I will agree that the egos of a lot of the major tech companies’ CEOs have hurt their brand but a lot of this report sounds like sourgrapes.
“Perhaps had the industry done more to temper the rampant, often unrealistic, enthusiasm of a bull market, the current downturn in brand confidence and value would have been less severe,” the survey report said.
Huh? Because the CEOs didn’t discourage the high valuation of their companies’ stocks by investors they are somehow to blame for the depressed valuation of those stocks now? Right. How long would the board of directors of these companies allowed the CEOs to remain the CEOs had they tried to hold down their stock prices?
Bummer, AdCritic.com has bitten the dust. I really enjoyed watching these ads, especially the spec ads. This is one site I’m sorely going to miss.
It’s times like this that make me glad I’m a loyal reader of Flutterby. It appears that we maybe should eat, drink and make merry so that tomorrow we might not die.
Here’s a little example of incrementalism. I may have just made that word up but its a way to explain how unacceptable laws come into being in spite of strong opposition to them in the beginning. Take a national gun registration law for an example. This is an unpassable law because of the strength of the NRA and the overall reluctance of the general population to infringe on 2nd ammendment rights. There is an overall acceptance for the national instant background check system, though, because it can help keep guns out of the hands of folks that are banned from owning them due to a criminal record or a history of mental/emotional instability, it allows a law abiding, emotionally stable individual to purchase a gun and, due to the fact that records of legal gun purchases are to be destroyed within 24 hours of approval of the purchase and kept confidential during that time, it doesn’t cause any concern over it becoming a national gun register.
Now consider all the anti-terrorist campaigns going on since 9-11. Surely no one can object to holding on to that data for 90 days instead of just 24 hours to check out possible terrorists. Can they? And no one can object to allowing local and state law enforcement agencies access to that data during that time to aid in investigations of possible terrorist. Can they?
Well, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) doesn’t think so either. The problem is that once the data is out of the hands of the NICS it doesn’t matter whether the NICS destroys it or not. At that point it is a part of a file that isn’t covered by the law requiring that information to be destroyed. At that point we are only one or two increments away from a National Register of Gun Owners.
Now, I understand that to some of you this is a good thing, while to others it is a bad thing and then there are those of you to who this is just a thing. Whether or not a National Register of Gun Owners ever becomes a reality is not the point of this rant. The point of this rant is that this is a very dishonest way of advancing an agenda.
After reading A List Apart: To Hell With Bad Browsers several months ago I decided to attempt to implement what I had learned across this entire site. In doing so I borrowed heavily from examples presented in the article and as a result I now have a mess to clean up in order to implement a design that is more my own.
The problem I have is that I used too many of the class and ID names that were in ALA’s style sheet to create my style sheet. Some of these names were very descriptive of the style of the element they were describing instead of the function of the element. While there is nothing wrong with that, I’ve got a different design criteria now than I had then and that naming scheme is inappropriate for what I want to do.
Basically what I have planned is using three different style sheets and allow you to pick which one best suits you. I’ll set a cookie in your browser to maintain your selection from visit to visit. What I would like to hear from you is your opinion on what those styles should look like.
Well, now, isn’t this a kick in the tail. The music industry now wants you to pay for music based on what you listen to it on. The direction it is going, if I buy a CD I can listen to it at home on my home stereo system, take it with me to listen to it in my car but when I get to work and want to continue listening to it on my office computers CD-ROM I’m going to have to purchase a subscription.
Fear of piracy cutting into retail sales is the major record labels’ justification for adding digital rights management that restricts how people can listen to the music they buy. The goal is to keep people from turning individual songs into the MP3 format.
I guess fear of ticking off the consumer cutting into retail sales isn’t a concern of theirs anymore.
The RIAA has put the consumer electronics industry on notice either come up with a security standard or our politicians will come up with one for you. The wording of Hollings’ bill really scares me
The SSSCA draft says that it is unlawful to create, sell or distribute “any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies” that are approved by the U.S. Commerce Department. An interactive digital device is defined as any hardware or software capable of “storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving or copying information in digital form.”
Basically this is a license to steal for anyone holding patents on any of these technologies. A consumer electronics company will have to pay a tribute to those companies on every device sold that contains their patented technology. Do you think that is going to be good for the consumer?