Here's a real live mormon mac user, if you have questions feel free to ask me, instead of bashing what you are so very misinformed about. (Never at any time did Mormons believe people of African descent were the devil, various 'preachers' are just as misinformed and scared of what they refuse to educate themselves about).
There are few religions that haven't used an invented classification of certain peoples to determine others as sup/inferior. If it's a more modern adoption and/or closer to when a modern culture has eschewed that layer of ignorance it certainly feels worse but I'm not sure it is. Bigotry is bigotry. Whether it was culturally acceptable or not doesn't make it better.
For that reason I also can't begrudge the polygamy. Whilst not part of the typical Western culture there are plenty of cultures that have done it and still do it today. From a biological standpoint it makes perfect sense; male can spread their seed several times a day and females only have one egg per month, an if they get pregnant that's a 9 month gestation period. If your population is low it's a great way to ensure your survival.
On the flip side, if you need to keep the population low because food is scarce, as with at least one Nepalese culture, there is polyandry so that one women can have multiple husbands. These all make anthropologic sense. The confusion I see comes from people not accepting of other cultures, another form of bigotry. I personally will never marry because I think it's an outmoded and antiquated practice that does nothing for me in modern society but I accept that others find solace and joy in the practice ether for its own sake, religion, or just because it's the cultural norm. Even modern marriage would have been shocking to people not to long ago as many cultures didn't have divorce, and certainly not such a simple method of separation. We are not a monogamous people, we are serial monogamists.
I take issue a bit with the diminishing interest in iAds statement. It was pretty clearly set up at first as an experiment that would only appeal to a select group of advertisers with very deep pockets. It even required Apple participation in the development of the Ad.
So the next phase is lower the price and open it up more so that even political campaigns can use it.
I don't think the price is a problem here, presidential campaigns gather take in considerable donations. I think this presidential election will probably involve a couple billion dollars all said and done. Unlike a business, a political campaign is an organization that is only advertising. They don't deliver a product until election, and they generally don't deliver the product anyway.
That said, I don't use ad based apps, so I have never seen an iAd. And I don't want to.
The few ad-based apps I've used were glitchy and annoying. I hate that a portion of an already small screen gets set aside for an app. On one game, I requested in the feedback they offer a $1 version of the game that eliminates the ad, which I recall running the numbers that they'd get more from a buyer than an ad impressions on a free app.
Learn what the word "theism" means, and then what happens when you append an 'a' to the beginning. "Atheism" is not a belief; it's a lack of belief.
Anyone can claim a belief in something, but then the burden is upon them to provide some sort of evidence for their belief, not upon those who don't hold the belief.
Atheists are simply not in the group who believes in god (by definition). They do not have to 'believe' in anything to hold that position; it is the default state. All babies are born atheists - it's only later that they get indoctrinated into some sort of religion, usually the one that their parents dictate. They typically have no choice in the matter.
I think he was touching on- to be an atheist- you have to believe in something. Example- if God didn't create the earth- something did. Whether it be molecules spontaneously colliding in space, etc. And if god didn't create life (whether it be man or through evolution), then you believe life started on the backs of crystals or some other hypothesis. But the bottom line is they are all "hypothesis". When I look at what the best and smartest scientists in the planet try to come up with as an explanation to how life started- you need a lot of faith in their hypothesis to "believe" it- Devine creation still seems like the one that takes less faith. If you don't believe in God- that's fine- but to pretend you "know" There isn't proves you don't know anything and all you believe in are educated guesses.
I've heard from a few developers that iAds is finally working out for them. Any developers have any pros or cons about the current state of their nascent ad service?
PS: I still can't recall ever coming across an iAd.
Why does he walk around with a microphone clipped to his shirt? Or is it a still from a video recording?
Looks like a low budget video. You can kind of tell by the graphic design of the overlay as well as the microphone and the fact that a professional videographer/director would not shoot in full sun at noon.
Looks like a low budget video. You can kind of tell by the graphic design of the overlay as well as the microphone and the fact that a professional videographer/director would not shoot in full sun at noon.
For someone with a schedule as heavy as Romney's (or any major politician), I imagine you shoot when you can get a chance. If high sun is when he's available, that's what you work with. Besides, it's a political ad, not a touching, highly personal cinematic portrait. Five seconds in Photoshop would have made that mic go away, though.
The camp is also using Google's mobile network to get information to Android users, effectively covering the entire smartphone market....
...Moffatt sees smartphone users as a captive audience, saying that a handset is "the most personal device you carry. We felt like we wanted to connect with people where they spend their time."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
PS: I still can't recall ever coming across an iAd.
I have yet to see an iAd either because I don't have any ad supported apps. That is what make the above statement by Moffatt odd is that he does not seem to understand that in app mobile advertising does not effectively cover the smartphone market because free ad supported apps is not where people spend their time. Maybe young people download a lot of free apps but that doesn't seem to be the primary target audience for a political campaign since young people traditionally have a low turnout at the polls and a minority are registered Republicans. I don't see this iAd as being effective at all.
Comments
Believe in the one true religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
While it is true that the Mormon church didn't consider blacks to be the devil, they did consider them to be a cursed race:
http://carm.org/mormonism-and-the-negro
http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro2.htm
http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro.htm
http://www.christiandefense.org/mor_black.htm
and many more
The official position is that they were accursed and like the devil due to their black skin.
There are few religions that haven't used an invented classification of certain peoples to determine others as sup/inferior. If it's a more modern adoption and/or closer to when a modern culture has eschewed that layer of ignorance it certainly feels worse but I'm not sure it is. Bigotry is bigotry. Whether it was culturally acceptable or not doesn't make it better.
For that reason I also can't begrudge the polygamy. Whilst not part of the typical Western culture there are plenty of cultures that have done it and still do it today. From a biological standpoint it makes perfect sense; male can spread their seed several times a day and females only have one egg per month, an if they get pregnant that's a 9 month gestation period. If your population is low it's a great way to ensure your survival.
On the flip side, if you need to keep the population low because food is scarce, as with at least one Nepalese culture, there is polyandry so that one women can have multiple husbands. These all make anthropologic sense. The confusion I see comes from people not accepting of other cultures, another form of bigotry. I personally will never marry because I think it's an outmoded and antiquated practice that does nothing for me in modern society but I accept that others find solace and joy in the practice ether for its own sake, religion, or just because it's the cultural norm. Even modern marriage would have been shocking to people not to long ago as many cultures didn't have divorce, and certainly not such a simple method of separation. We are not a monogamous people, we are serial monogamists.
Ironic. An android advertising on an iPhone.
This post of mine is the 23rd in the thread. There are also 23 posts already DELETED from this thread.
I don't often hate being right, but come on, guys.
EDIT: DARN YOU, GMHUT.
I don't think the price is a problem here, presidential campaigns gather take in considerable donations. I think this presidential election will probably involve a couple billion dollars all said and done. Unlike a business, a political campaign is an organization that is only advertising. They don't deliver a product until election, and they generally don't deliver the product anyway.
The few ad-based apps I've used were glitchy and annoying. I hate that a portion of an already small screen gets set aside for an app. On one game, I requested in the feedback they offer a $1 version of the game that eliminates the ad, which I recall running the numbers that they'd get more from a buyer than an ad impressions on a free app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Why does he walk around with a microphone clipped to his shirt? Or is it a still from a video recording?
He was born with it. I am surprised they removed the silver spoon in his mouth.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I think he was touching on- to be an atheist- you have to believe in something. Example- if God didn't create the earth- something did. Whether it be molecules spontaneously colliding in space, etc. And if god didn't create life (whether it be man or through evolution), then you believe life started on the backs of crystals or some other hypothesis. But the bottom line is they are all "hypothesis". When I look at what the best and smartest scientists in the planet try to come up with as an explanation to how life started- you need a lot of faith in their hypothesis to "believe" it- Devine creation still seems like the one that takes less faith. If you don't believe in God- that's fine- but to pretend you "know" There isn't proves you don't know anything and all you believe in are educated guesses.
Its too bad he's wasting his money...he'll never get elected. If he does...god help the USA!
Please tell me this is sarcasm. Canada is its own country, not a territory of the US.
1) It's about time it was cleaned up. I was surprised to see all the hate comments this morning.
2) You are the 23rd post. I don't count AI posting the article in the forum as a post.
The original article isn't about politics anyway, it's about a campaign that bought into Apple's system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
The original article isn't about politics anyway, it's about a campaign that bought into Apple's system.
Ads We Can Believe In
(Spare) Change (for developers)
Hope (Google chokes on it)
PS: I still can't recall ever coming across an iAd.
Me neither. But aren't Americans the lucky ones where Apple made an iAd app available? Yep. How does it look?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
Only in Amercia
Yes, Romney ads are yet another Apple feature that's only available to residents of the US. Canadian users get screwed yet again!
At least everything is spelled right this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Why does he walk around with a microphone clipped to his shirt? Or is it a still from a video recording?
Looks like a low budget video. You can kind of tell by the graphic design of the overlay as well as the microphone and the fact that a professional videographer/director would not shoot in full sun at noon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Looks like a low budget video. You can kind of tell by the graphic design of the overlay as well as the microphone and the fact that a professional videographer/director would not shoot in full sun at noon.
For someone with a schedule as heavy as Romney's (or any major politician), I imagine you shoot when you can get a chance. If high sun is when he's available, that's what you work with. Besides, it's a political ad, not a touching, highly personal cinematic portrait. Five seconds in Photoshop would have made that mic go away, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The camp is also using Google's mobile network to get information to Android users, effectively covering the entire smartphone market....
...Moffatt sees smartphone users as a captive audience, saying that a handset is "the most personal device you carry. We felt like we wanted to connect with people where they spend their time."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
PS: I still can't recall ever coming across an iAd.
I have yet to see an iAd either because I don't have any ad supported apps. That is what make the above statement by Moffatt odd is that he does not seem to understand that in app mobile advertising does not effectively cover the smartphone market because free ad supported apps is not where people spend their time. Maybe young people download a lot of free apps but that doesn't seem to be the primary target audience for a political campaign since young people traditionally have a low turnout at the polls and a minority are registered Republicans. I don't see this iAd as being effective at all.