Monday, February 21, 2011
Granted it is a minor update but an update nonetheless. What I have planned in the near future is to finish that post I started on super bowl commercials. I know the super bowl was several weeks ago but I can still go over which commercials were successful and why and which ones were horrible and why.
Also that post on talent is coming along nicely.
But I will confess, the real reason for this post is to direct you to my examiner.com article
I will be posting 2 - 3 times a week there with 200-300 word articles. To be honest I'm not sure how I feel about it. They advertise fare rates but it's me getting paid per page view and with no minimum guarantee. Which means they're using me for page views and traffic and nothing more. I'm cool with that I just wish they would fess up to it. SO! Here is a link to my page, go get me some page views! And if you like it share with your friends, I intend to make the posts fairly funny or fun to read, but I won't ask you to whore out my page, that's my job.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
|It's over 1000!|
As you can see, lots of feeder items, this was taken maybe 10 minutes ago.
I am STILL working on the post I had slated for today. My goal is to get it done before I go to bed so I can look it over for tomorrow, but no promises.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Not really, I vowed one big post a week, I got one done Monday, my post slated for today is being put on hold seeing as I'm having problems with the Internets.
The post slated for today/should be up Monday night at the latest is about Old Spice and its marketing campaign which has been so successful as to increase their sales by 107%. I have a theory as to why, which involves a more commercial approach to the ARG archetype.
I'm also tinkering with a post on talent and how it does and does not exist. It's fun.
Any who, that's all I've got for a quick update, hope you folks have a great weekend. I'll be back again Monday.
Monday, February 7, 2011
The ARG requires a few things, but the most important are easily an interesting story and know your audience. Meaning, you can’t sell a dull story, and you can’t sell Hello Kitty fanny packs at Sturgis. Now there are always slight exceptions to the rule, but in general you have to aim an ARG like any advertisement, and then get your audience hooked, for the ARG, the bait’s been the line “This Is Not A Game”.
This gets me to my point, an ARG, as it exists now, is a new form of advertisement. It’s rather ingenious, getting people to spend time getting involved in a story based on what you’re selling, I’ll use halo’s ilovebees an an example. Millions of computer gamers read, went through puzzles, waited at pay-phones, answered and sent e-mails, and spent countless hours of their free time in this game; and all they got was a dvd, maybe some honey, and a chance to play Halo 2 before anyone else.
Now, imagine kids who don’t like to read, and who play video games instead of doing homework, and then introduce them to ILB. Now they think about it, and where as some will only take part a little bit, maybe try and solve a puzzle here and there but get bored of the puzzles, but still follow along with the story, others get more involved, actually solve puzzles with out help and are engrossed in the story, then you get the hard core set who are the first at everything, and who go through movies frame by frame trying to find something.
Getting that sort of reaction from people, for an advertisement, is impressive. I’m not sure of the costs of an ARG, but from what I’ve read it’s relatively cheap compared to other forms. Of course low production costs don’t limit what an ARG can do, but how much can be done at once.
(Now, I know I’ve been pretty much saying ARG’s are only for profit companies, but there are some non-profit ARG’s out there. But I focus on the profit ones because, 1.) they are more widely known, 2.) they are easier to judge, in terms of success and comparing the success between ARG’s (the LOST ARG vs The Beast).)
In short, a good ARG has a great story, which is very in depth and expands on the Canon or general plot of it’s subject (how ILB became Halo Canon), which should hook people, which should ‘make’ them get involved, changing how they would normally act if they had never bothered with the ARG in the first place.
Just remember…this is not a game.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The Y2K problem is the electronic equivalent of the El Niño and there will be nasty surprises around the globe. — John Hamre, United States Deputy Secretary of Defense
Resulting bugs from date programming
Storage of a combined date and time within a fixed binary field is often considered a solution, but the possibility for software to misinterpret dates remains because such date and time representations must be relative to some known origin. Rollover of such systems is still a problem but can happen at varying dates and can fail in various ways. For example:
▪ The Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program had a very elementary Y2K problem: Excel (in both Windows and Mac versions, when they are set to start at 1900) incorrectly set the year 1900 as a leap year for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3. In addition, the years 2100, 2200, and so on, were regarded as leap years. This bug was fixed in later versions, but since the epoch of the Excel timestamp was set to the meaningless date of January 0, 1900 in previous versions, the year 1900 is still regarded as a leap year to maintain backward compatibility.
▪ In the C programming language, the standard library function to extract the year from a timestamp returns the year minus 1900. Many programs using functions from C, such as Perl and Java, two programming languages widely used in web development, incorrectly treated this value as the last two digits of the year. On the web this was usually a harmless presentation bug, but it did cause many dynamically generated web pages to display January 1, 2000 as "1/1/19100", "1/1/100", or other variants, depending on the display format.
▪ Older applications written for the commonly used UNIX source code control system SCCS failed to handle years that began with the digit "2".
▪ In the Windows 3.x file manager, dates displayed as 1/1/19:0 for 1/1/2000 (because the colon is the character after 9 in the character set). An update was available.
Other fun failed predictions:
85 Bad Predictions about the future.
Top 30 Failed Tech Predictions
Russian Professor Predicts the End of U.S. in 2010
Friday, February 4, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Yah, it's pretty cold out. Not the COLDEST I've seen, mind you, I've walked to school when it was -20 out (and snowing. And it was uphill. Both ways. And there was a dragon...)
Anyway, I am taking a more...realistic approach to this blog. There will probably be no more daily updates, or if there are they will be filler and unsubstantial.
However I will be writing new material, and I shall post it soon...very soon. Actually I am writing my next post as I speak...er type...
My next blog post will be entitled, "Prediction Addiction." Anticipate it!
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
So I’ll start this post with something taken from the Google Blog
Basically, Bing (Microsoft’s Search Engine) is stealing searches from Google.
It all started with tarsorrhaphy. Really. As it happens, tarsorrhaphy is a rare surgical procedure on eyelids. And in the summer of 2010, we were looking at the search results for an unusual misspelled query [torsorophy]. Google returned the correct spelling—tarsorrhaphy—along with results for the corrected query. At that time, Bing had no results for the misspelling. Later in the summer, Bing started returning our first result to their users without offering the spell correction (see screenshots below). This was very strange. How could they return our first result to their users without the correct spelling? Had they known the correct spelling, they could have returned several more relevant results for the corrected query.
It works pretty reliably too, for instance “bent 42 bacon” returns the same top result on both engines Wrapped Sweet Potato Fries, sounds tasty)
Note: The same top result appears on all engines, but anything about bacon wrapped sweet potato fries is too good to pass up
There are some notable differences however. For instance, “tyfography staw” returns corrected as “Typography star” on both engines, but Google’s results point to Star Trek typography stuff, where as Bing sends you to Star Wars typography posters.
And after a few minutes of comment reading via Gizmodo it looks like this isn’t illegal. To quote the VERY FIRST comment,
“Bing is not "stealing" google search results. They are data mining through an OPT-IN program that google knowingly agreed to, and now google is attempting to use it for PR purposes.”
Both have good points, Google’s pissed that Bing can freely, “steal” search results a few weeks after they’re posted on Google, conveniently side stepping the years it took to perfect the complex searching and logging algorithms that Google uses. But on the other hand, it’s like still pushing dial-up when we can use broadband Internet, Microsoft has the information in their hands via the methods they’re using to get these results, and they’re accurate results.
It also will not stop Microsoft from developing their own search algorithms because why wait a week to get a search result from Bing when you can get it today from Google?