Downside for Esquire is that with a web image of the front cover (or of Gillian Jacob's page, etc.) viewed on my iPhone, I could trigger the AR event in their Mac software and enjoy the content without buying Esquire.

I'll still buy the magazine anyway since a) my iPhone's reflective glass screen is not optimum for recognition and b) I'd like to support their ingenuity and effort.

It's a gimmick. Obviously. Meant to generate sales. And it will work for some people and not work for others. It's not meant to be new technology to people such as slashdotters who are generally on the cutting edge. Magazines using marketing gimmicks to boost sales isn't news. However, it is a use of technology that we haven't seen magazines do before. As e-ink becomes more affordable and viable, we'll see more magazines trying to stay in business with interactive gimmicks, perhaps even on the page itself. Where's the harm in it? I only hope they sell enough magazines to recoup their investment.

Esquire most likely paid RDJ and other actors to produce video content for a special edition magazine. They had software for both PCs and Macs produced. And they're advertising it on the web. It's all pretty slick, even if it IS limited. Has your favorite blog produced something like this lately? Personally, I'd like to see more ad campaigns using current technology in creative ways.

You're absolutely correct. I couldn't agree with you more. However, it still doesn't change the fact that degrees are used to filter out applicants. If you're able to get the jobs and experience without a degree that look good on a resume then more power to you, but not having the degree will make that a harder task, as well as affect your pay scale.

Mark Zuckerberg recognizes their TOS scared the pants off of people and posts this public reply: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130

By logging into Facebook to read the reply you signify that Mark can have your wife and sell your children.