjoy the video for the visual content not just the audio.
I think the point mike42 is making mninjedimaster is that these forums are usually a place where constructive criticism is warranted and plain abusive demeaning comments are not the norm.
@The Cenobyte: I agree sending melee weapons that are authentic and therefore illegal is downright dumb. I totally disagree that making it legal to carry melee weapons in todays world are some sort of necessity.
Alienation of any sort in marketing is rarely going to be pulled off for positive gain. While Christians are always an easy target to mock the gamin industry is again very foolish if they don't realise that a lot of their audience will be related or positively exposed to Christian morals or be Christians themselves. To mock something like religion openly like this is just bad marketing in my opinion.
RSS
Twitter
I'm wary, are you? (as slackr)
A recent purchase of a high def tv my decision was swayed away from Sony, although of the 2 models I was considering I liked their picture better. In the end I decided that with streaming media becoming more commonplace that I did not want to be party to Sony's continuing locking down of content. It may be early days in the country that I live (NZ) for streaming media, but Sony's competition won my purchase on precisely this point. Once bitten, twice shy.
Before photoshop (as slackr)
Before PS existed all this manipulation just happened with lighting, camera angles, makeup and experienced pre-production. It just so happens that it is easier and requires less people to do this in front of a computer. If you think advertising is somehow more manipulative now, you're fooling yourself about the history of sales.
Re: (as slackr)
Eh? The piece is about how simple it was for Jack to press a button and make this instance all go away. But he didn't want to because that's just too easy and doesn't cause a fuss or get you anywhere in his crusade.
BTW you can't "earn your way to heaven", that was Jesus point. The distance between man and God can only be bridged by God and on his terms, not ours.
(as slackr)
IMO Jack Thompson managed the impossible and failed the moron in a hurry test.
Ahhh but what is an Apple? (as slackr)
Customer: I'd like to buy and apple please
Shop assistant: is that the iPod Touch or Granny Smith?
Give me a break Apple. Dare I say that supermarkets existed well before a technology company started using fruit as a logo...
Personally I think the giant red writing underneath that says Woolworths gives the game away! Besides if someone can't read that, they're hardly going to spring for a piece of technology that's infinitely more complex to use.
That reminds me (as slackr)
I watched a fascinating presention by Dan Pink at TED.com about the efficiency of employees when given a task with performance bonus in proportion to how well they executed the task. A common scenario in todays business world.
The result was so long as the task was simple the bonus was a good incentive. As soon as any level of complexity was added to the task that required a higher level of cognition the bonus became detrimental to performance.
It would seem to me that many of these studies fall into a similar category of looking at "productivity". Is what is being measured being accurately applied to the real workforce where tasks, decisions and projects are invariably much more complex?
(as slackr)
Do any of the numbskulls who propose this sort of stuff actually spend more time than the nanosecond knee jerk to think it through?
For people who want to stop trolls and name calling idiots on the internet, they have a funny way of doing the same thing through a different medium.
"Haha you can't call me names anymore I changed the law and it says you can't nyah-nyah-nyah-na-nyah"
Thanks for the TOS (as slackr)
Seeing the TOS posted makes it clear that Google had the power to do what they did, however it still worries me that just because it is sensitive commercial information that somehow that allows a company/bank to get a court order to make Google act.
Does this mean the next time I hit send on some innappropriate email if I've got the $$$ I can get it deleted by court order? What did the bank prove to the court that forced Google to act?
The banks system failed, no one elses. As Scarr pointed out: "I haven't seen anyone ask what this would mean if the email was accidentally sent to a personally owned URL". Does this mean my website host has the same power as Google in this sort of case?
Hmmm (as slackr)
I wonder if this screws Courtney Love's recent argument about the Guitar Hero use of the deceased Kurt Cobain?
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090910/1713046154.shtml
3D modelling (as slackr)
I'm guessing that this really is only going to apply for the has-been athletes. My understanding is that most popular sports games who want accurate current hot-property athlete likenesses pay to get them using services like 3D scanning/modelling.
Re: (as slackr)
I agree, this should terrify all users of gmail or even of google's services, obviously their prioritites lie in appeasing those companies with money and influence. I would have thought that this raises an issue of who actually 'owns' the email account for services such as these and where the lines of privacy/ownership get drawn for cases such as these.
In a way it is nice that the email address is domant because this process can be hammered out without some poor Joe Bloggs stuck in the middle. The principles and actions can and should be scrutinised (as they are slowly being) to avoid these cases becoming more prevalent everytime a company screws up monumentally.
Aiding and abetting (as slackr)
Surely this treads close to the line of handing a free fix to a crack addict? You'd think it was almost criminal in itself...I thought many parole conditions state that offenders like these stay away from technology for a given period of time...perhaps that doesn't count when you are already in jail!
Re: Update (as slackr)
actually there's an update link in the original article now too.
Update (as slackr)
This was initially the case but the Government have realised the error of their ways. 3news.co.nz
Moot Smoot (as slackr)
Regardless of how moot, obviously it is in the best interests (now) to try and make this terrible decision "go away". I'm glad that the judge has adjourned it and I hope in the interveening time both parties are forced to disclose why suddenly they've had a change of heart.
If it was a technical issue and Google was able to act without this court drama then good, we'll know for next time. However it is very disturbing how this case played out so easily without any involvement of the person who's account was in question!
Reimbursement (as slackr)
Does anyone else wonder how the hell this judgement ever happened? I can understand covering your mistakes can be a pain but who on earth sent the email in the first place?
"the bank mistakenly sent names, addresses, social security numbers and loan information of more than 1,300 customers to a Gmail address"
I can't say that I've ever sent an email to the wrong person. Forgotten to attach something, yes, accidently mailed 1300 confidential pieces of info on an email, umm Not Even Close.
I really really want this to be a business email so that the bank is forced to reimburse the poor person who's email account gets randomly shut down. They should just out of principle, it might help lessen the blow.
This just gets better and better (as slackr)
It makes me want to weep and laugh at the irony and how incredibly screwed up the whole copyright and music industry is on this issue.
Easy peasy (as slackr)
Surely this is the easiest thing to solve when someone throws down a 'prove it' challenge. Send them a phone and let them test the service. Show them the hardware and the network. It's not like the publicity is a problem as EVERYONE knows it is already coming...isn't it? If there are bugs still to be sorted that's understandable but nothing...? Call me a skeptic.
Donation (as slackr)
I realise that Sony and Chris Brown are the winners here and that their use and posting of the video on youtube is questionable. However while Sony may have found a way to monetise this viral video they should also consider the possibility that sharing any of this bonus revenue (they didn't count on it or invest anything but minimal effort to monetise it) with the newly married couple would further raise the value of the exercise. Whatever "payment" wouldn't need to be much but it is a golden opportunity to be seen as recognising that Sony aren't the originators of the popularity driving their sales. We enjoy the video for the visual content not just the audio.
Share the love Sony.
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's the law that's the problem (as slackr)
I think the point mike42 is making mninjedimaster is that these forums are usually a place where constructive criticism is warranted and plain abusive demeaning comments are not the norm.
@The Cenobyte: I agree sending melee weapons that are authentic and therefore illegal is downright dumb. I totally disagree that making it legal to carry melee weapons in todays world are some sort of necessity.
Alienation of any sort in marketing is rarely going to be pulled off for positive gain. While Christians are always an easy target to mock the gamin industry is again very foolish if they don't realise that a lot of their audience will be related or positively exposed to Christian morals or be Christians themselves. To mock something like religion openly like this is just bad marketing in my opinion.