Why not do both in parallel so that when the former is accomplished, the latter is ready to deploy?

The Kleenex are good for the second case if you skip the condoms. Double win!

Dinosaur shaped pylons? Add it to the list!

Did you account for the lead and cadmium present in all Chinese products?

Step 1: have lots of money.
The bras remove themselves after that.

I'm certain if you had the software, you would not make money. The software is a tool. Someone has to make the resources available so that the programmer can develop the tool (these guys don't just come up with this stuff out of thin air). Someone has to have the infrastructure to deploy the tool. Someone has to employ the tool properly based on the state of the market at any given time. If the software was so great, the programmer wouldn't need a boss, he would be the boss.

Time to send your attitude back asshat. Just trying to have a discussion here.

I disagree. Like TFA says, there may be 8 or so profit generating athletic programs out there, but most are just for show. Most athletic programs may make money, but they don't make more than they cost. Otherwise I wouldn't see that cost show up in my tuition. If the athletic programs really MAKE money as you say, my tuition should be cheaper.

I half-agree. You have to make the best informed decision you can upfront. It's sometimes hard to tell what a job will entail until you've done it (early in your career). After you've been at it for a while, you may realize there's more to it than you anticipated, at which point you might want to renegotiate.

I agree here. Does the algorithm do everything on its own and the programmer's bosses have no input? I'll bet the software is a very small piece of the money-making picture. Was the programmer provided with any resources to write that algorithm? Could the programmer write the algorithm on his own, freelance style, and sell it to the company? I doubt it. Maybe these programmers deserve a raise, and the bosses probably get paid too much, but this is a one-sided story.

No one's asking how targeted advertising works - we all get it. The issue is whether we all want a push or pull system. If I really want info on a product, I should have to pull the info from somewhere. I do not want advertisers constantly pushing the information down my throat. It's annoying and intrusive. Plus, I don't want advertisers gathering detailed info about me to do it. Why do advertisers think they have the right to throw garbage at us?

Magnetic torquers are already in use and would have the same benefits/limitations as these LCD thingies.

My cookies are off. I still don't want advertisers stalking me. I shouldn't have to be on the defensive.

You can sell a product without collecting any information about the purchaser. Every company knows how many units they're moving. Why do they need purchaser details? They can continue to use surveys to get details that people voluntarily offer. Advertising is a tool, not a right.

You're assuming what I assume. I just stated I don't like it. I could care less what everyone else thinks.

I think he was talking about mouth love - Mel Gibson style.

It's hard enough to find 1 out of 6 billion people in the real world. Harder still to track them in the virtual world through their botnet and relate that back to a physical location where they can be apprehended without causing them to flee. I say kudos and good luck on future captures.

I don't particularly care if the data is misused because I don't agree with the method of data collection to begin with. I don't need people tracking my actions to see how to advertise to me. Advertisements are annoying. Advertisers should be tracking products or sales, not individuals.

I support the FTC being proactive and considering preventative action. Should we wait for a crime to be committed before we make it illegal?

I'm sorry. I'll pray for you.