BlogThree by ThoughtFix

It was widely reported that Google teamed up with Seth MacFarlane to do two-minute (more or less) episodes of a comedy show that will be delivered with AdSense ads. So far, this is being billed as a way for Google to add value to the ad area of a page.

The episodes will have preroll ads for which the advertisers would pay more. MacFarlane would get a cut of each ad sale. Money-making all around, right?

Here's the undiscussed little part of this:

- It's delivered via AdSense
- There is no single site on which the episodes may appear
- The target Family Guy audience is young, internet-savvy, and clever.

That last part is the key: These are the type of people who may have things like - oh I don't know - AdBlock Plus installed.
Think about it.

Labels: blogging, Google, web 2.0

Posted by thoughtfix at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Comments

Buzz Out Loud discussed a thing on how Microsoft ads are coming to respond to the onslaught of anti-Vista Apple advertising. Ever full of waffles on OS choice (and a Mac, Windows, and Linux user interchangably) I've come up with a few commercials Microsoft can do.

Apparently the theme is "Free the People." It's about hardware choice over a single platform. If it were me, here's what I'd do:

Show a $400 budget office PC. Roll specs and price. Show an iMac.
Show a $1000 family PC. Roll specs and price. Show an iMac.
Show a $2500 gaming rig. Roll specs and price. Show an iMac.
Show generic Microsoft slogan about choice.
fin.

Show a $500 subnotebook running Vista. Show a Macbook.
Show a $1200 standard office notebook. Show a Macbook.
Show one of those laptops in a half dozen colors. Show a Macbook Pro.
Show a $4000 super-ultimate VAIO. Show a Macbook.
Show generic Microsoft slogan about choice.
fin.

Show a tablet PC.
Show a blank screen.
Show generic Microsoft slogan about choice.
fin.

Show a video card upgrade. Show a sealed iMac.
Show a RAM upgrade. Show a sealed iMac.
Show a hard drive upgrade. Show an iMac.
Show generic Microsoft slogan about choice.
fin.


Heh. Yes, non-Apple computers DO Free the People. However, they also free people to use Linux ;)

Labels: Apple, Microsoft

Posted by thoughtfix at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments

People I want to see at CES

• Fellow mobile bloggers
• Nokia
• Asus
• TabletKiosk
• OQO
• Dynamism
• ThinkGeek
• Microsoft

Posted by thoughtfix at 8:04 PM | Permalink | Comments

I have AdSense and Chitika on both my blogs. They don't give enough income to support the blogging entirely, but I'm OK with that. I figure the shortfall is because I don't put up enough high-traffic content. That inspires me to do better.

I stumbled across WhyFirefoxIsBlocked.com some time ago. They say that Firefox promotes ad-blocking software and viewing content without downloading the ads equates to "stealing" from the content producers. That pissed me off. As an ad-supported publisher, am I egotistical enough to call ad-blockers thieves?

Let's follow the slippery slope:

• While viewing web pages, you cannot operate your computer until ads are finished displaying.
• While watching TV, you cannot walk away during commercials.
• While listening to the radio, you cannot use the power or volume buttons during commercials.
• While driving your car, it automatically slows as you pass billboards to give you time to read them.

Thank you but no.

Even as an ad-supported publisher, I fully support the right of my readers to choose to download (or to not download) anything they wish. The closest I will ever come to actual ad intrusion is to logo articles, images, or video with sponsors. None of these will take away from the content itself. As for any ad-supported entity who insists that the ads be viewed: If your content is that important to you, make it subscription-only. If you provide good enough content, people will subscribe. If no one subscribes - you know why.

Labels: annoyances, blogging, web 2.0

Posted by thoughtfix at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Comments

Posted by thoughtfix at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Comments

This is not complete, but it is an interesting thought. Firearm control and smoking bans set legal precedent for the banning of other legal-to-own-and-use products if people consider them a safety, convenience, and environmental hazard. On one hand, it could be a good law for the safety of others. On the other hand, it shows the danger of when individual freedoms can be taken away by majority vote. However, the second point must concede that smoking bans and firearm control are not good laws if they vote down an SUV ban. Here’s the argument:

1. SUVs are hurting Arizona

   1. Fuel Costs and Environmental Damage

      1. Increased Fossil Fuel Demand – Sport Utility Vehicles take up to 4 times as much gasoline to operate.

      2. Increased tank size and reactionary buying – Compared to passenger cars, an SUV can hold up to four times as much fuel. During times of gas shortage or perceived crisis (remember the fuel line break in 2003?) gas purchases skyrocketed by reactionary buyers filling their tanks as soon as gas trucks arrived at stations. The presence of high-capacity vehicle first hoarding then rapidly consuming gas naturally contributed to the prices and outages.

      3. Heavy smog production: SUVs over 6,000 pounds are permitted to exhaust THREE TIMES the Hydrocarbons (2.4 grams per mile vs. 0.8,) over twice the carbon monoxide (25 grams per mile vs. 12,) and twice the oxides of nitrogen (4.0 grams per mile vs. 2) than standard passenger vehicles.

   2. Road Damage – Heavier vehicles simply cause more damage to roads. The cities are constantly repairing roadways (much to the disdain of the average commuter) to keep up with the constant stress put on by all vehicles and the taxpayers pick up the tab.

   3. Increased risk to passenger cars AND to SUV drivers.

      1. Crashes – Simple physics tells us that heavier mass crashing into any object will cause more damage. Higher bumper placement and wider impact area increases the damage to other vehicles or property.

      2. Visibility – Cars sharing the road with other cars can see past or around them for upcoming dangers on the highways. SUVs decrease the visibility around other cars and especially in turns. The ability to see ahead of the car directly in front of a driver is important for traffic conditions that require rapid slowing. If a visibility blocking SUV changes lanes to avoid a stalled car, the car behind would not see the danger until much later and may not be able to brake or change lanes in time. Additionally, the higher headlight mounting causes problems with the night vision of drivers of smaller vehicles.

      3. Longer braking times – Especially in slick or rugged road conditions, it takes longer for a heavy vehicle to come to a stop once brakes are applied.

      4. Rollovers – SUVs are notorious for their increased susceptibility to rollover accidents.

      5. Larger Blind Spots – The length, height, and construction of these large vehicles greatly expands the blind spot for the drivers. In addition to a wider horizontal blind spot, it creates a large VERTICAL blind spot as well – specifically directly behind the driver. A child too short to be seen below the rear window can be backed over.

      6. Drivers are not trained to handle SUVs - Slower reaction times, wider blind spots, wider turning radius, and other dangers specific to this vehicle class are not part of the test for Class D licenses.

2. Benefits of Passenger SUV Ban

   1. Safer for drivers and pedestrians

   2. Longer lasting roads

   3. More visibility

   4. Less gas demand

   5. Truck drivers must be trained

3. Proposal

   1. Disallow vehicles greater than 6,000 pounds from operating on public streets within city limits to reduce road wear, smog, and passenger car danger.

   2. Disallow vehicles over 6,000 pounds from operating in HOV lanes.

   3. Create a plate and permit class for businesses to purchase to operate their vehicles within city limits. They must provide legitimate business reason for requiring a vehicle this large.

   4. Drivers of vehicles over 6000 pounds must be licensed to operate of these vehicles (same procedure, license changes, and such as Motorcycle licenses)

   5. Allow the Motor Vehicle Division to sell day passes for vehicles over 6000 pounds to pass through cities.

   6. Special cases can be permitted for households with 3 or more non-driving (due to age, lack of license, etc) family members. A window permit, plate sticker, or plate class can be sold to these families. Only one of these permits will be allowed per household.

   7. License, permit, day pass, and ticket income can go toward road safety, environmental clean-up efforts, and highway law enforcement.

4. Precedent

   1. The 6000 pound determination is not arbitrary. It is the dividing line between light duty trucks and heavy duty trucks in the Clean Air Act.

   2. Arizona has long recognized the need for special licenses on vehicles requiring extra skill and care for operation. Operators of vehicles weighing over 26,000 pounds require commercial driver licenses (Class A, B, or C) and operators of motorcycles require Class M licenses. These laws were put into effect before the "heavy truck" and "sport utility" class of vehicles were embraced by the commercial market. The time has come for additional safety and environmental protection regulation.

   3. All it takes is a simple majority for voters to put this in action.

      1. If there is a safety issue with using legal products in public space, voters can ban it.

      2. If there is a convenience issue with using legal products in public space, voters can ban it.

      3. If a legal product causes environmental damage, voters can ban it.

      4. If businesses suffer from the ban but the vote still passes, the businesses must find a way to cope.

      5. Voters can pass additional tax on any product they choose.

   4. The precedent comes in the form of the statewide smoking ban and rising tobacco taxes. Voters clearly stated that smoking in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and other public venues or within 15 feet of the entrances to them creates safety, convenience, and environmental issues. Bars, nightclubs, bowling alleys, and others have had to adjust to cope with the ban and have lost customers because of this. Voters approve tobacco tax increases regularly.

   5. Additional precedent comes in the form of firearm control. Firearms are also dangerous, require additional licensing, and cannot be used in public.

   6. The safety, convenience, and environmental impact to non-SUV drivers (the majority) on public roads can be measured and quantified.

   7. This is not a total ban on SUV ownership. Similar to the tobacco ban, it will be perfectly legal to own and operate an SUV in on private land, in rural areas, or in Arizona’s popular off-road trails. Day passes can be purchased to get the vehicles to and from these locations or they can be towed.

Speculative points, reported by others, requiring source verification:

• An average SUV or a pickup is more than twice as likely as a car to kill the driver of the other vehicle in a collision.

• SUVs are four times more likely than cars to roll over in an accident.

• SUVs are three times more likely to kill the occupants in a rollover.

• Light trucks/SUVs crashing into cars accounts for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions, 2,000 people would still be alive if their vehicles had been hit by a heavy car instead of an SUV.

• 80 percent of drivers strongly feel that automakers should make safety changes to SUVs that would make the roads safer for car occupants.

Links of interest:

• http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/18/autos/auto_death_rates/index.htm

• http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html

• http://slate.com/id/2104755/

• http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/fuelecon/

• http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/automotive/SUVs-Are-Dangerous.html

• http://www.fueleconomy.gov

• http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa202.txt

• http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/ask_reporters/articles/bradsher-article3.html

• http://www.sustainableenterprises.com/Community/SUVs.htm

Posted by thoughtfix at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments

LiveJournal is down due to a massive power failure in their data center.
MySpace bulletins are offline for special maintenance.

It's a good thing I have this blog on which to post my meaningful diatribes.
...
This concludes today's meaningful diatribe.

Posted by thoughtfix at 6:56 PM | Permalink | Comments