Leaving TBDX (for real).
Posted by Vincent Z.
| May 21, 2012 10:44PM |
It's the Necronomicon from the Evil Dead series of films:
[www.google.com]
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
[www.google.com]
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
| May 22, 2012 01:58AM |
Oh, silly me. I thought that was the old Rob Roskopp deck graphics. Oh well. Back to leavin' on a jet plane...
[www.google.com]
[www.google.com]
|
Sanjeev (Admin)
|
May 22, 2012 12:29PM |
| May 22, 2012 03:58PM |
repairtechjon Wrote:
> Oh, silly me. I thought that was the old Rob
> Roskopp deck graphics. Oh well. Back to leavin' on
> a jet plane...
> [www.google.com]
ahaha, man, that face is HILARIOUS when you see 20 of them at once on a Google image search results page.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
> Oh, silly me. I thought that was the old Rob
> Roskopp deck graphics. Oh well. Back to leavin' on
> a jet plane...
> [www.google.com]
ahaha, man, that face is HILARIOUS when you see 20 of them at once on a Google image search results page.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
| May 22, 2012 04:16PM |
| May 22, 2012 11:13PM |
I'm may or may not leave to start my own camper drag racing team.
[www.youtube.com]
Anyone want to join my pit crew?
[www.youtube.com]
Anyone want to join my pit crew?
|
MattAlt (Admin)
|
May 23, 2012 12:10AM |
| May 23, 2012 12:50AM |
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's the Necronomicon from the Evil Dead series of films:
> [www.google.com] dead&tbm=isch
I went to the Necrocomicon last year, and boy was that place DEAD!!!
(rimshot in the distance echoes)
Stuck with tons of zombie exclusives from Archie and Jughead comics that apparently NOBODY thinks are worth anything! Have you SEEN Veronica Zombie???
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's the Necronomicon from the Evil Dead series of films:
> [www.google.com] dead&tbm=isch
I went to the Necrocomicon last year, and boy was that place DEAD!!!
(rimshot in the distance echoes)
Stuck with tons of zombie exclusives from Archie and Jughead comics that apparently NOBODY thinks are worth anything! Have you SEEN Veronica Zombie???
| May 23, 2012 07:56AM |
| May 23, 2012 08:04AM |
| May 23, 2012 12:38PM |
| May 23, 2012 02:09PM |
| May 27, 2012 12:29AM |
|
MattAlt (Admin)
|
May 27, 2012 01:51AM |
| May 29, 2012 01:45PM |
| July 11, 2012 01:18PM |
| July 26, 2012 02:34AM |
I can't FINGER it out.
TBDX used to be HANDY.
Then everybody LEFT.
But it's all RIGHT.
I'll just give it a WRIST.
And put my THUMB up my ASS.*
* I have no idea why I capitalized that last word, but it seemed like the thing to do at the time. Seriously though, when did this place turn into such a ghost towne? I don't get it. Is it the economy? It's the economy, isn't it? Man, fuck the economy.
TBDX used to be HANDY.
Then everybody LEFT.
But it's all RIGHT.
I'll just give it a WRIST.
And put my THUMB up my ASS.*
* I have no idea why I capitalized that last word, but it seemed like the thing to do at the time. Seriously though, when did this place turn into such a ghost towne? I don't get it. Is it the economy? It's the economy, isn't it? Man, fuck the economy.
| July 26, 2012 01:41PM |
| July 26, 2012 02:03PM |
| July 26, 2012 02:04PM |
| July 27, 2012 04:11AM |
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, you can come join the party with us in
> the dreaded world of social media, but only if you
> want to discuss incredibly dumb topics with a
> maximum level of snarkiness.
Social media are the new 4chan?
Although lately I realize more and more that what is called "social media" isn't actually new, since the "social" bit is not very different from all those forums and other meeting places on the web, maybe with a little more "connections" thrown in. What is actually new is that some geniuses (genii?) have realized that by calling their closed corporate services where *your person* are the goods to be handled "social media" they could haul in the public at large. I can't decide whether this is highly cynical or the best business decision ever.
I wonder what the viability of an open "social" exchange system compatible with popular web forum software would be...$$$?
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, you can come join the party with us in
> the dreaded world of social media, but only if you
> want to discuss incredibly dumb topics with a
> maximum level of snarkiness.
Social media are the new 4chan?
Although lately I realize more and more that what is called "social media" isn't actually new, since the "social" bit is not very different from all those forums and other meeting places on the web, maybe with a little more "connections" thrown in. What is actually new is that some geniuses (genii?) have realized that by calling their closed corporate services where *your person* are the goods to be handled "social media" they could haul in the public at large. I can't decide whether this is highly cynical or the best business decision ever.
I wonder what the viability of an open "social" exchange system compatible with popular web forum software would be...$$$?
| July 27, 2012 09:48AM |
| July 27, 2012 01:02PM |
thomas Wrote:
>
> Although lately I realize more and more that what
> is called "social media" isn't actually new, since
> the "social" bit is not very different from all
> those forums and other meeting places on the web,
> maybe with a little more "connections" thrown in.
> What is actually new is that some geniuses
> (genii?) have realized that by calling their
> closed corporate services where *your person* are
> the goods to be handled "social media" they could
> haul in the public at large. I can't decide
> whether this is highly cynical or the best
> business decision ever.
hahaha what? are you seriously saying that the popularity of Facebook, Twitter et al is because they use fancy phrases like "social media" to make them sound less geeky?
you think these sites are big because they're called "social media", and not because of, maybe, access to high speed internet connections, better web interfaces, viability of digital photography, proliferation of mobile computing devices... you know, all the TANGIBLE things which make social media a workable proposition, which weren't nearly as good ten years ago, and were barely present at all fifteen years ago?
Thomas, you should really join our Facebook group.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
>
> Although lately I realize more and more that what
> is called "social media" isn't actually new, since
> the "social" bit is not very different from all
> those forums and other meeting places on the web,
> maybe with a little more "connections" thrown in.
> What is actually new is that some geniuses
> (genii?) have realized that by calling their
> closed corporate services where *your person* are
> the goods to be handled "social media" they could
> haul in the public at large. I can't decide
> whether this is highly cynical or the best
> business decision ever.
hahaha what? are you seriously saying that the popularity of Facebook, Twitter et al is because they use fancy phrases like "social media" to make them sound less geeky?
you think these sites are big because they're called "social media", and not because of, maybe, access to high speed internet connections, better web interfaces, viability of digital photography, proliferation of mobile computing devices... you know, all the TANGIBLE things which make social media a workable proposition, which weren't nearly as good ten years ago, and were barely present at all fifteen years ago?
Thomas, you should really join our Facebook group.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
| July 27, 2012 01:32PM |
<<Thomas, you should really join our Facebook group.>>
Or run the other way. As fast as humanly possible. And don't look back.
---------------------------------
[pgaijin.blogspot.com]
Or run the other way. As fast as humanly possible. And don't look back.
---------------------------------
[pgaijin.blogspot.com]
| July 27, 2012 05:40PM |
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
> >
> > Although lately I realize more and more that
> what
> > is called "social media" isn't actually new,
> since
> > the "social" bit is not very different from all
> > those forums and other meeting places on the
> web,
> > maybe with a little more "connections" thrown
> in.
> > What is actually new is that some geniuses
> > (genii?) have realized that by calling their
> > closed corporate services where *your person*
> are
> > the goods to be handled "social media" they
> could
> > haul in the public at large. I can't decide
> > whether this is highly cynical or the best
> > business decision ever.
>
> hahaha what? are you seriously saying that the
> popularity of Facebook, Twitter et al is because
> they use fancy phrases like "social media" to make
> them sound less geeky?
No, of course not. I'd say it is mostly because they offer a great platform for a lot of attention-seeking narcists. </snark>
>
> you think these sites are big because they're
> called "social media", and not because of, maybe,
> access to high speed internet connections, better
> web interfaces, viability of digital photography,
> proliferation of mobile computing devices... you
> know, all the TANGIBLE things which make social
> media a workable proposition, which weren't nearly
> as good ten years ago, and were barely present at
> all fifteen years ago?
On the other hand, there are many sites that are not explicitly marketed as social media that have exact the same features, except for a noticeably smaller userbase that tends to have specialized interests. And they usually lack the utterly intrusive tracking as used by Facebook et al.
Also, I may be spoiled by having had an excellent internet connection since nearly a decade...
>
> Thomas, you should really join our Facebook group.
No thanks, I don't like companies following my every move on the internet. I value my privacy.
With Facebook, we're now getting utterly genius ideas such as the following:
[www.slate.com]
I've already seen this one show up on a security mailing list with sarcastic comments like "Maybe the US can soon hit more than 100% of voters". What could possibly go wrong?
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
> >
> > Although lately I realize more and more that
> what
> > is called "social media" isn't actually new,
> since
> > the "social" bit is not very different from all
> > those forums and other meeting places on the
> web,
> > maybe with a little more "connections" thrown
> in.
> > What is actually new is that some geniuses
> > (genii?) have realized that by calling their
> > closed corporate services where *your person*
> are
> > the goods to be handled "social media" they
> could
> > haul in the public at large. I can't decide
> > whether this is highly cynical or the best
> > business decision ever.
>
> hahaha what? are you seriously saying that the
> popularity of Facebook, Twitter et al is because
> they use fancy phrases like "social media" to make
> them sound less geeky?
No, of course not. I'd say it is mostly because they offer a great platform for a lot of attention-seeking narcists. </snark>
>
> you think these sites are big because they're
> called "social media", and not because of, maybe,
> access to high speed internet connections, better
> web interfaces, viability of digital photography,
> proliferation of mobile computing devices... you
> know, all the TANGIBLE things which make social
> media a workable proposition, which weren't nearly
> as good ten years ago, and were barely present at
> all fifteen years ago?
On the other hand, there are many sites that are not explicitly marketed as social media that have exact the same features, except for a noticeably smaller userbase that tends to have specialized interests. And they usually lack the utterly intrusive tracking as used by Facebook et al.
Also, I may be spoiled by having had an excellent internet connection since nearly a decade...
>
> Thomas, you should really join our Facebook group.
No thanks, I don't like companies following my every move on the internet. I value my privacy.
With Facebook, we're now getting utterly genius ideas such as the following:
[www.slate.com]
I've already seen this one show up on a security mailing list with sarcastic comments like "Maybe the US can soon hit more than 100% of voters". What could possibly go wrong?
| July 27, 2012 06:34PM |
thomas Wrote:
>
> On the other hand, there are many sites that are
> not explicitly marketed as social media that have
> exact the same features, except for a noticeably
> smaller userbase that tends to have specialized
> interests.
Websites that serve a group that's organized around a specialized interest don't break through to widespread mainstream popularity as much as ones designed to be everything to everyone? Shocker.
> No thanks, I don't like companies following my
> every move on the internet. I value my privacy.
YOU'RE MISSING OUT, MAN.
Hillsy, you should really join our Facebook group.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
>
> On the other hand, there are many sites that are
> not explicitly marketed as social media that have
> exact the same features, except for a noticeably
> smaller userbase that tends to have specialized
> interests.
Websites that serve a group that's organized around a specialized interest don't break through to widespread mainstream popularity as much as ones designed to be everything to everyone? Shocker.
> No thanks, I don't like companies following my
> every move on the internet. I value my privacy.
YOU'RE MISSING OUT, MAN.
Hillsy, you should really join our Facebook group.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
| July 27, 2012 06:53PM |
Is it like a gang? With an initiation? Just don't touch my plums.
---------------------------------
[pgaijin.blogspot.com]
---------------------------------
[pgaijin.blogspot.com]
| July 28, 2012 02:19AM |
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, there are many sites that
> are
> > not explicitly marketed as social media that
> have
> > exact the same features, except for a
> noticeably
> > smaller userbase that tends to have specialized
> > interests.
>
> Websites that serve a group that's organized
> around a specialized interest don't break through
> to widespread mainstream popularity as much as
> ones designed to be everything to everyone?
> Shocker.
>
*sigh*
*facepalm*
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, there are many sites that
> are
> > not explicitly marketed as social media that
> have
> > exact the same features, except for a
> noticeably
> > smaller userbase that tends to have specialized
> > interests.
>
> Websites that serve a group that's organized
> around a specialized interest don't break through
> to widespread mainstream popularity as much as
> ones designed to be everything to everyone?
> Shocker.
>
*sigh*
*facepalm*
| July 29, 2012 03:56PM |
| July 29, 2012 11:10PM |
| July 30, 2012 03:15AM |
thomas Wrote:
>
> *sigh*
>
> *facepalm*
Pretty sure "organized around a userbase that has specialized interests" is a much, much bigger factor in the potential audience for a site than "marketed as social media", dude! People aren't robots that respond to buzzwords like "social"! They're sensitive to features, like functionality and perceived qualitative characteristics (like what a site is "about", even a blank-slate networking site).
But no, no, feel free to go on believing that the term "social media" and the associated marketing cruft makes a difference in what sites are popular. I'm sure there's a lot to be learned there.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
>
> *sigh*
>
> *facepalm*
Pretty sure "organized around a userbase that has specialized interests" is a much, much bigger factor in the potential audience for a site than "marketed as social media", dude! People aren't robots that respond to buzzwords like "social"! They're sensitive to features, like functionality and perceived qualitative characteristics (like what a site is "about", even a blank-slate networking site).
But no, no, feel free to go on believing that the term "social media" and the associated marketing cruft makes a difference in what sites are popular. I'm sure there's a lot to be learned there.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
| July 30, 2012 04:22AM |
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > *facepalm*
>
> Pretty sure "organized around a userbase that has
> specialized interests" is a much, much bigger
> factor in the potential audience for a site than
> "marketed as social media", dude! People aren't
> robots that respond to buzzwords like "social"!
> They're sensitive to features, like functionality
> and perceived qualitative characteristics (like
> what a site is "about", even a blank-slate
> networking site).
Okay. My point was that a lot of online communities that are not specifically marketed as "social media" or "web 2.0" or "user participation" are exactly that, because they offer possibilities for people to connect, share, exchange, friend, etc. They could a decade ago, they could 2 decades ago. Social Media avant la lettre, so to say. More new users don't change that the basic functionality was there long before Facebook.
However, when you point out this little fact to many (current) new internet users, they look at you funny and rehash the whole "web 2.0, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube"-mantra. Suggest they can do things otherwise, that there is an internet at large with a lot more interesting places, and they stick to their guns with the fervidness of a crack addict protecting his stash.
We've seen this before, and like then ([en.wikipedia.org]), the bubble will burst yet again. Some people think that the rather massively overinflated Facebook share value mess is a precursor to this.
Besides, people forget that Facebook et al are commercial companies. They have to make money somehow. They do this by cashing in on their users, by seeing whatever their users contribute to their own site as features they can market. Facebook will increase its user-targeted ads, all of which are specifically tailored to match the user's tastes. However, unlike Google they have complete control over the image crafted by an user, because there are much less ways to escape them. To use Facebook's services, you have to be logged in with them. They track you everywhere you go, unless you log out and remove all their cookies.
Because all content posted on Facebook is not only owned by the user but also by Facebook they can use users and their contributions in targetted ads. There have already been a couple of unpleasant incidents regarding this, for example ads stating people liked <insert adult product here> and shown to their work colleagues. Ignoring the stupidity of the users involved in such incidents, and the hilarity of them being exposed as perverts, it is a pretty bad case of privacy invasion from a certain point of view.
>
> But no, no, feel free to go on believing that the
> term "social media" and the associated marketing
> cruft makes a difference in what sites are
> popular. I'm sure there's a lot to be learned
> there.
I'm sure that being "sensitive to features" explains why most of TV currently consists of crude shite cashing in on scandal, sex, pseudo-reality shows, braindead entertainment, and passing fads.</sarcasm>
So, eh, what is better about Facebook than this place or CollectionDX? If the forum here would be updated to a more modern forum software that allowed users to create groups etc., would you spend more time here?
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > *facepalm*
>
> Pretty sure "organized around a userbase that has
> specialized interests" is a much, much bigger
> factor in the potential audience for a site than
> "marketed as social media", dude! People aren't
> robots that respond to buzzwords like "social"!
> They're sensitive to features, like functionality
> and perceived qualitative characteristics (like
> what a site is "about", even a blank-slate
> networking site).
Okay. My point was that a lot of online communities that are not specifically marketed as "social media" or "web 2.0" or "user participation" are exactly that, because they offer possibilities for people to connect, share, exchange, friend, etc. They could a decade ago, they could 2 decades ago. Social Media avant la lettre, so to say. More new users don't change that the basic functionality was there long before Facebook.
However, when you point out this little fact to many (current) new internet users, they look at you funny and rehash the whole "web 2.0, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube"-mantra. Suggest they can do things otherwise, that there is an internet at large with a lot more interesting places, and they stick to their guns with the fervidness of a crack addict protecting his stash.
We've seen this before, and like then ([en.wikipedia.org]), the bubble will burst yet again. Some people think that the rather massively overinflated Facebook share value mess is a precursor to this.
Besides, people forget that Facebook et al are commercial companies. They have to make money somehow. They do this by cashing in on their users, by seeing whatever their users contribute to their own site as features they can market. Facebook will increase its user-targeted ads, all of which are specifically tailored to match the user's tastes. However, unlike Google they have complete control over the image crafted by an user, because there are much less ways to escape them. To use Facebook's services, you have to be logged in with them. They track you everywhere you go, unless you log out and remove all their cookies.
Because all content posted on Facebook is not only owned by the user but also by Facebook they can use users and their contributions in targetted ads. There have already been a couple of unpleasant incidents regarding this, for example ads stating people liked <insert adult product here> and shown to their work colleagues. Ignoring the stupidity of the users involved in such incidents, and the hilarity of them being exposed as perverts, it is a pretty bad case of privacy invasion from a certain point of view.
>
> But no, no, feel free to go on believing that the
> term "social media" and the associated marketing
> cruft makes a difference in what sites are
> popular. I'm sure there's a lot to be learned
> there.
I'm sure that being "sensitive to features" explains why most of TV currently consists of crude shite cashing in on scandal, sex, pseudo-reality shows, braindead entertainment, and passing fads.</sarcasm>
So, eh, what is better about Facebook than this place or CollectionDX? If the forum here would be updated to a more modern forum software that allowed users to create groups etc., would you spend more time here?
| July 30, 2012 01:09PM |
thomas Wrote:
>
> However, when you point out this little fact to
> many (current) new internet users, they look at
> you funny and rehash the whole "web 2.0, Facebook,
> Twitter, Youtube"-mantra. Suggest they can do
> things otherwise, that there is an internet at
> large with a lot more interesting places, and they
> stick to their guns with the fervidness of a crack
> addict protecting his stash.
No idea what this means or who these people you're referring to are. Not sure what point you're arguing against here. Also, I haven't heard anyone use the term "web 2.0" sincerely in a few years.
Actually, I think I did hear "web 2.0" once in the past year, but it was referring to trends in visual design elements, not the sense you're using it.
skipping the middle part of this post because you get into a whole separate discussion about the economic viability of Facebook, and who really cares? I don't own shares, so it's irrelevant to me.
> So, eh, what is better about Facebook than this
> place or CollectionDX?
A population of users who post frequently about interesting things. For example, wanna see Matt Alt's scuba diving photos? Follow him on Twitter! You can't get that on TBDX.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2012 01:11PM by asterphage.
>
> However, when you point out this little fact to
> many (current) new internet users, they look at
> you funny and rehash the whole "web 2.0, Facebook,
> Twitter, Youtube"-mantra. Suggest they can do
> things otherwise, that there is an internet at
> large with a lot more interesting places, and they
> stick to their guns with the fervidness of a crack
> addict protecting his stash.
No idea what this means or who these people you're referring to are. Not sure what point you're arguing against here. Also, I haven't heard anyone use the term "web 2.0" sincerely in a few years.
Actually, I think I did hear "web 2.0" once in the past year, but it was referring to trends in visual design elements, not the sense you're using it.
skipping the middle part of this post because you get into a whole separate discussion about the economic viability of Facebook, and who really cares? I don't own shares, so it's irrelevant to me.
> So, eh, what is better about Facebook than this
> place or CollectionDX?
A population of users who post frequently about interesting things. For example, wanna see Matt Alt's scuba diving photos? Follow him on Twitter! You can't get that on TBDX.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2012 01:11PM by asterphage.
| July 30, 2012 01:13PM |
| July 30, 2012 02:58PM |
I was going to come this year, but Andrew scares me, on fb.
---------------------------------
[pgaijin.blogspot.com]
---------------------------------
[pgaijin.blogspot.com]
|
Sanjeev (Admin)
|
July 30, 2012 03:16PM |
| July 31, 2012 06:56AM |
Yeah it is almost like no one has ever hit the pipe around here....
Sanjeev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...the fervidness of a crack
> > addict protecting his stash.
>
> Crack addicts don't have stashes. If they have
> rock, they smoke it.
>
> Just saying.
>
> Other than that, I've lost track of what this
> thread is about.
Sanjeev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...the fervidness of a crack
> > addict protecting his stash.
>
> Crack addicts don't have stashes. If they have
> rock, they smoke it.
>
> Just saying.
>
> Other than that, I've lost track of what this
> thread is about.
| July 31, 2012 01:22PM |
Social media wins because it has the audience... people always go where the most people/opportunities/money is. It was fantastic to meet people at the Summit that don't post on either TBDX or CDX.
Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
