It doesn't take a lot of TV watching of a particular channel to realize that every station has a certain demographic that businesses are spending big bucks to hock their wares to.
For example, CBC Newsworld is chalked up with a lot of elderly related safety products and 'you better by life insurance for your grandchildren before you keel over and die' financial products.
We've been hearing rumblings about targeted advertising on TV akin to what Facebook is trying to do to appease their many fairly recent shareholders.
How do I feel about targeted advertising?
Well, to be honest with you, I would prefer it.
Let's face it, as someone watching TV, regardless of the actual channel, I am less likely to get up and walk away or switch to another channel if the product and/or service being advertised is relevant to my age, marital status, and hobbies.
As a company, it makes more sense to enhance reach with increased probabilities of honing in on your target audience.
What would this look like?
Most of the information about you could be gleamed from existing social media accounts.
Where you check in on Foursquare to what brands you like on Facebook, even if it was just to enter a contest to win a big screen TV can be data mined.
I envision the future having one central multimedia device in the house, possibly a very sophisticated smart TV that will have massive storage, for everything from jpegs to movies and video games, which will eliminate the need for other separate devices such as a Blu-ray player.
This device will be wired to the Internet so every move you make and every breath you take in that world can be categorized and referenced.
I personally don't think that's so bad.
It's not like were talking about a 1984 type telescreen are we?
Oh wait ...
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Fix the Problem, Not the Blame ...
I couldn't post about another mass shooting in the US ...
Not least until all the wags, pundits, and anachronistic types had their say.
Having digested the bipolar disorder that is gun culture in the US for so many years, I must say that it never fails that you will hear the same tired arguments.
For example, let me play devils advocate and take the head of the NRAs solution to prevent another Newtown seriously.
You know what, your right!
The variables of a gunfight taken under serious consideration, the Newtown massacre might not have happened, or the deaths might have been minimized had a first responder in the school with a firearm been there to confront the shooter.
I get it, a gun meets a gun and it MIGHT not get any worse than it already is.
But is that seriously the only answer the NRA can come up with?
A truly enlightened society would have NO guns. No citizen or civilian has access to any type of firearm whatsoever accept weapons manufactured and marketed for hunting.
(Philosophical considerations for a no-gun society cannot be covered in this post)
If Adam Lanza had NO access to an arsenal of weapons that riot police and soldiers might very well have, there is no way he would have inflicted the death toll he was able to.
Even if he had a machete, and heaven forbid a machete is still a weapon, Lanza would not have been able to inflict the level of death he was able to.
The moral high ground of no guns wins over the solution of putting armed guards in schools.
What's the cost and coordination of such a plan by the way?
Here's a scenario for the NRA to ponder ...
Does everyone remember Trayvon Martin being shot and killed by neighborhood Robocop George Zimmerman?
It turns out Martin was a law abiding young citizen out to buy some Skittles but was assumed to be a thug by Zimmerman.
What if Martin had a concealed firearm and shot and killed Zimmerman during the struggle that Zimmerman uses as his defense that no one else witnessed?
What's the NRA response to this?
"Well, it's a case of a good guy with a gun meeting another good guy without a gun, but the good guy with the gun thinks that the good guy without a gun is actually a bad guy potentially with a gun and, uhh, well the kid should have just had a gun of his own!"
Ohh!
So let's see here ...
Perhaps EVERYBODY should be packing, even law abiding non gangster teenagers who might get innocently mistaken for some degenerate reprobate by some over caffeinated suburbanite who shudders at mass media reports on crime.
Sorry NRA, you need to come up with something more convincing before I can even fathom putting armed guards in every public school.
Not least until all the wags, pundits, and anachronistic types had their say.
Having digested the bipolar disorder that is gun culture in the US for so many years, I must say that it never fails that you will hear the same tired arguments.
For example, let me play devils advocate and take the head of the NRAs solution to prevent another Newtown seriously.
You know what, your right!
The variables of a gunfight taken under serious consideration, the Newtown massacre might not have happened, or the deaths might have been minimized had a first responder in the school with a firearm been there to confront the shooter.
I get it, a gun meets a gun and it MIGHT not get any worse than it already is.
But is that seriously the only answer the NRA can come up with?
A truly enlightened society would have NO guns. No citizen or civilian has access to any type of firearm whatsoever accept weapons manufactured and marketed for hunting.
(Philosophical considerations for a no-gun society cannot be covered in this post)
If Adam Lanza had NO access to an arsenal of weapons that riot police and soldiers might very well have, there is no way he would have inflicted the death toll he was able to.
Even if he had a machete, and heaven forbid a machete is still a weapon, Lanza would not have been able to inflict the level of death he was able to.
The moral high ground of no guns wins over the solution of putting armed guards in schools.
What's the cost and coordination of such a plan by the way?
Here's a scenario for the NRA to ponder ...
Does everyone remember Trayvon Martin being shot and killed by neighborhood Robocop George Zimmerman?
It turns out Martin was a law abiding young citizen out to buy some Skittles but was assumed to be a thug by Zimmerman.
What if Martin had a concealed firearm and shot and killed Zimmerman during the struggle that Zimmerman uses as his defense that no one else witnessed?
What's the NRA response to this?
"Well, it's a case of a good guy with a gun meeting another good guy without a gun, but the good guy with the gun thinks that the good guy without a gun is actually a bad guy potentially with a gun and, uhh, well the kid should have just had a gun of his own!"
Ohh!
So let's see here ...
Perhaps EVERYBODY should be packing, even law abiding non gangster teenagers who might get innocently mistaken for some degenerate reprobate by some over caffeinated suburbanite who shudders at mass media reports on crime.
Sorry NRA, you need to come up with something more convincing before I can even fathom putting armed guards in every public school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)