Slashdot Mirror

There's a reason people love Minecraft even though it looks like ass

What ass might look like.

Go ahead, click on it. You know you want to.

Minecraft dat.

It's also National Cleavage Day. How are you celebrating?

Why, I'm a gonna get me some...

There, does this make my butt look fat?

No, the fact that you're fat makes you look fat. (Whatever you're wearing) just makes you look (color of whatever you're wearing).

It's also National Cleavage Day. How are you celebrating?

Why, I'm a gonna get me some...

There, does this make my butt look fat?

It's also National Cleavage Day. How are you celebrating?

With a standing ovation!

It's also National Cleavage Day. How are you celebrating?

I'd tell you but it's too long to type without using both hands.

It's also National Cleavage Day. How are you celebrating?

a more professional color scheme with purple and orange.

Because brown seems so frivolous compared to a pair of secondary colours, and the other combinations were already taken by Barney, the Irish rebels, and these folks?

I suppose that's why industries that care about their professional image never use brown for anything.

--MarkusQ

Has Google actually done something "Evil" that I missed?

http://www.adrants.com/images/evil_google.jpg
http://dinamehta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/03-google-73802138_10.jpg
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/images/page_1_182.jpg
http://www.adrants.com/images/google-evil.jpg
http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/google-dr-evil.jpg
http://www.crackunit.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/Picture%203.jpg
http://www.cubanxgiants.com/berry/images/google_extremes.jpg
http://www.masternewmedia.org/images/Google-text-links-evil-460.gif
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/780.gif
http://www.softsailor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/google-is-evil.jpg
http://culturalpolicyreform.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/evil-google-logo.jpg

Has Google actually done something "Evil" that I missed?

http://www.adrants.com/images/evil_google.jpg
http://dinamehta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/03-google-73802138_10.jpg
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/images/page_1_182.jpg
http://www.adrants.com/images/google-evil.jpg
http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/google-dr-evil.jpg
http://www.crackunit.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/Picture%203.jpg
http://www.cubanxgiants.com/berry/images/google_extremes.jpg
http://www.masternewmedia.org/images/Google-text-links-evil-460.gif
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/780.gif
http://www.softsailor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/google-is-evil.jpg
http://culturalpolicyreform.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/evil-google-logo.jpg

Oh yeah, all that I ever used was Maxell chrome tape. Everything else was just not as good. Plus everybody wanted to be like the Maxell Guy in the ads.

According to the Lego company you're playing with Lego and the individual pieces are Lego bricks.

Going to legos.com used to present you with a warning telling you that you were pronouncing it wrong. (See this screen shot.) Now it just redirects you to lego.com, but with some digging you can find the following on their corporate information page:

Our copyright materials, such as brand names and trademarks, can be used for personal and non-commercial projects or activities. Please be sure to spell the brand name "LEGO" in capital letters and use it as an adjective and not a noun. For example you should write "Models built of LEGO bricks" and not "Models built of Lego".

-http://service.lego.com/en-us/helptopics/lego%20company/corporate%20information.aspx?Key=CorpOther_CorporateInformation

It's abuse of the DMCA because they are being threatened with the DMCA, but Toyota isn't actually filing DMCA takedown requests, presumably because they don't actually own the copyrights to the images and are just trying to intimidate the site. That's the abuse, and it's definitely DMCA-based since that's the law that would be used to force a takedown.

Where are you getting this information. I couldn't find anything claiming the DMCA was being used except for the people complaining that they didn't use the DMCA. Perhaps you have a link to the insider information or something.

I have to question your assertions though, "presumably" because they are doing something unethical is a bit of a stretch when other car makers have forced images of cars off of websites in the past in much the same ways as this based on trademarks. Ownership of a copyright wouldn't even need to be claimed. It may well be that they were attempting to commit a fraudulent act or it may as well be that the people at the site, as well as others, don't actually understand the premise of the claims against them or the requests being made. It's like saying You didn't provide a certain document when that document might not even be relevant.

Something fairly similar to this happened with Ford. Link here

A key difference though is the photos of the cars were put into a calendar for sale.
Eventually Ford compromised, saying they could use the photos of their cars, just could not use the Ford logos, as they are trademarks.

Is there a cost for this service or deposit for the key fobs? Otherwise it sounds like a very creative idea. Mini USA has been exceptionally creative with there previous billboards. Check this one out: http://www.adrants.com/images/Mini_Billboard.jpg

10) Upgrade hell....a new motherboard counts as a "new computer" and thus requires a new Windows license. Given that that's true of no other version of Windows so far released, do you have any proof of that claim?

4) Vista will feature ads As for your first reason, do you have any proof of this?

What's a Legos?

We've seen the evolution of swear words in our own lifetime. Not too many years ago, "suck" as in , "This sucks!" and "Suck it." was profane. As is anything with allusion to felatio. Now, we have Dish Network ads where the wholesome suburbanites sit around and say, "Our tv sucks. It sucks big time." Now, I'm not pulling a Helen Lovejoy and screaming that someone out to think of the children, but there was a time in my life when saying "This sucks" would get you stuck in the corner, and now it's pun fodder.

Now excuse me, but I hear that Barney and Fred are going to "have a gay old time," and I don't want to miss it.

Given the way these guys were ambushed on the show, I thought I'd share a pic putting the intelligence of the host in perspective, mullet and all. Post an appropriate caption for it if you like.

*wry grin* Actually, they do often get around the minimum wage laws. It's possible there are locations where this doesn't happen, but every Wal-Mart worker I've known has had to go through the situation where they're required to clock out after a specified number of hours, then are "asked" to stay and work for a few more hours. How do they get away with it? Quite frankly, if you're in an area that has more unemployed people than jobs they're qualified for, the workers go along with it because there are a dozen people waiting in the wings for that underpaid job. As for unions, Wal-Mart will fire you for even mentioning the possibility of organizing. I've got to admit that they're good at what they do.

^_^ My favorite is where they put out a full-page ad equating refusing to have a Wal-Mart in your area with participating in Nazi book burnings.

But the UK advertising game is a small enough pond for those in the know to know whodunnit.

From reading the Wired article, it seems to be a claim by a bloke (who's had plenty of publicity already) that the "Broadcast Assassins" (him and some mates) were asked to advise the BBC on viral ads, and plugs the Viral Advertising Association (him and some, possibly different, mates), but no actual claim about the "leak".

The fact that this makes Wired isn't particularly surprising. I did think that Slashdot at least read pages before linking though.

He's pulled off high publicity stunts before:
http://www.adrants.com/2004/11/viral-agency-steals -ogilvy-mather-uk.php

Bingo. You win.

And while Napster's at it, it needs to take Advertising 101, too.

Napster ran its US$2.4M spot during the third quarter of the Super Bowl -- the one where the cat holds up the "Do the Math" poster. Half the audience was sufficiently inebriated by that time that "doing math" was the LAST thing on anyone's mind. Guess that's why the Napster advertisement ranked dead last..

Forehead advertising has been around for a while; I'm surprised that this guy would get posted on Slashdot since at this point the shock value is pretty much gone. Toyota pulled a similar stunt earlier this year to advertise their Scions. (There's a mirror of the article from adage here.) There's even a company that rents advertising space on a (presumably) regular basis.

But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.

Claiming that the Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times, the long-time Conservative lap-dog The Wall Street Journal, and most especially Fox News (which Rupert Murdoch explicitly founded as a right-wing news channel) are "less bias[ed]" simply reinforces the perception of your poor judgment one would form from your bizarre claim that running stories about Abu Ghraib would affect a newspaper's circulation to its detriment while at the same time singling out The Economist for "experienc[ing] strong growth." (By the way, the magazine that published the source material for most of the Abu Ghraib stories, Seymour Hersh's superb series of articles, the New Yorker, saw its circulation increase to 1,000,000 for the very first time in its 79 year history.)

So I think we can all pretty much assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, you know how many times the Abu Ghraib story ran on the Times front page - not sure where it appears on this Physicians for Human Rights page about Tibet which you cited, nor could I find anything on their page about Abu Ghraib - I would guess that the link here is a red herring. What I really want to know, though, is where you got your figures for how many times Hussein's very real acts of genocide (hey, look, Physicians for Human Rights were talking about Hussein's use of weapons of mass killing back in 1993, and they talked about Abu Ghraib!), extra-judicial execution, torture, violence against women were covered. I was not surprised to see that you have no figures or links to back up your assertions on that! I chose to link to Amnesty International coverage, by the way, because they are an organization that was heavily criticized for its response to the Abu Ghraib scandal as being too liberal and ignoring Hussein's mistreatment of the Iraqi people.

This is not a competition, "whose the bigger torturer?" This is not a case in which we can apply a calculus of torture and murder and use of weapons of mass killing and determine that so much torture in Abu Ghraib is justified because we are preventing the far greater tortures that Hussein committed. President Bush himself denounced the abuse of US prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Do you wonder why? It's because he at least realizes that the US has a responsiblity to rescue the people of Iraq from Hussein in a way that will not make them think there is no qualitative difference between us and Hussein, only a quantative one - which is something some of his most ardent supports do not seem to grasp. And people think GWB is stupid!

The US can

Two steps ahead of you, chief:
Budweiser Debuts Caffeinated Beer