Coffeehouse Thread

54 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Interesting Cisco commerical

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Bass

    What do you think the Internet will bring 20 years from now?

     

  • User profile image
    MasterPi

    Cool ad. Will there even be an Internet in 20 years? Increasing worries over surveillance might contribute to several shadow networks, with the main heavily regulated network left to the general public. There could also be a tie-in to sensor networks - a future internet can naturally and openly talk to sensors around the world. And then maybe ad hoc networks generated in these regions with sensor networks...we've essentially become walking hotspots as the cellphone itself can do tethering and can maybe even act as a router....you might enter into a sensor network and interact with it by just being there.

    Just a bit rambling...not sure if any of that made sense. Smiley

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    , MasterPie wrote

    Cool ad. Will there even be an Internet in 20 years? Increasing worries over surveillance might contribute to several shadow networks, with the main heavily regulated network left to the general public. There could also be a tie-in to sensor networks - a future internet can naturally and openly talk to sensors around the world.

    Just a bit rambling...not sure if any of that made sense. Smiley

     

    Also there is the trend with the large ISP's and cable companies to create networks that are organized in a style that is very hierarchical  design, that plus the growth of large peering points that in turn connect to the select providers.

    in the original design of the internet / the one that made it possible to survive when parts might go offline due to damage the internet should be massively peer to peer networking of multiple local, regional, national and international  networks.

    why is this important ?

    think of this as both to allow for organic growth and to promote freedom of speech and sharing of information.

    to control a large chunk of the internet in a region of the US all you need to do is take control of a few peering points.   want to limit the power of government and corporations to control what we say and see and share?   start by "internetworking" more of the network at the local level and create more peering points that internetwork with other states, regions and countries.

    This is really an important but widely ignored part of what can make the internet stronger or can lead to more of the "Great Firewall" or "Big Buddy"  problems we worry about.

     

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Holy smokes, that's a nice ad. It's simple, effective, emotional, and clearly states what Cisco is about: Networks, and connecting people. And it gives the impression that being with Cisco will help your company be at the forefront of business in the future. 

    This is a company that I could give money to. A company that is taking us from the doldrums of today into the connected future of tomorrow. A future built of networks. A future of things. A future so different from our own, that even the word exponentially is no longer spelt the same.

    Microsoft should sit up and take note. This is the way to sell your product. Aim high, and say how your product is amazing. No more of this "Microsoft Surface: Not quite as crap as an iPad". Or "Windows Phone: We're a thing too". Or worse still: "Outlook.com: Not quite as creepy as this weird man dressed as a postman".

    Microsoft should hire this firm to make their adverts. That way maybe they'd do a bit more selling, and a bit less looking like an organisation that doesn't understand it's own products.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    That is an awesome looking ad, very well executed, but the problem is that it doesn't sell Cisco. It's sold me on the concept of the Internet, sure. Count me in. But it hasn't told me why I need Cisco to be part of it. Cisco isn't even brought up in the ad, it's just a logo at the end. You could replace that logo with any other IT company and the ad would make just as much sense.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    It should be "...since the '60s..." and not "...since the 60's..." as well. Smiley

    I guess that's not as egregious as "exponetially" though.

    Otherwise, it's a very nice promotional video. If they condense it down to a 30-second spot for TV, they'll be able to remove the typographically offensive graphic at least.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , cbae wrote

    It should be "...since the '60s..." and not "...since the 60's..." as well. Smiley

    Interestingly not; Pluralizing numbers (and single letters used as nouns, such as "dotting your i's and crossing your t's") with an apostrophe + s is actually grammatical Smiley

    Fun fact: In the 1960s, referring to it as the "1960's" was actually more common than referring to it as the "1960s", as this Google NGram shows:

    Generic Forum Image

    Yay for Google NGrams Smiley

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    Interestingly not; Pluralizing numbers (and single letters used as nouns, such as "dotting your i's and crossing your t's") with an apostrophe + s is actually grammatical Smiley

    Fun fact: In the 1960s, referring to it as the "1960's" was actually more common than referring to it as the "1960s", as this Google NGram shows:

    The apostrophe is not required before the "s", although it's not necessarily considered wrong to include it since it's so commonly used, how unnecessary that it may be.

    However, if you're going to leave off the century, the apostrophe before the decade IS required, as it's an indication of contraction (e.g. doesn't for "does not" and "Oakland A's" for "Oakland Athletics". But since it would look rather silly (and confusing) to write it as '60's, the only option, really, is '60s.

     

  • User profile image
    elmer

    , Sven Groot wrote

    That is an awesome looking ad, very well executed, but the problem is that it doesn't sell Cisco. 

    I disagree. It sells concepts that people can immediately identify with, both on an intellectual and emotional level, and relates them to the company. All the way through it is talking about 'we' did this, 'we' thought this, etc... and right at the end says who 'we' are. This is first-rate corporate 'branding'. 

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , cbae wrote

    ... if you're going to leave off the century, the apostrophe before the decade IS required, ...

    Required by whom?

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    Required by whom?

    Grammar rules. And teachers that teach proper grammar.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , cbae wrote

    Grammar rules. And teachers that teach proper grammar.

    It's not a question of grammar. It's a question of style and convention. From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981, in the section "Handbook of Style":

    Apostrophe '

    • often forms plurals of letters, figures, and words referred to as words 
      - You should dot your i's and cross your t's.
      - His l's and his 7's looked alike.
      - She has trouble pronouncing her the's.

    But more importantly, perhaps, is that the formation of English is not governed by rules. It is governed by usage. And until people stop writing "the 60's", it will continue to be valid use.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , elmer wrote

    *snip*

    I disagree. It sells concepts that people can immediately identify with, both on an intellectual and emotional level, and relates them to the company. All the way through it is talking about 'we' did this, 'we' thought this, etc... and right at the end says who 'we' are. This is first-rate corporate 'branding'. 

    ++. The advert is selling the future of the Internet, but it's making the claim that Cisco is part of that future, which is exactly the message they want to sell. It's a fantastic ad IMO. Unlike a number of recent ads for a certain Redmond-based company of late, it's message is clear, memorable and leaves you wanting to know more about the company, their products, and what they are doing to adapt to the Internet of Things.

    The ad isn't trying to sell you a specific product. It's trying to get you to attach an emotion to a company; specifically to think of Cisco as innovative, futuristic and inspiring, and I think it does it pretty well. It's a hard ad to fault, all-in-all. 

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    It's not a question of grammar. It's a question of style and convention. From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981, in the section "Handbook of Style":

    *snip*

    But more importantly, perhaps, is that the formation of English is not governed by rules. It is governed by usage. And until people stop writing "the 60's", it will continue to be valid use.

    OK, maybe it's not technically grammar, but it has to do with punctuation, which is typically taught with grammar. More specifically it has to do with punctuation of contractions, which the section of style guide that you quoted isn't pertinent to.

    As I said before, it's not necessarily incorrect to put the apostrophe before the "s" (although it isn't deemed necessary, by any style guides that I've ever seen), but it is incorrect to contract words without using an apostrophe.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    Required by whom?

    The Chicago Manual of Style for one...

    You don't say, "Keeping up with the Smith's." 

    What you do say is "Keeping up with the Smiths."

    And by the Same token you say, "The '60s."

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    It's not a question of grammar. It's a question of style and convention. From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981, in the section "Handbook of Style":

    *snip*

    But more importantly, perhaps, is that the formation of English is not governed by rules. It is governed by usage. And until people stop writing "the 60's", it will continue to be valid use.

    That is a fair point, but "common usage" doesn't equal "correct".

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jul/08/books.booksnews

    Cisco has used a grocer's apostrophe in this case, which is very common and always wrong. The Webster example is using apostrophes for clarity because "dotting your is" doesn't make sense. 

    A great ad though. 

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , elmer wrote

    *snip*

    I disagree. It sells concepts that people can immediately identify with, both on an intellectual and emotional level, and relates them to the company. All the way through it is talking about 'we' did this, 'we' thought this, etc... and right at the end says who 'we' are. This is first-rate corporate 'branding'. 

    +++

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Ray7 wrote

    The Chicago Manual of Style for one...

    Sure.. But Webster'sAmerican Heritage Dictionary and Practical English Usage, 2nd Edition claim the opposite. My point is just that there is no rule. More so, there never was such a rule (that one taken from the 1700's, no less).

    That is a fair point, but "common usage" doesn't equal "correct".

    Who defines correct? You? The Chicago Manual of Style? No. English has nobody who defines "right" and "wrong". We are not French. We have no Académie française. In English, English is what the English use. Trying to pin down English to a bunch of rules defined by people is a prescriptive view (which was popular in the 1960's), but it was never a particularly successful or useful way of trying to define the language.

    You cannot tell people that "lol" is not a word, any more than your grandfather could insist that infinitives are not a thing to end a sentence with.

    And you can start a sentence with "and" if you like. Or an "or" for that matter.

    Whilst common nouns are not properly pluralized with an apostrophe (the so called grocer's apostrophe), pluralizing apostrophes on numbers (the 1970's), initialisms (CD's), for single letters (dot your i's) and for verbatim words (no if's or but's) are grammatical. They are not mandatory, but that's because very little in English is. They are a matter of style. Not a matter of right or wrong.

    English is not a thing defined by men with beards who live in ivory towers. The grammar of language is how the language is used. Not how so called educated men think that it ought to be used.

    That's not to say we don't tell children and foreigners learning the language about such "rules". But many of the "rules" you learnt at school are just rules of thumb. They are the scaffolding that we use to help us attain fluency, after which such ugly constraints and false rules can be discarded as we make use of subtler syntax for our ideas.

    So as long as English speaking peoples write the '60s, the 60s, or the 60's, they will all remain grammatical; and no prescriptivist may ever say that it is not so.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , evildictait​or wrote

    ++. The advert is selling the future of the Internet, but it's making the claim that Cisco is part of that future, which is exactly the message they want to sell.

    So if you remove the logo at the end, would you still be able to tell who this was an advert for?

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.