Hell

gif Hell is already compromised

Gif Hell is already being gamed — notice the gifs that are marked trending are mostly the same on page 1, 2, 3, and 4.

4-pages-of-giff-hell

 

 

Tags:

Monday, August 26th, 2013 digital No Comments

Popular Idioms Translated to Actually Make Sense Today

Source: http://gizmodo.com/popular-idioms-translated-to-actually-make-sense-today-957992497

Popular Idioms Translated to Actually Make Sense Today

When we tell the future children of the world that you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, they’ll stare at their iPad and wonder what the hell a book is. Does that old fart mean an app? When we tell them to scratch our back and we’ll scratch theirs, they’ll wonder why are we even talking to each other in IRL. And when we say close, but no cigar… well, actually even I have no idea why that ever made sense.

Read more…

Tags: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 30th, 2013 news No Comments

A State Department Bureau Spent $630,000 Buying Facebook Likes

Source: http://gizmodo.com/a-state-department-bureau-spent-630-000-buying-faceboo-655295195

A State Department Bureau Spent $630,000 Buying Facebook  Likes

Officials from the Bureau of International Information Programs inexplicably spent a whopping $630,000 to secure Facebook likes in recent years.

Stumping up the cash between 2011 and March 2013, the Bureau—which is part of the US Department of State—grew its number of likes from 100,000 to more than 2 million. Understandably, that’s not gone down very well with employees—and likely won’t have many fans in the wider community, either.

It’s made worse by the fact that the Bureau admits that the process wasn’t even particularly successful: the large number of likes weren’t from the bureau’s target audience, and only 2 percent of fans actually bothered to engage with the Bureau on the ‘book.

The Washington Examiner points out that various State Department bureaus haver over 150 social media accounts between them, none of which are coordinated and many of which overlap. Perhaps the biggest question raised by the story, though, is: why the hell does a State Department even need to grow its Facebook user base by throwing cash at the thing? What’s the gain? [Washington Examiner]

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 news No Comments

Facebook Testing Comments on Comments on Comments (Oh My God My Head)

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5959323/facebook-testing-comments-on-comments-on-comments-oh-my-god-my-head

Facebook Testing Comments on Comments on Comments (Oh My God My Head)The top secret labs at Facebook are in overtime right now: another experimental FB feature has been spotted in the wild. Soon we might be commenting on comments.

As it stands now, the best way to talk to someone else within a status comment thread (mouthful!) is to tag them in your reply. But according to Facebook, which confirmed the new feature to Mashable, we might soon be able to reply directly underneath someone, old-school blog style. This will make it a lot easier to see who’s talking to whom, but could also twist our Facebook statuses into complicated message boards instead of just… statuses. How deep will the comment comments go? It also opens a conceptual future for Liking a Like, which would in turn open a wormhole into hell. [Mashable]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 9th, 2012 news No Comments

Amazon List Prices are Crazy Out of Whack

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5888981/amazon-marks-up-a-products-price-like-crazy-to-give-you-fake-savings

Amazon Product Prices Get Marked Up Like Crazy to Give You Fake SavingsIt’s scary how much I trust Amazon. I don’t even question anything—just click, buy and get 2-day shipped for everything. Underwear? Yep. Electronics? Sure. Tweezers? Why the hell not. But what if all those savings you’re supposed to be getting on Amazon were fake? What if Amazon ridiculously marks up a product’s list price by 1000%? Because that’s what Amazon is doing.

Geez Amazon, have some self respect! Do you think we’re all fools? Who would believe a box of spaghetti was once listed at $55.10 when you’re actually selling it for $1.85 in real life? OH MY GOD SO MUCH SAVINGS. Seriously, there’s no need to inflate the list price by THIS much. We know retailers mark up stuff all the time to make you think you’re saving more than you actually are but the lengths that Amazon and its third party sellers goes is truly unbelievable. For example:

  • Rice a Roni Beef costs $1.48. Amazon’s list price? $141.75
  • Splenda with Fiber costs $4.39. Amazon’s list price? $553
  • Six pack of Quaker Oats Old Fashioned Oats costs $20. Amazon’s list price? $211.74
  • If you don’t believe it, just poke around Amazon’s Grocery and Gourmet Food section yourself. The ridiculous list prices are everywhere and in some cases even worse, with nearly $750 worth of “savings” on Mac and Cheese. Basically, if you’re ever doing your shopping there, ignore the list price and potential savings. The list prices are an obvious screwup on Amazon’s system (misplaced decimal? bad formula?) and the potential savings are fake. Invisible. Make believe.

    Of course, this won’t stop me from shopping at Amazon. It might not even be Amazon’s fault, as most of these product list prices are sold by other companies that aren’t Amazon through Amazon. But it’s clear that Amazon needs to filter it better or just do something better. Until then, even Amazon can’t be completely trusted. [Mouse Print via MSNBC]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012 news No Comments

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5882546/us-military-to-get-secure-android-handsets

US Military To Get Secure Android HandsetsIn a war zone, a standard mobile phone, with its countless possible security flaws, is no use — which is why the military doesn’t rely on them. But now that’s changing, as the US military is investing in secure Android handsets.

It’s not the first time we’ve heard about the army handing out smart phones — hell, they even run competitions to develop apps. But CNN is reporting that the US military is, after two years of testing, intending to “install its custom software on commercially available phones.” It’s starting out with a custom modification of Android’s kernel. The ideas is to give fine-grained control over data, applications and information transmission, as well as providing officials with detailed usage feedback.

Interestingly, this looks set not just to be limited to the military, as CNN reports that “each version of the Android OS [will] be certified once for all federal agencies”, suggesting that these new secure Android handsets may become standard issue across the whole of the US government. That would be bad news for BlackBerry, because RIM currently provides most federal phones — even Obama’s. The new secure handsets are to be shipped out to soldiers by March for testing. [CNN; Image: U.S. Air Force]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 6th, 2012 Uncategorized No Comments

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5882027/sharing-with-friends-of-friends-on-facebook-exposes-you-to-150000-people

Sharing with "Friends of Friends" on Facebook Exposes You to 150,000 PeopleWell this is mildly terrifying: according to a new Pew study, the Facebook privacy mode a lot of us rely on for photos and status updates is, on average, anything but private. Time to reconsider your settings, everyone.

The finding is staggering—Friends of Friends can hit as many as over seven million people:

Facebook users can reach an average of more than 150,000 Facebook users through their Facebook friends; the median user can reach about 31,000 others. At two degrees of separation (friends-of-friends), Facebook users in our sample can on average reach 156,569 other Facebook users. However, the relatively small number of users with very large friends lists, who also tended to have lists that are less interconnected, overstates the reach of the typical Facebook user. In our sample, the maximum reach was 7,821,772 other Facebook users. The median user (the middle user from our sample) can reach 31,170 people through their friends-of-friends.

When you think friend of a friend, the IRL analogue comes to mind. Your buddy’s buddy. That guy you met at a bar who seems okay. Your girlfriend’s pals from college. They must be okay people, right? They’re so narrowly removed from you, why not share all your photos with them?

Because 150,000+ people includes a hell of a lot of strangers you probably shouldn’t trust, and certainly don’t (and will never) know personally. You can read the study in its entirety below. [Pew]

PIP Facebook Users 2.3.12

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 3rd, 2012 Uncategorized No Comments

Fulfill Your Dinosaur-Riding Fantasies for Only Fifty Bucks [Dinosaurs]

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5878495/fulfill-your-dinosaur+riding-fantasies-for-only-fifty-bucks/gallery/1

Fulfill Your Dinosaur-Riding Fantasies for Only Fifty BucksSo far science has completely failed to deliver a real Jurassic Park. Hate to be the one to tell you this, but you’ll never actually ride a Tyrannosaurus rex. Luckily, the geniuses at Dinoprints are really good at Photoshop.

For $50, Dinoprints will plop an image you upload onto an illustration of a huge prehistoric beast and print it out for you as a two by three foot poster. Dinoprints takes this business very seriously. The company provides detailed instructions on precisely how to take photos so the final product looks as real as possible, and the prints are supposedly rendered using the latest 3-D technology. If a T. rex doesn’t quite strike your fancy, you can also choose to ride a Spinosaurus or a wooly mammoth.

They should make a $5 Facebook-photo-size version. You know you’d buy the hell out of that. [Dinoprints via Nerd Approved]

Fulfill Your Dinosaur-Riding Fantasies for Only Fifty Bucks


drag2share – drag and drop RSS news items on your email contacts to share (click SEE DEMO)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 news No Comments

WTF Is Google Doing? [Google]

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/hPdshh1OwAQ/google-shopper-visual-search-app-officially-confuses-me-wtf-is-google-doing

I don’t understand Google Shopper. Not because the function—searching for books, CDs, DVDs and more by using the cover art or barcode—is confusing. But because they already have a visual search app built into new Android phones, Goggles.

Goggles does the same thing: You take a picture of something, like a book cover, and it searches for it. I get that Shopper is slightly different, with more of a direct Amazon-competitive slant, since you can bookmark products to buy them later (presumably through Google Checkout).

But why not just integrate that into Goggles? Why the hell does this separate other product exist? Like Fake Steve says, WTF is going on over there? Android and Chrome OS? Wave and Buzz? (Okay, Buzz and Wave aren’t an entirely fair comparison, though try explaining them to a normal person.) Now Goggles and Shopper? Am I just missing something? [Google]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 19th, 2010 digital No Comments

How Major Labels Cook the Books with Digital Downloads [Digital Downloads]

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/jl5xTTh-ZxM/my-6247-royalty-statement-how-major-labels-cook-the-books-with-digital-downloads

Tim Quirk was the singer of punk-pop outfit Too Much Joy, signed by Warner Bros. in 1990. Now he’s an executive at an online music service, giving him insight on digital sales data and just how labels fudge their numbers.

I got something in the mail last week I’d been wanting for years: a Too Much Joy royalty statement from Warner Brothers that finally included our digital earnings. Though our catalog has been out of print physically since the late-1990s, the three albums we released on Giant/WB have been available digitally for about five years. Yet the royalty statements I received every six months kept insisting we had zero income, and our unrecouped balance ($395,277.18!)* stubbornly remained the same.

Now, I don’t ever expect that unrecouped balance to turn into a positive number, but since the band had been seeing thousands of dollars in digital royalties each year from IODA for the four indie albums we control ourselves, I figured five years’ worth of digital income from our far more popular major label albums would at least make a small dent in the figure. Our IODA royalties during that time had totaled about $12,000 – not a princely sum, but enough to suggest that the total haul over the same period from our major label material should be at least that much, if not two to five times more. Even with the band receiving only a percentage of the major label take, getting our unrecouped balance below $375,000 seemed reasonable, and knocking it closer to -$350,000 wasn’t out of the question.

So I was naively excited when I opened the envelope. And my answer was right there on the first page. In five years, our three albums earned us a grand total of… $62.47.

What the fuck?

I mean, w! e all kn ow that major labels are supposed to be venal masters of hiding money from artists, but they’re also supposed to be good at it, right? This figure wasn’t insulting because it was so small, it was insulting because it was so stupid.

Why It Was So Stupid

Here’s the thing: I work at Rhapsody. I know what we pay Warner Bros. for every stream and download, and I can look up exactly how many plays and downloads we’ve paid them for each TMJ tune that Warner controls. Moreover, Warner Bros. knows this, as my gig at Rhapsody is the only reason I was able to get them to add my digital royalties to my statement in the first place. For years I’d been pestering the label, but I hadn’t gotten anywhere till I was on a panel with a reasonably big wig in Warner Music Group’s business affairs team about a year ago

The panel took place at a legal conference, and focused on digital music and the crisis facing the record industry**. As you do at these things, the other panelists and I gathered for breakfast a couple hours before our session began, to discuss what topics we should address. Peter Jenner, who manages Billy Bragg and has been a needed gadfly for many years at events like these, wanted to discuss the little-understood fact that digital music services frequently pay labels advances in the tens of millions of dollars for access to their catalogs, and it’s unclear how (or if) that money is ever shared with artists.

I agreed that was a big issue, but said I had more immediate and mundane concerns, such as the fact that Warner wouldn’t even report my band’s iTunes sales to me.

The business affairs guy (who I am calling “the business affairs guy” rather than naming because he did me a favor by finally getting the digital royalties added to my statement, and I am grateful for that and don’t want this to sound like I’m attacking him personally, even though it’s abo! ut to se em like I am) said that it was complicated connecting Warner’s digital royalty payments to their existing accounting mechanisms, and that since my band was unrecouped they had “to take care of R.E.M. and the Red Hot Chili Peppers first.”

That kind of pissed me off. On the one hand, yeah, my band’s unrecouped and is unlikely ever to reach the point where Warner actually has to cut us a royalty check. On the other hand, though, they are contractually obligated to report what revenue they receive in our name, and, having helped build a database that tracks how much Rhapsody owes whom for what music gets played, I’m well aware of what is and isn’t complicated about doing so. It’s not something you have to build over and over again for each artist. It’s something you build once. It takes a while, and it can be expensive, and sometimes you make honest mistakes, but it’s not rocket science. Hell, it’s not even algebra! It’s just simple math.

I knew that each online service was reporting every download, and every play, for every track, to thousands of labels (more labels, I’m guessing, than Warner has artists to report to). And I also knew that IODA was able to tell me exactly how much money my band earned the previous month from Amazon ($11.05), Verizon (74 cents), Nokia (11 cents), MySpace (4 sad cents) and many more. I didn’t understand why Warner wasn’t reporting similar information back to my band – and if they weren’t doing it for Too Much Joy, I assumed they weren’t doing it for other artists.

To his credit, the business affairs guy told me he understood my point, and promised he’d pursue the matter internally on my behalf – which he did. It just took 13 months to get the results, which were (predictably, perhaps) ridiculous.

The sad thing is I don’t even think Warner is deliberately trying to screw TMJ and the hundreds of other also-rans and almost-weres they’ve signed over the years. The reality is more boring, but also more depressing. Like I said, they don’t actually ow! e us any money. But that’s what’s so weird about this, to me: they have the ability to tell the truth, and doing so won’t cost them anything.

They just can’t be bothered. They don’t care, because they don’t have to.

“$10,000 Is Nothing”

An interlude, here. Back in 1992, when TMJ was still a going concern and even the label thought maybe we’d join the hallowed company of recouped bands one day, Warner made a $10,000 accounting error on our statement (in their favor, naturally). When I caught this mistake, and brought it to the attention of someone with the power to correct it, he wasn’t just befuddled by my anger – he laughed at it. “$10,000 is nothing!” he chuckled.

If you’re like most people – especially people in unrecouped bands – “nothing” is not a word you ever use in conjunction with a figure like “$10,000,” but he seemed oblivious to that. “It’s a rounding error. It happens all the time. Why are you so worked up?”

These days I work for a reasonably large corporation myself, and, sadly, I understand exactly what the guy meant. When your revenues (and your expenses) are in the hundreds of millions of dollars, $10,000 mistakes are common, if undesirable.

I still think he was a jackass, though, and that sentence continues to haunt me. Because $10,000 might have been nothing to him, but it was clearly something to me. And his inability to take it seriously – to put himself in my place, just for the length of our phone call – suggested that people who care about $10,000 mistakes, and the principles of things, like, say, honoring contracts even when you don’t have to, are the real idiots.

As you may have divined by this point, I am conflicted about whether I am actually being a petty jerk by pursuing this, or whether labels just thrive on making fools like me feel like petty jerks. People in the record industry are very good at making bands believe they deserve the hundreds of thousands (or sometimes millions) of dollars labels advance th! e musici ans when they’re first signed, and even better at convincing those same musicians it’s the bands’ fault when those advances aren’t recouped (the last thing $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man yelled at me before he hung up was, “Too Much Joy never earned us shit!”*** as though that fact somehow negated their obligation to account honestly).

I don’t want to live in $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man’s world. But I do. We all do. We have no choice.

The Boring Reality

Back to my ridiculous Warner Bros. statement. As I flipped through its ten pages (seriously, it took ten pages to detail the $62.47 of income), I realized that Warner wasn’t being evil, just careless and unconcerned – an impression I confirmed a few days later when I spoke to a guy in their Royalties and Licensing department I am going to call Danny.****

I asked Danny why there were no royalties at all listed from iTunes, and he said, “Huh. There are no domestic downloads on here at all. Only streams. And it has international downloads, but no international streams. I have no idea why.” I asked Danny why the statement only seemed to list tracks from two of the three albums Warner had released – an entire album was missing. He said they could only report back what the digital services had provided to them, and the services must not have reported any activity for those other songs. When I suggested that seemed unlikely – that having every track from two albums listed by over a dozen different services, but zero tracks from a third album listed by any seemed more like an error on Warner’s side, he said he’d look into it. As I asked more questions (Why do we get paid 50% of the income from all the tracks on one album, but only 35.7143% of the income from all the tracks on another? Why did 29 plays of a track on the late, lamented MusicMatch earn a total of 63 cents when 1,016 plays of the exact same track on MySpace earned only 23 cents?) he eventually got to the heart of the matter: “We don’t normally do this for unrecouped bands,” he ! said. “B ut, I was told you’d asked.”

It’s possible I’m projecting my own insecurities onto calm, patient Danny, but I’m pretty sure the subtext of that comment was the same thing I’d heard from $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man: all these figures were pointless, and I was kind of being a jerk by wasting their time asking about them. After all, they have the Red Hot Chili Peppers to deal with, and the label actually owes those guys money.

Danny may even be right. But there’s another possibility – one I don’t necessarily subscribe to, but one that could be avoided entirely by humoring pests like me. There’s a theory that labels and publishers deliberately avoid creating the transparent accounting systems today’s technology enables. Because accurately accounting to my silly little band would mean accurately accounting to the less silly bands that are recouped, and paying them more money as a result.

If that’s true (and I emphasize the if, because it’s equally possible that people everywhere, including major label accounting departments, are just dumb and lazy)*****, then there’s more than my pride and principles on the line when I ask Danny in Royalties and Licensing to answer my many questions. I don’t feel a burning need to make the Red Hot Chili Peppers any more money, but I wouldn’t mind doing my small part to get us all out of the sad world $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man inhabits.

So I will keep asking, even though I sometimes feel like a petty jerk for doing so.


* A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every albu! m sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.

I do not share this information out of a Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults). I’m simply explaining why I’m not embarrassed that I “owe” Warner Bros. almost $400,000. They didn’t make a lot of money off of Too Much Joy. But they didn’t lose any, either. So whenever you hear some label flak claiming 98% of the bands they sign lose money for the company, substitute the phrase “just don’t earn enough” for the word “lose.”

** The whole conference took place at a semi-swank hotel on the island of St. Thomas, which is a funny place to gather to talk about how to save the music business, but that would be a whole different diatribe.

*** This same dynamic works in reverse – I interviewed the Butthole Surfers for Raygun magazine back in the 1990s, and Gibby Haynes described the odd feeling of visiting Capitol records’ offices and hearing, “a bunch of people go, ‘Hey, man, be cool to these guys, they’re a recouped band.’ I heard that a bunch of times.”

**** Again, I am avoiding using his real name because he returned my call promptly, and patiently answered my many questions, which is behavior I want to encourage, so I have no desire to lambaste him publicly.

***** Of course, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive – it is also possible that labels are ! evil and avaricious AND dumb and lazy, at the same time.

Reprinted with permission from Too Much Joy.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009 digital No Comments

Dr. Augustine Fou is Digital Consigliere to marketing executives, advising them on digital strategy and Unified Marketing(tm). Dr Fou has over 17 years of in-the-trenches, hands-on experience, which enables him to provide objective, in-depth assessments of their current marketing programs and recommendations for improving business impact and ROI using digital insights.

Augustine Fou portrait
http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing