Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα love. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα love. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων

Πέμπτη 11 Απριλίου 2013

Love is blind and so's this sociopath

Thumb_eb20130403reviews130409995ar



"Simon Killer," a maddeningly short-sighted character study about a disturbed young American in Paris, is consistently unsettling, but not always for the right reasons. Writer-director Antonio Campos ("Afterschool") takes great pains to establish his antihero protagonist, Simon (Brady Corbet), as a voyeur with a very limited field of vision. The film's rocky first half hour establishes Simon as a socially awkward, self-involved character with a myopic worldview.



But Simon's inconsistency of vision isn't entirely his fault: while being a narcissist certainly doesn't help, Simon can only know so much because he can only perceive so much. Campos accordingly presents the film's events from a chilly, deliberately limited third-person perspective typified by slow-moving camerawork, and claustrophobic framing that reveals only fragments. In other words, we're frequently prevented from seeing characters' heads, shoulders, knees and toes. So, we're meant to feel as trapped in the film's obtuse world as Simon does.



A bad break-up sends Simon fleeing to Paris, where he agrees to housesit for Carlo (Nicolas Ronchi), a family friend. Within a week, Simon develops a relationship with Marianne (Constance Rousseau), a prostitute he meets in a bar-cum-brothel. Simon believes Marianne when she tells him that having sex with Simon will be a real pleasure as he's much more attractive than her usual clientele.



But while Marianne's troubled past explains her attraction to the deceptively shy Simon, that doesn't make their relationship is believable. There's no great chemistry between them. Still, their romance is supposed to be tentative, so the ambiguous nature of their relationship is intentional, if not wholly successful. Marianne eventually agrees to Simon's ill-conceived plan to blackmail some of her wealthier clients.



Campos overzealously frustrates his viewers' need to understand what motivates Simon and Marianne. He only shows viewers as much as he feels is necessary for any given scene. It's equally hard to watch Simon wander around Paris, as we're constantly reminded that we are seeing events through a strictly-maintained aesthetic filter. Campos combines partial, behind-the-back views of Simon with a blaring electronic soundtrack only serves to over-emphasize the film's constricted point of view. Yeah, we get it.



The best scenes in "Simon Killer" get out of the sociopathic title character's way and allow him to speak for himself. This is particularly true of some direct, unsparingly honest conversations between Simon and Marianne. In their first meeting, one of a handful that put Rousseau and Corbet together in the same shot, is effectively ambiguous without being overbearing. It's an exception in a film that can otherwise be described as a relentless and largely unrewarding descent into an ostensibly personal hell.

Πέμπτη 4 Απριλίου 2013

The Real Reason Advertisers Will Love Facebook 'Home' Phones: Permanent Logins (FB)

mark zuckerberg

The most surprising part of Facebook's launch of "Home" for Android phones was when CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted, "There are no ads in this yet, I'm sure that one day there will be."

That was a shock because the basis of Home is that the app takes over your phone's homescreen, displaying big bright photos from your friends that would normally appear in your Facebook News Feed. Ads appear there too, right now.

But the idea of picking up your phone and seeing an ad on the home screen — instead of an adorable pic of your girlfriend's French bulldog — seems like user-experience suicide.

In fact, the idea of ads on the home screen is probably NOT the most important aspect of Home for marketers.

  • Scroll to the bottom of this story for advertisers' reactions to Facebook Home.

Rather, it's the way that Home potentially creates an audience of permanently logged-in users who will become easier to target across devices.

For some time, Facebook has essentially been solving, almost by default, one of the trickiest problems in digital advertising: How to figure out who's who when users stop using their desktops and switch for a moment to their phones. Advertisers would love to be able to pull off cross-device targeting for the obvious reason that if you search for shoes on your laptop, and then look at your phone, it would be cool to be able to serve an ad onto your phone offering you a discount on shoes.

The problem is that the mobile phone environment lacks the abundance of cookies — bits of tracking code that your web browser triggers — that there is on the desktop web.

Facebook solves this problem because most users tend not to log out of Facebook once they've logged in. As long as they stay logged in, they become targetable, anonymous Facebook users wherever else they go on the web.

Of course, almost nobody ever logs out of the Facebook app on their phone, either. So it's potentially a lot easier for Facebook to know it's you as you move from device to device. (All targeting is done anonymously, by the way. The advertisers don't literally know you're Joe Smith; rather they'll know that you're one of hundreds or thousands of males interested in shoes who are also Facebook users.)

What Home achieves is to make Facebook the main user interface for the operating system of the phone. Facebook becomes your main home screen and your main messaging service. Home users will almost never log out.

And that's what advertisers really want: A permanently logged in, targetable audience.

If Facebook has any sense at all it will NOT automatically display ads to users on the Home screens. Rather, it will only show ads to users who have affirmatively opted in to receive updates in Home from advertisers of their choice.

I can't see myself wanting to see ads from Walmart on Home, for instance, but I might be tempted to allow ads from the restaurants near my house to reach me so I can know when they have offers and discounts.

Advertisers are, indeed, already salivating. Here are the reactions from two of Facebook's biggest ad buyers:

TBG Digital CEO Simon Mansell tells us:

"[Home] will be great for all those Facebook addicts and likely increase usage from them ... for advertisers, three things matter: photos, photos, photos — more evidence that pictures tell a thousand words with the image-based integration on the home screen."

AdParlor CEO Hussein Fazal says:

"The ability to double-click to "like" a post will effectively create more stories and build more data in the ever-powerful Facebook open graph. The more users are engaged with Facebook  – the more information they will create and share – and that results in more information that marketers will be able to leverage to target their advertising."

Robin Grant, global managing director at We Are Social:

"The most exciting development for advertisers is Facebook’s potential to use Home to keep track of a consumer’s location. Combine this with the Chat Heads and notifications features and the social network could deliver consumers location relevant and timely commercial messages."

Please follow Advertising on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

a2.imga2t.img

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=QaF316nvR3U:OkHZPDSlf9 businessinsider?i=QaF316nvR3U:OkHZPDSlf9 businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=QaF316nvR3U:OkHZPDSlf9
QaF316nvR3U

8 'Love Actually' Cast Members Who Made It Big On TV (PHOTOS)

What do Betty Francis (née Draper) and Rick Grimes have in common? Neither character would be who s/he is without "Love Actually."

"Mad Men" star January Jones and "Walking Dead" leader Andrew Lincoln both appeared in the 2003 romantic comedy hit along with plenty of other now-familiar faces.

Before she was Betty, Jones was "Love Actually's" flirtatious Jeannie, who picked up British horndog Colin (Kris Marshall) at her local Wisconsin bar along with her roommates, one of which was played by "Happy Endings" and "24" star Elisha Cuthbert.


Read More...

raw_feed?d=yIl2AUoC8zA raw_feed?i=lNgKPxIixRI:M3vpOUHd1ZA:F7zBn raw_feed?i=lNgKPxIixRI:M3vpOUHd1ZA:V_sGL
lNgKPxIixRI

Τετάρτη 3 Απριλίου 2013

You Can Love Nature and Still Hate the Tyranny of Environmental Regulations


Environmental activists and politicians would like you to think
that we must love their regulations -- or hate trees and
animals.


I love trees and animals.


But you can love nature and still hate the tyranny that
environmental regulations bring.


The Environmental Protection Agency just announced it will boost
gas prices ("only" a penny, although industry says 6 to 9 cents) to
make another minuscule improvement to air quality.


In New York City, my mayor wants to ban Styrofoam cups, saying,
"I think it's something we can do without."


Congress already dictates the design of our cars, toilets and
light bulbs.


Originally,
environmental rules were a good thing. I love the free market, but
it doesn't offer a practical remedy to pollution. I could sue
polluters for violating my property rights, but under our legal
system, that's not even close to practical.


So in the '70s, government passed rules that demanded we stop
polluting the air and water. Industry put scrubbers in smokestacks.
Towns installed sewage treatment. Now the air is quite clean, and I
can swim in the rivers around Manhattan.


But government didn't stop there. Government never stops. Now
that the air is cleaner, government spends even more than it spent
to clean the air to subsidize feeble methods of energy production,
like windmills and solar panels. Activists want even more spending.
A few years back, the Center for American Progress announced they
were upset that "Germany, Spain and China Are Seizing the Energy
Opportunity ... the United States Risks Getting Left Behind."


In this case, we're better off "left behind." After spending
billions, those European governments made no breakthroughs, and now
they're cutting back.


The Endangered Species Act was another noble idea. We all want
to save polar bears. But now the bureaucrats make it almost
impossible for some people to improve their own property.


Louisiana landowner Edward Poitevent wants to build homes and
offices north of Lake Pontchartrain. He could provide safe
high-ground housing to people eager to move away from areas that
were flooded during Hurricane Katrina. But he is not allowed to
build because the government decided 1,500 acres of his land should
become a preservation area for a threatened species called the
dusky gopher frog. None of these frogs currently live on his
property. Poitevent told me, "The Fish and Wildlife Service has
certified that the frog has not been seen in the state of Louisiana
since 1967."


Fish and Wildlife Service officials said they were "not
available" to talk with me about this. Instead, they posted a video
on YouTube that says they work "with" landowners: "The Service has
many voluntary partnership-based programs that can provide
technical and financial assistance to manage species."


That sounds nice, but the government's handbook on
how to work with them is an onerous 315 pages
long.


The environmentalists so torment those who resist their schemes
that some landowners tell each other, "If you find an endangered
species, shoot, shovel and shut up!" That's mostly a joke. But it
does happen, and it's one more way government regulations
backfire.


Throughout the world, most reductions in pollution have been
achieved because of capitalism, not government control.


Fracking for natural gas reduced greenhouse gas emissions.


Even much-hated coal and oil provide benefits. Science writer
Matt Ridley says, "Burning of fossil fuels is helping the
rainforest in the Amazon to grow."


Ridley also points out modern industrial farming allows people
to grow more food on less land, and so people cut down fewer trees.
"New England used to be 70 percent farmland -- it's now 70 percent
forest."


You can even see the difference between areas that get greener
and ones that don't from space: The Dominican Republic is
noticeably greener than its immediate neighbor, Haiti, mainly
because the Dominican Republic uses fossil fuel instead of burning
wood from its forests for fuel, as Haiti does.


Industry and technology, not regulations, are humanity's
greatest contribution to the environment. Leave people their
freedom, and they come up with new, smarter, more efficient and
thus cleaner ways of doing things. Stifling that process with
regulation isn't "progressive."

John Stossel on Environmental Tyranny


Environmental activists and politicians would
like you to think that we must love their regulations -- or hate
trees and animals. But that's not true, writes John Stossel. You
can love nature and still hate the tyranny that environmental
regulations bring.

View this article.