Sporting Event Featuring Commercials

Tivo in reverse... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:03 · Score: 0

clever.

Re:Tivo in reverse... by Ski_Bird · 2003-01-26 02:15 · Score: 0

Yes, I will record the superbowl and SKIP the football on my 168hour TIVO!

wurd.
Re:Tivo in reverse... by balister · 2003-01-26 02:48 · Score: 1

So true. I have a DirectV Tivo receiver. A few years ago, I mounted a disk on a piece of plywood so that I could watch the Tour of Italy on vacation.

A friend of mine just bought a 60" V. Today I will find the portable dish and take the Tivo over there so we can watch the commericials with a real video feed, not the crappy, snowy cable signal. And skip the football :)

Philip

$2m for 30 secs? by Big+Mark · 2003-01-26 02:04 · Score: 4, Funny

That's a bit foolish. Go make an hour-and-a-half long, ahem, "adult feature" for $100k.

Much more fun, and so much cheaper!

-Mark

Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:07 · Score: 0

An I'm much more likely to buy a product that was placed into one of these video's in an interesting manner, such as being shot out of an oriface across the room. Or maybe as a chaser for man juice.
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by grondu · 2003-01-26 02:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Go make an hour-and-a-half long, ahem, "adult feature" for $100k.

That's not a sporting event; it's a spurting event.

--
I'm the urban spaceman babe, but here comes the twist... I don't exist
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Boone^ · 2003-01-26 03:15 · Score: 1

Do 130 million people around the globe watch the same adult feature?
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Rend+Flesh · 2003-01-26 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

What Really Pisses me off, is that my government will pay over 4 million dollars to air National Drug Policy ads. These are the ads (I should say propaganda) that infer that If I buy pot from someone I am supporting a terrorist. If I buy pot from someone, I am killing people; the fact of the matter is prohibition supports terrorism against our own citizens and the terrorists can be labeled with cute little acronyms like DEA, ATF, and CIA. Let's not forget who trained and supported Osama while he was fighting against the Soviet Union back in the 80's. As most people don't realize, the majority of pot is grown right here in America, and purchased from friends and family or gown in their own basements and attics. So the ads should actually go something like this: Fight terrorism, grow your own pot! It's time we catch up with the rest of the world and realize that Medical Marijuana provides the ability to relieve the pain of many sufferers with debilitating illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's disease.

--
I'm Usually (Score:+.005, Sarcastic)
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by BigJimSlade · 2003-01-26 03:43 · Score: 2, Funny

That's a bit foolish. Go make an hour-and-a-half long, ahem, "adult feature" for $100k.

Of course, you only need about 30 seconds of that...
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 06:42 · Score: 1, Informative

Not only that, but you know that commission that's supposed to be investigating September 11th? The one that the white house tried to get Kissinger to head? Well, they're giving that commission a whopping 3 million dollars -- one million less than they've alloted to the airing of this commercial -- to investigate the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor.
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Saeger · 2003-01-26 07:05 · Score: 2, Informative

If you want to fight the terr-arr-ists, make sure you buy your crack cocaine from the CIA. They need all the funding they can get above-and-beyond their normal daily pork allowance. :-)
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 09:42 · Score: 0

So, uh, would you say you smoke pot every day? More than once a day? Or every hour?
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Alsee · 2003-01-26 11:02 · Score: 3, Funny

So the ads should actually go something like this: Fight terrorism, grow your own pot!

That's a pretty cool idea! I'll scrounge up a video camera and the proper contract to air a commercial during the superbowl. You scrounge up $2 million and we're all set! :)

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by kmellis · 2003-01-26 12:47 · Score: 1

What's sort of interesting is that even if the money you pay your dealer eventually funds terrorists (and I'm not saying it does), legalizing pot and some other drugs would immediately divert that money away from the terrorists and into the hands of legitimate citizens, most of whom would be Americans. Funny that they don't mention that alternative.
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by strAtEdgE · 2003-01-26 14:28 · Score: 1

The ironic thing is, with the super bowl trailers you get 30 seconds but want the whole hour and a half; with the porn you get the whole hour and a half but only need 30 seconds.

--
----- sXe
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by MegaHamsterX · 2003-01-26 18:05 · Score: 1

What's really funny about this whole thing is oil contributes more to the terrorists than drugs ever could and legalized drugs would do nothing more than publicly expose those with hidden addictions. They could then seek help without the stigma associated with drugs.
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Goldsmith · 2003-01-26 21:05 · Score: 1

"Drugs", if I remember correctly, refer to more than pot.

You need to tell the farmers in Columbia that those commercials are only opinion. They seem a little upset over there. There are real issues related to heroin and cocaine that I think the government is justified in publicizing.

If they want to include something that says "pot can inhibit your judgement", I have no problem with that. (You disagree?)

"Pot supports terrorists" (instead of "Drugs support terrorists")... is not one I've seen, but is one I would disagree with.
Re:$2m for 30 secs? by johnwroach · 2003-02-08 20:43 · Score: 1

Wow. From Super Bowl commercials to marijuana advocacy in 4 posts (reading at 1).

You know those people who always manage to bring any conversation around to their favorite topic? A lot of potheads are like that.

--a former pothead.

Also today... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:04 · Score: 0, Offtopic

and completely off topic, my little mac 128k is 19 years old

*snif*

we can get drunk together soon

Re:Also today... by LinuxPunk · 2003-01-26 02:45 · Score: 2

ummm.. ya actually there were.. u dumbshit... obviously someone needs to learn something about computer history. And the very top parent of this thread isn't offtopic! The ad introducing the first Mac was aired during the superbowl in 1984...
Re:Also today... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:51 · Score: 0

You frighten me.

Mind you, the game will be good! by MtViewGuy · 2003-01-26 02:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fortunately, unlike many past Super Bowls, the game will be good. =)

Expect a slugfest with the Raiders finally winning 24-21 on a late TD.

And yes, I will be watching the ads, too. ;-) I for one am definitely wanting to see what the previews for the upcoming summer movies will be like.

Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by drunkmonk · 2003-01-26 02:09 · Score: 1

You've got to admit that Titans - Rams was about the best Super Bowl ever. I've never, ever, been on the edge of my seat at the end of the big game.

Wow, talking about football on Slashdot. *tilt*
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by dmorin · 2003-01-26 02:17 · Score: 1

Expect a slugfest with the Raiders finally winning 24-21 on a late TD.
Nonono, you see, it'll be a field goal in overtime, and the Patriots win.
Duane, living in the past....:)

--
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:20 · Score: 0

What are you talking about? You didnt watch the game last year?
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:25 · Score: 0

Ahhhh man! Geesh, and I haven't seen it yet! You should have marked SPOILER in your title. Geesh. Now I'll just watch Emeril instead. *BAM*
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by smnolde · 2003-01-26 02:41 · Score: 1

Qualify for bragging and boasting rights on irc.freenode.net #superbowl
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by the+eric+conspiracy · 2003-01-26 02:45 · Score: 1

It is sort of odd though that the field goal kicker wears number 4.
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by MtViewGuy · 2003-01-26 02:59 · Score: 0

Why do I have this feeling the game will be decided by either a Martin Grammatica (#7 Buccaneers) or Sebastian Janikowski (#11 Raiders) field goal? :-/
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by sielwolf · 2003-01-26 03:11 · Score: 1

True. Although you got the score wrong: 17-14 Bucs.

--
What is music when you despise all sound?
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by Ghengis · 2003-01-26 03:21 · Score: 1

So, did you bet on this being the first overtime Superbowl ever? It's inticing (sp?) and pays out a handsome amount!

--
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by jgerman · 2003-01-26 03:56 · Score: 1

Hell it was... '91 Giants/Bills is considered the best super bowl ever. Thanks to Scott Norwood's nail biting wide right field goal miss to lose the game. I think the guys is a car salesman somewhere now. Second only to Ryan Leaf as NFL fuckup of all time. ;)

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by SonicBurst · 2003-01-26 04:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, I saw a blurb on fark.com the other day mentioning that someone set a Raiders vs. Bucs game in Gameday 2003 on a PS2, and (I'm assuming both teams were computer played) the computer predicted a 28-8 Bucs victory.

The scary part is that in the previous 7 times they've done this, they were right every time! Which thoroughly sucks for us Raiders fans! Go Raiders!

--

Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by groove10 · 2003-01-26 04:44 · Score: 1

In fact I beleive two players (one from each team) play the game against each other two days or so before the actual SB. It's called "the game before the game" and it has predicted the winners 6 out of the last 7 times I beleive. This year it was Keenan McCardell vs. Ronde Barber and McCardell won.

I wouldn't drop any coin on this trend though if I were you. I would put my $ on the Bucs moneyline as it's paying 1.6:1 right now.

--
MMORPG fan-boy? Prove your worth
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by leviramsey · 2003-01-26 06:07 · Score: 1

In fact I beleive two players (one from each team) play the game against each other two days or so before the actual SB. It's called "the game before the game" and it has predicted the winners 6 out of the last 7 times I beleive. This year it was Keenan McCardell vs. Ronde Barber and McCardell won.

Both McCardell and Barber are Buccaneers.
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by buckeyeguy · 2003-01-26 07:44 · Score: 1

Because if Tampa Bay's offense shows up, it will a nail-biter... and Sea-bass has more of a tendency to toss up a dead shank than Martin does. As the kicker in Ace Ventura said... "laces out! laces out!!!"
And although they stink now, my old faves the Bengals did turn in a couple of close, entertaining Super Bowls back in the day... WAY back in the day. (Including one which was broadcast by NBC in glasses-aided 3D!)

--
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by tenton · 2003-01-26 08:07 · Score: 1

Heh...it was actually McCardell vs. Garner (McCardell beat Garner 28-8).
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by lambadomy · 2003-01-26 09:09 · Score: 1

There is a slight difference this year...they have Keenan McCardell of the Bucs play Charlie Garner of the Raiders. McCardell actually had some idea of how to play the game, while Garner supposedly had an offensive strategy of "give the ball to Charlie Garner".

Course, I'm still hoping the streak holds up, but I won't hold my breath.
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by tidge · 2003-01-26 09:23 · Score: 1

So, I'm guessing you are too young to remember the Bills and Giants in 91, I think it was.

Talk about the edge of your seat. Damn.
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by daveo0331 · 2003-01-26 09:51 · Score: 1

Expect a slugfest with the Raiders finally winning 24-21 on a late TD

I hope you're right... that would match my numbers in the office pool :-)

--
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Re:Mind you, the game will be good! by GrenDel+Fuego · 2003-01-27 02:40 · Score: 1

Well, the score was a bit off, but it did get the winner.

I hear the authorities are worried about terrorism by Space+Coyote · 2003-01-26 02:06 · Score: 4, Funny

... But I'd be much more worried about Raiders fans.

--
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.

You've been able too by e12532 · 2003-01-26 02:06 · Score: 1, Informative

download the matrix teaser trailer from their webiste for months... at 1024*768 res even :)

And the original X-men movie sucked, Hulk looks good though

Re:You've been able too by agentZ · 2003-01-26 02:10 · Score: 3, Informative

There's a second trailer for the Superbowl. After the game it will be posted to the official web site. (Right now it's just a little movie saying the real trailer isn't available until January 26th.)
Re:You've been able too by e12532 · 2003-01-26 02:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's the address for the hi-res trailer, need quicktime installed to view.
Re:You've been able too by Rhinobird · 2003-01-26 02:32 · Score: 1

And the original X-men movie sucked

BLASPHEMY!

--
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Re:You've been able too by oogoliegoogolie · 2003-01-26 03:04 · Score: 2, Flamebait

And the original X-men movie sucked,
Hey bub, you don't know what your talking about.

Hulk looks good though
Listen Gumbo, you can't tell a thing from trailers. Can you name a movie that looked BAD from its' trailer? RollerBall, Rollerblade, or whatever it was called, even had a great trailer.

Hey Rookie, even if you could, there is NOTHING in the Hulk trailer yet to determine if it looks good or not. A guy standing in front of a sink saying "I feel him inside wanting to come out, I can't control him", then a house getting smashed from the inside, then a big green eye? I mean that looks neat, but that's a far, far cry from what the movie will be like.
Re:You've been able too by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:27 · Score: 0

I mean that looks neat, but that's a far, far cry from what the movie will be like.
What if it's not? I've always wanted to make a movie as a hoak, that was only about 5 minutes long and was basically everything you saw in the trailer... with a bit of dry sappy dialogue thrown in.
Then I would pour a ton of money into advertising it during the Super Bowl, in magazines, billboards, whatever. It would be the talk of the town until people went and saw that it's a complete hoax and not much of a movie at all... barely even a short.
Re:You've been able too by Soulslayer · 2003-01-26 03:37 · Score: 1

Wait till you see the Hulk trailer during the Superbowl.

It has already been leaked as well.

Some stills and a link to where you can see the 45 second teaser can be found here:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14285

--

Once more unto the breach dear friends...
Re:You've been able too by Beowulf+Smith · 2003-01-26 06:21 · Score: 1

First X-men, then Spiderman, now DareDevil and the Hulk. So basically every Marvel comic book will now become a movie. Fine, I'm going to start camping out for tickets to the Power Pack movie. I dare anyone to admit they know what I'm talking about.

--

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. - Gen George S Patton
Re:You've been able too by Pxtl · 2003-01-26 06:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yep, I know who power pack is. I still think Silver Surfer would be a good movie. Or Adam Warlock. Something really big and epic and spacey. Marvel is getting away from its roots with these movies: overdone oversized universe-crushing clash of the titans style space gods plotlines.

As long as they don't do fantastic 4 I'm happy.
Re:You've been able too by e12532 · 2003-01-26 10:25 · Score: 1

Yeah, sure, the X-Men movie was cool, if you didn't mind the _millions of inconsistencies_ when compared to the comics....

Granted, most comics/turned movies are like that, but X-Men showed a blatent disregard for the timelie of that universe
Re:You've been able too by Derg · 2003-01-26 14:27 · Score: 1

http://www.thehulk.com/video_teaser.html

Thats the Superbowl clip there. for those who arent watching the game *raises hand*

--
I'm a little tea pot.

FYI by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:07 · Score: 0

Raiders and the Bucs ...

Dupe... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Wasn't this posted last year?

Re:Dupe... by e12532 · 2003-01-26 02:19 · Score: 0

right about the same time too... hmm, some kind of cosmic joke?
Re:Dupe... by More+Karma+Than+God · 2003-01-26 03:20 · Score: 1

Has April come early this year?

--
Go here to create your own Slashdot dis

"Sporting Event" by benb · 2003-01-26 02:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Is that the political correct term for Superbowl, to not offend fans of other sports?

Re:"Sporting Event" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

I think Super Bowl is tm'd. If you mention it, you have to pay royaltys or something. Since I just did, my check is in the mail to them. I suggest you continue to mispell it to avoid such expenses.
Re:"Sporting Event" by benb · 2003-01-26 02:53 · Score: 1

You can always *refer* to something using the trademarked game. All the trademark prevents is you calling a *similar* thing (not from the company owning the trademark) with that trademarked name.

"Ford Explorer" is most likely trademarked. Of course I can call Ford Explorers that way. I may not sell my own car under the name "Ford Explorer".
Re:"Sporting Event" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Since they don't use a ball and don't play with their feet, I wonder what compelled them to highjack the name "football" for it.
What's wrong with more accurately descriptive terms, like "Hand-oval-thingy", or "Gay Rugby"?
Re:"Sporting Event" by leviramsey · 2003-01-26 03:39 · Score: 2

American Football has as much right to the name "football" as Association Football, Rugby Football, or Aussie Rules Football: they all stem from a common game that evolved over the centuries. Think of this proto-game as the original Unix, which gave rise to different OS's like Linux, the BSD family, and bizarro ones like AIX.
Re:"Sporting Event" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:52 · Score: 0

How so? You play "American Football" by carrying and throwing it. You play real football with your feet. Argue all you like about historical common roots, but have a bit of common sense about it.
Re:"Sporting Event" by matt2413 · 2003-01-26 05:57 · Score: 1

I believe that the term SuperBowl is trademarked and can't be used w/o permission, i.e licensing costs have been extorted...

--
Matt
Re:"Sporting Event" by Graff · 2003-01-26 06:01 · Score: 1

Since they don't use a ball and don't play with their feet

First of all, from the American Heritage Dictionary (by way of Dictionary.com):

Ball

2. Sports.
a. Any of various rounded, movable objects used in various athletic activities and games.

So a football is indeed, a ball.

Secondly you can use your feet at pretty much any time during play to move the football. Many times you can also use your hands or really any part of your body to move it. Given the choice between holding the ball and kicking it you will probably rather hold the ball rather than kick it but that doesn't stop you from doing either. In fact there are some times when you have to use your feet, such as kickoffs.

So the sport does have some right to be called football. It could more accurately be called "Foot and Hand Prolate Spheroid", but that's a lot more cumbersome and I don't think it will catch on. :)

--
Sapere aude!
Re:"Sporting Event" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 06:08 · Score: 0

So is a hockey puck also a ball?
Re:"Sporting Event" by mattdm · 2003-01-26 06:24 · Score: 1

"Ford Explorer" is most likely trademarked. Of course I can call Ford Explorers that way. I may not sell my own car under the name "Ford Explorer".

Unless, of course, your car is a Ford Explorer.
Re:"Sporting Event" by Graff · 2003-01-26 07:26 · Score: 1

So is a hockey puck also a ball?

Heh, I guess it is according to this definition. Hey, I don't make the definitions I just look them up.

Honestly if I had to define a ball in a sports context I would define it as a spherical or ellipsoidal object which is designed to be thrown, struck, carried, or otherwise propelled in accordance with the rules of the sport.

But that's just the way I see it, I'm sure that there are many people who would change it to just include spheres.

--
Sapere aude!
Re:"Sporting Event" by LostCluster · 2003-01-26 11:21 · Score: 1

Slashdot certainly could say "Super Bowl broadcast to contain geek-friendly ads"... but I think Taco was trying to ignore the game as much as possible.
Re:"Sporting Event" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 20:48 · Score: 0

First of all, from the American Heritage Dictionary (by way of Dictionary.com [reference.com])

i wonder why you didnt had pick up the british dictionaire? Its only 900 years older than the one you had pointed
english it not my native language but dont pretend that theres something here that theresnt

Football means foot on ball
-American Football its played mostly with the hands,
-WorldWide Football its played mostly with the foot

And when someone means WORLD CUP its a cup of countries all around the globe and not a cup of states or minicountries.
You have the AsianCup, the AmericanCup, the AfricanCup, the EuroCup etc.

NFL (www.nfl.com) represents 42 teams, i suggest you to go and try to find how many clubs, associations, federations, countrys, etc does FIFA (www.fifa.com) represent
Re:"Sporting Event" by johndiii · 2003-01-27 04:05 · Score: 1

Just call it a "Ford Exploder". Though it may be a bit hard to sell.

--
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
Re:"Sporting Event" by Noren · 2003-01-27 05:30 · Score: 1

i[sic] wonder why you didnt[sic] had[sic] pick up the british dictionaire[sic]?
My guess is that the main reason the OP used it was that dictionary.com is easier to remember and to search. He could have made the point that the way a modern language is spoken where it originally evolved should not a priori define that language, which runs counter to what the English might want. However, in this case the two versions of English under discussion agree. One abbreviated version of the OED is on line, and from that, definition 2 of ball:
"2 usually spherical object used in game,"does not require a 'ball' to be spherical, merely that it be used in a game. The non-spherical balls used the the games the US and Canada each call football fit this definition.
Also from the OED, the definition of footballagain is consistent with the games North Americans call football, given the above definition of ball: "1 large inflated usually leather ball. 2 team game played with this."
To what 900 year old English dictionary do you refer? The Oxford English Dictionary, which is the generally accepted UK dictionary, began to be compiled in 1857 and a complete edition was not published until 1928. There were previous British dictionaries, notably Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary, but I do not believe any exist which were written 900 years ago, and if they did, consulting them for modern definitions would be ridiculous.
Re:"Sporting Event" by Graff · 2003-01-27 06:52 · Score: 1

i wonder why you didnt had pick up the british dictionaire? Its only 900 years older than the one you had pointed
Dictionary.com that was the first definition that fit? I just tried to visit the Oxford English Dictionary Online but what do you know, it's a subscription service. British English, American English, it doesn't matter to me which one I look it up on, but I will use the free service over the pay one any day.

Football means foot on ball
-American Football its played mostly with the hands,
-WorldWide Football its played mostly with the foot

If you want to really understand why it is called football, check out this encyclopedia.com article. Basically American Football and Soccer (another name for Worldwide Football) come from the same roots and are both entitled to the name football. This doesn't make either game any better or worse than the other and it is fine if Americans call their game football even if they can use their hands during play. Also, remember that in American Football you can use your feet at any time, using your hands is a personal choice.

--
Sapere aude!

Commercials by bananaape · 2003-01-26 02:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

It would be cool if the good commercials started showing up on P2P networks.

Re:Commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:30 · Score: 0

I quess you havent searched for "commercial(s)" in edonkey/kazaa...

Theire already in. Im just watching some ibm-s linux commercials at the moment :)
Re:Commercials by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 12:18 · Score: 0

They used to show up on adcritic.com - now there's one dot.com that should've succeeded, since the whole point of it is to watch ads. But the new incarnation makes you pay to see them. Stupid.

Fixed by gwb77 · 2003-01-26 02:12 · Score: 0, Troll

I don't know why anyone ever bothers watching. Most industry insiders have known for years that its all fixed! Do you honestly think that the adverts are the only influence the marketing companies have on the proceedings? Open your eyes people! It might be scary but we can't live in blindness any longer! -gwb77

Re:Fixed by ndnet · 2003-01-26 02:21 · Score: 1

Exactly. I set up a radio transmitter rig near a recent Super Bowl and good grief - you would think they would use the radio controlled football sparingly, but no - every single play!
Re:Fixed by ndnet · 2003-01-26 02:24 · Score: 1

Of, course, it was a transmitter as well, so I *played* a bit too. That's why the Steelers lost to the Cowboys.

Honestly, though, after that they upgraded it with 1024-bit encryption. Using more than one ball eacdh with it's own key, I can't touch it. Drat.
Re:Fixed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:05 · Score: 0

People still play the lottery after the numbers came up 9-1-1 on the anniversary of the WTC collapse. Few even question it. Think it's devine intervention or something.

I'm torn between what the cause might be. Could be people are being damaged so they can be taken advantage of. Or people are just normally kind of retarded and that presents an opportunity for enterprising people to harvest them like some sort of crop. Television damages people. Not good for mental health. HAve a peek at today's story about the ants in the space shuttle. Half of the people started parrotting simpsons quotes. That's bad.

Seeing Bush pose before his "Made in USA" background should be enough to send a chill down the spines of most healthy people. But where's the outcry? People just don't give a fuck about anything. They'll tell you all about the "big game" and how it's such an outrage that farscape was cancelled but if you try to tell them about things they might want to pay attention to in the real world, they laugh in your face.
Re:Fixed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:33 · Score: 0

not only that, they had taped over boxes that were from china.

everything bush says is a lie.

people bitched about clinton being "slick willie" but everyone knew he was slick, so therefore, he wasn't really THAT slick.

true slickness comes when most of the masses fall for it hook, line, and sinker. gwb is totally slick. he has the "fishing buddy" thing down pat that hillbillies and other numb-brained "let the market fix everything" conservatives fall for.

george w. bush has fooled all of the press, most of the people, but none of the actual true thinkers out there. well, actually, he has not fooled the press, he's manipulated them through fear. he's kicked out any reporter that would dare ask a question on the black list. that's why the press corps won't ask the hard questions. they lose their access to the powers that be if they ask the tough questions. watch c-span when ari fleischer gets on and you'll see how wussy and pansy the reporters are anymore.

post as anonymous coward? of course, because there are some really dangerous extremists out there now, and i'm not talking about al-qaeda.
Re:Fixed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 04:20 · Score: 0

I don't understand the need to lie so much. People already believe the lies but it's still not helping the economy or anything else. Politicians probably decieve themselves into thinking anything can be accomplished with the right sort of manipulation. But that's false. Maybe every once in awhile it's good to use a little bit of "magic" to get something done in a pinch but they're using it as the basis for everything. No real substantial policy towards anything. Can't run a government like that for long. If People are out of work because all the boxes are made in china, the only way to resolve that is to start making the boxes in the United States. There;s no other way but they'll still try like hell to make things better through "magic". It won't work. Even if the unemployed believe the lies, what good is it gonna do?

And poor Rush Limbaugh. Bush is fucking up so badly that he's afraid to take calls, and afraid to talk about anything but football anymore. Has Rush talked about Our Lady of Peace? It's a big time gun control law and I get the feeling he's perfectly content to let this draconian gun control law slip thorugh without giving his audiance one word of warning about it.
Re:Fixed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 09:22 · Score: 0

Bullshit!!!!!!!!

T-3 by GMontag · 2003-01-26 02:12 · Score: 1

On FoxNews this AM they mentioned the commercials for Terminator 3 and The Hulk are going to be fetured too!

--
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL

Re:T-3 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:34 · Score: 0

I have seen T-3's trailer... and boy does it suck. T-1 rocked... T-2 lacked... and T-3... well.. you'll see.
Re:T-3 by digidave · 2003-01-26 02:42 · Score: 1

I hate doing "me too" posts, but gawd was that T-3 trailer horrible. The new Terminator is a woman and my favourite line from Arnie is, "She'll be back". Talk about lame.

--
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Re:T-3 by GMontag · 2003-01-26 03:13 · Score: 1

A woman? Yes?

Is it Ann Coulter (always referred to on my website as "the hottest chick on earth")? Or maybe the chick from "Species" and "Species II"?

Speaking of movies, I just ordered the 1956 release of "1984" (check my website, there is a link to it, can't remember the affiliate program at this writing and it did take a lot of hunting to find an outlet that carries this version). It was my first exposure to Orwell, was in the 1960's when I saw it. Has Donald Plesance as the dippy neighbor of Winston Smith that will rat out anybody when given a cross look.

The 1956 version obliterates the 1984 release of "1984", which was not all that bad, just was not that good either.

I should have a fresh review of it in my Journal shortly after arrival.

--
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Re:T-3 by nightherper · 2003-01-26 04:14 · Score: 1

"She'll be back.."
UGH but imagine the interface on that machine...

--
...
Re:T-3 by Rubbersoul · 2003-01-26 09:10 · Score: 1

Would that interface be a Universal Business Adaptor?

--
man .sig
No manual entry for .sig.

I'm sure all the good commercials by jcurious · 2003-01-26 02:14 · Score: 5, Informative

will find thier way online during/after the superbowl.. why waste my tivo hours with this?

some are even online right now:
http://www.superbowl-ads.com/

Re:I'm sure all the good commercials by Saeger · 2003-01-26 07:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Or, you can wait to see most of the SuperBowl commercials along with brainwashing analysis this Sunday on PBS's Mental Engineering.
Don't let the low budget and "interesting" guests put you off; it's really a great show. :)
--

--
Power to the Peaceful

Re:You better know who's playing! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:16 · Score: 0

The very idea that Rob Johnson may get a super bowl ring, is difficult to concieve ...

It only goes to show that being a miserable failure, can sometimes be a good career move.

Hulk! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:16 · Score: 0

I'm probably not doing this poor bastard a favour, but you can find the HULK trailer, here.

It's an asx file, but it plays just fine in the latest version of mplayer.

Sporting events by ndnet · 2003-01-26 02:18 · Score: 1

Sadly, I have to work today especially because of this event, so I won't get the chance to see the Ads. Now, as soon as there is the standard internet archive up, just point me at it.

Re:Sporting events by cbuskirk · 2003-01-26 07:47 · Score: 1

IFilm.com usually has all of the popular adds up on thier site after the game. They still have all of last years.

This is the first I've heard of it... by sm.arson · 2003-01-26 02:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Honestly, I didn't even know that it was football season.

After I stopped watching TV about 2 years ago, I've been increasingly out of sync with popular culture. I just don't have time for all that extra information that is extraneous to my work.

More and more of my "news" comes from /., and I'm not sure if that's good or bad...

--
for great justice, this sig has been moved

I heard about it too. by Fat+Casper · 2003-01-26 02:21 · Score: 4, Funny

A group of east coast buccaneers is going to be fighting a group of western raiders. Arrrrr!

--
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.

Re:I heard about it too. by leviramsey · 2003-01-26 02:54 · Score: 1

As was written in the LA Times: "Yo ho ho, and a bottle of excruciatingly bad metaphors."
Re:I heard about it too. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 04:17 · Score: 0

Yeah I heard it's going to be rated .... never mind...
Re:I heard about it too. by gilroy · 2003-01-26 09:08 · Score: 2, Funny

Blockquoth the poster:

A group of east coast buccaneers is going to be fighting a group of western raiders. Arrrrr!

Wait... Is this some sort of RIAA-sponsored documentary?

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:I heard about it too. by Alsee · 2003-01-26 11:10 · Score: 2, Funny

The RIAA lobbyists are storming Washington at this very moment demanding something be done about the rampant piracy situation.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:I heard about it too. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 11:11 · Score: 0

God, why won't that joke die............Arrrrr. There I said it I feel better.

wtf! tv commercials in internet by Fuzzums · 2003-01-26 02:23 · Score: 1

We're fighting spam, bannerads and god knows what more and now there are sites devoted only to tv-commercials?

What a world...

--
Privacy is terrorism.

Re:wtf! tv commercials in internet by handsomepete · 2003-01-26 02:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

"We're fighting spam, bannerads and god knows what more and now there are sites devoted only to tv-commercials?"

I think that's a Good Thing. The sooner that advertisers realize that we enjoy and watch/discuss *good* ads, the more likely it is that we'll be able to avoid even more invasive forms of advertising (i.e. TV popups/in-show product advertising). I'll gladly host a commercials FTP site if it'll keep me from getting a TV popup for Cheerios over some PG lesbian scene on Fox. Of course, the gravy is getting to see entertaining commercials instead of the drab look-at-this-SUV-climbing-an-incline sort of crap. That's just me, though...
Re:wtf! tv commercials in internet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 08:10 · Score: 0

'bannerads' just about covers the new hulk movie as well.

moron pouring hot FUDge onto the masses.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:23 · Score: 0

buy use of billonlyUS false advertising?

some are already bidding for spots to air during the bombings. shrewed huh?

yepee!! by (rypto* · 2003-01-26 02:24 · Score: 1

schedule:
xx:00pm trailers for X-Men 2, and the first Matrix sequel are both supposed to air
some sport in between I dono

watch the ad not the sport :P
---------------
(score:-6)
sig:Catch me if you can .. :P :P

--
#3 pencils and quadrille pads.

Superbowl by pommiekiwifruit · 2003-01-26 02:27 · Score: 5, Funny

What sport is that then? Ten-pin bowling? We have a lot of superbowls in london (it is a chain) but I can't remember them getting much television coverage.

I have all of you nerds beaten - by Omkar · 2003-01-26 02:30 · Score: 1

I'm from Ohio and I don't even know how the game is played!

Re:I have all of you nerds beaten - by AKnightCowboy · 2003-01-26 02:54 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm from Ohio and I don't even know how the game is played!
Don't feel so bad, neither do the Browns or the Bengals. (I'm from Cleveland so I can say that. :-)
Re:I have all of you nerds beaten - by Deagol · 2003-01-26 03:08 · Score: 1

Don't feel so bad, neither do the Browns or the Bengals.
"They're shitty!"
Ooops! wrong team. :) I was born in columbus, so I can dis on Ohio teams, too.

--
Method of processing duck feet
Re:I have all of you nerds beaten - by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:19 · Score: 0

but i bet you all know how to riot after a game or after some unarmed kid gets shot by the pigs!

why don't you ohio queefs get pete rose to bet on it! better yet get him to bet on the bengals.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

ohio is such a laughing stock of a state.
Re:I have all of you nerds beaten - by bagsc · 2003-01-26 05:24 · Score: 1

My Super Bowl was the Fiesta Bowl, baby - OSU is the only football team Ohio has. Except maybe St. Ignatius...

--
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Re:I have all of you nerds beaten - by edmo · 2003-01-26 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

" I'm from Ohio and I don't even know how the game is played!"

You know the funny thing about that? Most of the fans don't know the rules either.
I was never one for watching sports, but I have asked my roommates about football, mostly to understand how they can waste their time watching it(no offense intended to any fans)... what I learned suprised me, namely that they didn't know the rules and simply watched it because that's what they always have done...

--
Don't save your orgasms for Heaven; Heaven knows we need them here.
Re:I have all of you nerds beaten - by buckeyeguy · 2003-01-26 07:47 · Score: 2, Funny

That is pretty pathetic, unless you're female. You are hereby exiled to Kentucky.

--
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.

Football Vs. Baseball ?? by handy_vandal · 2003-01-26 02:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

How about a football team versus a baseball team?

Football players are big hulking guys wearing body armor and helmets -- baseball players are smaller and unarmored, but they've got bats.

Should be an interesting match ....

--
-kgj

Re:Football Vs. Baseball ?? by damiam · 2003-01-26 02:38 · Score: 1

You'd have to decide on the sport you wanted them to play. I suggest soccer.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:Football Vs. Baseball ?? by doug · 2003-01-26 02:58 · Score: 2, Funny

I imagine the the sport he had in mind was either "mass melee" or "drunken brawl". The only other thing I can think of where shoulder pads and bats would be useful is "calvin ball" and I don't think most pro athletes have the imagination to handle that one.
Re:Football Vs. Baseball ?? by The+FooMiester · 2003-01-26 05:21 · Score: 1

How about having them play something like this!

It's not scripted, and neither side would have a real advantage. And I'm sure the unarmed football players could find some swords or polearms laying around to use.

--
The previous has been a secret message to my comrades.

What the... by Rhinobird · 2003-01-26 02:36 · Score: 3, Funny

I heard it was the buccaneers vs. the raiders...suddenly I have in my head this picture of Blackbeard the Pirate fighting Atilla the Hun.

--
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla

Re:What the... by morgajel · 2003-01-26 02:59 · Score: 1

You're not too far off.

--
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.

tivo....must by epicstruggle · 2003-01-26 02:36 · Score: 1

argh...must not...press...forward button...uhhh...so conflicted...must watch...trailers....

--
"Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"

"Super Bowl" is trademarked by Motherfucking+Shit · 2003-01-26 02:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Super Bowl" is a trademark of the National Football League. This is why most radio and TV ads you hear and see relating to the Super Bowl don't use the official name, but instead call it something like the "Big Game."

--
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.

Re:"Super Bowl" is trademarked by leviramsey · 2003-01-26 02:44 · Score: 5, Informative

However, it is legal to use "Super Bowl" in news coverage of the event. However, even if you are a media outlet doing news coverage, you can't use "Super Bowl" in, say, your advertising, unless you are an NFL sponsor. Thus, CBS, ABC, and FOX can use the phrase "Super Bowl" in their ads, but the other networks cannot (I'm not sure how cable nets, like TNN, ESPN, and Fox Sports Net are handled), Coors Light can but Budweiser cannot, Reebok can but Nike cannot, Cadillac can but Toyota cannot, Pepsi can but Coke can't and so forth.
Re:"Super Bowl" is trademarked by Blimey85 · 2003-01-26 03:34 · Score: 1

ESPN has a contract with the NFL (and pretty much every other sports association). They can talk about it, disseminate information, record it for their own personal use, yadda yadda yadda.
Not sure about TNN or Fox Sports Net.
The Dallas Cowboys a few years back, cut a deal with Nike even though the league had a deal with Reebok... I wonder if Nike would have been able to advertise using the Super Bowl name had the Cowboys been in the Super Bowl that year... Not sure how that would have worked.
Anyways, to the topic at hand:
Unfortunately I won't get to enjoy the commercials live this year. I'm gonna be outside working on some MTB trails but I'll tape it and watch them tonight when I get back. Since I don't particularly like either team, I'm not very excited about watching the game... which sucks because I usually really enjoy football. I did see some great college games this past season though so I'm good for another however many months until next season starts.

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Re:"Super Bowl" is trademarked by Kaz+Riprock · 2003-01-26 07:25 · Score: 1

Someone should have let MTV know they couldn't use it...

--
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Re:"Super Bowl" is trademarked by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 07:36 · Score: 0

MTV is part of Viacom which owns CBS which has a license to use "Super Bowl".
Re:"Super Bowl" is trademarked by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 07:40 · Score: 0

ESPN and ABC are both owned by Disney.

Obviously Fox Sports Net is owned by the same company as Fox; News Corporation.

TNN, MTV and CBS are all owned by Viacom.
Re:"Super Bowl" is trademarked by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-01-26 07:59 · Score: 1

In Canada, we have two major beer companies, and of course both of them wanted to be known as the official sponsor of the Canadian Olympic hockey team. So one of them paid to be the sponsor and the other just featured generic hockey players (who happened to be in Utah). Apparently, being associated with a sporting event is a big value, so the NFL needs to protect the value of their commodity.

Of course for the life of me, I can't remember which beer company actually was the official sponsor.

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:"Super Bowl" is trademarked by jmauro · 2003-01-26 12:14 · Score: 1

That and ESPN Sports and ABC sports are the same orginization. So it helps in that respect.
Re:"Super Bowl" is trademarked by Ratbert42 · 2003-01-27 01:47 · Score: 1

Some radio commercial, maybe for Chunky soup, was giving away a package for the "Big Game." They played games with talking about enjoying a big BOWL of SOUP at the game. At one point they even said "Oupersay Owlbay."

funny is... by moby · 2003-01-26 02:38 · Score: 1

reading all the posts from people who seem to think that knowing anything about the superbowl or football in genereal makes them weird so they have a battle to see who can appear to be the biggest ignorant idiot and then give out all kinds of advice on something they just admitted to knowing nothing about !

Re:funny is... by dcmeserve · 2003-01-26 07:41 · Score: 1

> ... all the posts from people who seem to think that knowing anything about the superbowl or football in genereal makes them weird ...

It's not about that.

It's about revenge.

--
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell

Special Request by kryonD · 2003-01-26 02:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

For those of us in the military overseas, we will be watching the game on the Armed Forces Network (AFN). Due to a variety of issues, no commercials are aired on AFN which means we miss out on what could potentially be the more entertaining part of the game.

If someone with a really kind heart could encode the commercials and post them on the internet, we would be very appreciative. Last year wasn't so bad as we do get Fox, although tape delayed by two weeks, so we could watch the commercials when it re-aired. This year, there will be no avenue for us to see the game as we would in America.

Thanks in advance.

--
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky

Re:Special Request by mauriceh · 2003-01-26 06:05 · Score: 1

Yes Please!
Up here in Canada we will not get to see those ads.
I pay extra on cable to get US network coverage, and the cable compnay (Shaw) take it and dub the ads with Canadian ones.
Double-dipping pigs!

--
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
Re:Special Request by kendric · 2003-01-26 07:18 · Score: 1

Actually the rest of the world is in the same situation as this Military guy. I come from Canada, and while we get to watch the superbowl, we get none of the comercials. We get to watch the local car radiator shop ad once every frickin hour instead of these multimillion dollar ads.

This is a problem with copyright. The nfl has complete copyright over the game, and sells the right to forgien countries. The forgien stations then must show the game exactly how the nfl broadcasts it, but the commercials are not. In order to play the commercials, these stations must pay a royalty, however, to play ads locally, they get paid. So I get to watch local ads for the upcoming elementary school fundraiser, instead of matrix sequels.
Re:Special Request by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-01-26 07:55 · Score: 1

Get a decent TV provider. Starchoice (satellite) doesn't kill the ads. (Ironic, given they're owned by Shaw). Never had any problem seeing the Superbowl ads here.
Re:Special Request by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 14:34 · Score: 0

After all, clever commercials is what you'll soon be fighting and dying for.
Re:Special Request by DigitalCrackPipe · 2003-01-27 05:15 · Score: 1

Cutting the commercials is even worse than playing local commercials during the SuperBowl (they really need to ban retarded local commercials during the entire game). Anyway, I know the commercials usually show up on usenet (groups like alt.binaries.multimedia and such) and I know there are free news servers... but all that depends on having a broadband connection and a computer you can install programs on. Good luck out there (and not just for the commercials)
Re:Special Request by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 11:05 · Score: 0

Yet another reason why we should just annex Canada.

Ovit? by Ghoser777 · 2003-01-26 02:45 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Perhaps I can patent this? I'm sure there's a market for people who would rather watch mind-numbing commercials that mind-numbing television.

1. Patent name "Ovit"
2. ???
3. Profit!

Excellent.

F-bacher

--
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."

Re:Ovit? by stereoroid · 2003-01-26 02:48 · Score: 4, Funny

This sounds like that scene in Demolition Man, where Stallone's character is shocked to discover that, in the future, radio stations play nothing but commercials. There's even an oldies station that plays vintage... commercials. Aaargh!

--
(this is not a .sig)

The advertisers win again! by Motherfucking+Shit · 2003-01-26 02:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm a pasty-white geek type, so I don't typically watch sporting events. OK, maybe some hockey now and then in the hopes that someone gets his teeth knocked out by a puck moving at 90mph or his jugular severed by an errant ice skate on live TV, resulting in copious amounts of blood. OK, so I watch NASCAR, too, for the wrecks. I don't normally watch football, though, it just never interested me.

But... A commercial for X-Men 2? Will the lovely Anna Paquin be in the sequel? Will she be in the commercial? Sigh, now I'll have to watch in order to find out. Damn advertisers, they figured out how to make a geek watch football!!

What's next, they'll start having the Olsen Twins host golf?

--
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.

Re:The advertisers win again! by windex · 2003-01-26 02:52 · Score: 1

As boring as Golf is, the Olsen Twins will be naked and petrified by the end of the 18th hole...
Re:The advertisers win again! by nightherper · 2003-01-26 04:24 · Score: 1, Troll

Yes - Hockey the only real "major" sport left where the players are not grossly overpaid, and they don't go out every night raping and pillaging.
The other sports died when they started paying unskilled kids out of the ghetto millions to come to their team.
Baseball committed suicide when the players went on strike.
Yes I will burn Karma for this.

--
...
Re:The advertisers win again! by Graff · 2003-01-26 06:14 · Score: 1

A commercial for X-Men 2? Will the lovely Anna Paquin be in the sequel? Will she be in the commercial?

Yes, she will be in X-Men 2. Take a look at the IMDB information. She will probably also be in the commercial, as she was in the trailer.

--
Sapere aude!
Re:The advertisers win again! by Banjonardo · 2003-01-26 07:37 · Score: 1

Yes - Hockey the only real "major" sport left where the players are not grossly overpaid, and they don't go out every night raping and pillaging.
Nope. They don't. They can do all the damage their barbaric little hearts want to during the game.
Oh, and you forgot soccer. Best sport in the world :-).

--
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
Re:The advertisers win again! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 16:13 · Score: 0

If you like watching long haired faggots run around a field for ninety minutes with no apparent purpose.
Re:The advertisers win again! by tordia · 2003-01-27 02:05 · Score: 1

Yes - Hockey the only real "major" sport left where the players are not grossly overpaid, and they don't go out every night raping and pillaging.
The Chicago Blackhawks must have missed that memo.

--
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
Re:The advertisers win again! by nightherper · 2003-01-27 13:26 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Troll? On a day old posting? They must either have no idea what to do with mod points or they are an overpaid sports player from the ghetto.
Or maybe they enjoy raping and pillaging.

--
...

Hulk trailer and pics are online now by TravelSizedMonkey · 2003-01-26 02:48 · Score: 1

Yep, the Hulk commercial will be in the first quarter. Universal has made ad banners for fans to place on their sites to advertise it.

Of course, it's also online now, thanks to a leak at Universal's website. You can find a link at Superhero Hype!

For a few shots of the big guy (including a closeup of the face), check out this page.

Even though I've seen it on my computer, I'm still itching to see it tonight on the big screen.

"Sporting Event Featuring Commercials" by xintegerx · 2003-01-26 02:49 · Score: 1

Sporting Event Featuring Commercials

Nuh uh, I gotta see this!

--

Cover your eyes and click this link!

Re:"Sporting Event Featuring Commercials" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:50 · Score: 1, Informative

you would be surprised, in many non-usa parts of the world, sports events DONT take a break every 30 seconds to sell the drooling masses cheap garbage.

they actually KEEP PLAYING until the game is over!

weird huh?
Re:"Sporting Event Featuring Commercials" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 18:26 · Score: 0

Yep, that's just to keep the deaths down in the stands, I can only imagine if there were breaks in a soccer match, it would be a massacre.

"Commercials featuring Sporting Event" is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:49 · Score: 0

"Commercials featuring Sporting Event" is more like it!

And now for something completely relevant... by Tyreth · 2003-01-26 02:50 · Score: 1

From the hacker's portrait, "Many (perhaps even most) hackers don't follow or do sports at all and are determinedly anti-physical. Among those who do, interest in spectator sports is low to non-existent; sports are something one does, not something one watches on TV."

This is exactly what I used to say. Sports is something you do, not something you watch.

So while you "hackers" watch the super bowl I'll be surfing!

Wooo!!!

(not saying I _can_ surf, but I'm going to try)

Go Bucs, Sorta... by E-Rock-23 · 2003-01-26 02:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm probably one of the few /. readers who gives a crap about football (I dig hockey and soccer, too). But this year, my team, the Steelers, isn't in it (we got screwed by some shoddy officiating). So, I'm gonna go with my fallback "team to root for" system. When it comes to College Football, I'm a Penn State fan. And for years, I sat in the upper deck of Beaver Stadium watching many future NFL heroes play for the love of the game and school pride.

So how does this factor into me rooting for the Bucs? Well, one of the Bucs' wide recievers is former Penn State wide out Joe Jurevicius, who just celebrated the birth of his child last week. I wish Joe the best of luck, and I'm sure that everyone here in Happy Valley is pulling for him to get his first Super Bowl ring.

Then, after the big game (which I'm not watching due to (rock, not high school) Band Practice), I'm headed out to my local bar for post-game karaoke. Sure beats sitting at home playing gToons...

--
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man

Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by leviramsey · 2003-01-26 03:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

But this year, my team, the Steelers, isn't in it (we got screwed by some shoddy officiating)

What "shoddy officiating"?

I don't know if you were watching the same game as I was, but, if anything, the vast majority of questionable calls went the Steelers' way (the George fumble with the missed personal foul comes to mind, the questionable incomplete pass for the Titans early on). The end of the game was a textbook example of running into the kicker (not roughing, running into). As for the question of the timeouts, what you should do in that situation is tell the nearest official, "we're planning to call a timeout as close to the snap as we can cut it, so keep an eye out."

If you're going to blame anybody for the Steelers' losses in the past several trips to the postseason, it has to start with Bill Cowher. The simple fact is that this guy doesn't know football, at least at the chess-game level that modern NFL head coaching requires. It's the same every season: Cowher (who's a master motivator) gets his team up during the regular season to get them through a weak division and into the playoffs, where his inability to gameplan eventually does the team in when he's faced with a decent coach, be it Shanahan, Belichick, or even Fisher. I'm amazed I'm putting Fisher in that category, as he's closer to Cowher than the evil geniuses.

Cowher should be a special teams coach somewhere. No gameplanning needed, just the ability to moivate guys. Cowher may be the best coach at getting guys to come play the game in recent memory.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by SlashdotLemming · 2003-01-26 03:33 · Score: 1

We Are...
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:39 · Score: 0

The simple fact is that this guy doesn't know football

It appears that you don't either
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by jgerman · 2003-01-26 04:07 · Score: 1

You got screwed! I'm a Giants fan. My team got the shaft and the NFL ADMITTED it the following day. Don't know if that makes me feel better or worse. But it certainly made me angry.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by zzyzx · 2003-01-26 05:11 · Score: 1

What annoyed me so much about the faux timeout is that the plan seemed to be to try to call it at the last second to force the Titans to kick it twice. If you're going to play that kind of game, it will backfire occasionally.

Icing the kicker is just a stupid thing to do anyway. Other than the previous kick (after all of the fireworks went off) I've never seen it work.

And yes, the helmet to helmet hit that caused the fumble should have been penalized.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by R-66Y · 2003-01-26 05:37 · Score: 0

jgerman, your team got the shaft because they decided to take a nap on their 24 point lead. Come on, let's not blame this on the officials when Jason Sehorn can't cover Terrell Owens (who's still an asshole), and Jeremy Shockey can't run a simple slant route. Maybe think about where your defense went in the second half. Perhaps they were flying back to Giants Stadium already? You have absolutely no right to boil that game down to one play -- one call. The NFL admitted that they were wrong because they were, in fact, wrong. They did not admit that the better team lost. They know just as well as I do that any team that blows a 24 point lead doesn't deserve to advance in the playoffs.

E-Rock-23, come on, now. You don't actually think that one call blew the game for you. Look at the Steelers' secondary if you want a solution of why they lost. Not to mention that your division was the second-worst division in football this year. The reason that the Steelers-Browns game was so good was that the two teams can play on basically the same level, but if you look at the stats for the Titans game, Tennessee is clearly the more complete team. Pittsburgh doesn't have a pass defense or a running game. Do you actually think they could've had a better chance at beating Oakland than Tennessee did? I didn't think so.

Moral of the story: officials make mistakes, but it's a mistake to blame a game on the officials. In both cases, the better team won, so stop your whining. My Cowboys earned themselves last in the NFC East. At least your games mattered and were exciting to the end.

Later,
Patrick
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by stormshadow97 · 2003-01-26 05:43 · Score: 1

There's a place called "Beaver Stadium"?!!

Oh, come on, you were thinking it too...

--
Unauthorized feeding of Metroids is strictly prohibited.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by R-66Y · 2003-01-26 06:00 · Score: 0

My apologies. The second paragraph was directed to leviramsey, not E-Rock-23.

Later,
Patrick
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by leviramsey · 2003-01-26 06:14 · Score: 1

Icing the kicker is just a stupid thing to do anyway

That's true, and I think everybody in football knows it. Most kickers love it when the other team tries to ice them, it gives them more time to make sure that the holder and snapper are on the same page, get a feel for the wind, and so forth. The only reason, it seems, that coaches continue to do it is because if they don't and the guy kicks the game-winning field goal, the fans will yell and scream that he should have. It's another ritual in the Kabuki that is the NFL.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by schlach · 2003-01-26 06:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wow, who would have thought that there'd be a moderated discussion of football on slashdot... What's next? Maxim magazine reviewing computer games?

Seriously though, I was at a hockey game last week and witnessed the same phenemenon - "There are no good calls that don't go in your favor." Every time your guys trip, you're glad when the ref doesn't call it. Every time one of their guys trips your guys, you scream bloody murder, and if the ref doesn't see it then you invite him to join the game, or offer to buy his seeing-eye dog ice-skates, etc.

Their goalie blocked one of our shots, and one of the guys with me, an Aussie watching his first game, cheered. I said, "Don't cheer, that was their play." And he said, "It was a good play. Hockey was the winner." And that blew my mind, it sounded so foreign. Hard to imagine an American fan cheering for Hockey rather than a specific team.

So I was thinking about this, after the game. If we Americans have such an 'Us vs. Them' mindset in our sports, is it a condition of our cultural environment, or is our enjoyment of the sports conditioning us to perceive other conflicts in the same 'Us vs. Them' mindset? Or is it just part of the same mix of people->culture->people?

Specifically, why don't we have any sports/games with more than two teams? Does anyone else, for that matter? What is it that prevents us from being able to invent interesting games that perceive conflict in more than an 'Us vs. Them' fashion?

I remember WoTC back in the day (dating myself) publishing different variants for their Magic card game that were quite interesting, the best of which was the 'Five Color' game. I've never heard the mechanics of a good 5-team game described anywhere else, so I will describe it as the Five Color game.

5 teams are logically arranged in a pentagon. From the top, clockwise, we find White, Blue, Black, Red, and Green. The object of the game is to destroy the teams positioned 'across' from you, ie not next to you on the pentagon. The teams next to you are potentially your allies, not for any high reason, just because you happen to share an enemy. Additionally, your other ally is your ally's other enemy. Tricky.

The additional level of depth and strategy required adds an entirely new enjoyment to the game. You know every alliance is going to be betrayed at some point, it's in calculating the exact moment of betrayal that rewards the winner. It forces the player to be aware of conflicts happening between entirely other teams, and how to use those conflicts to perhaps set your enemies against themselves, or gain an ally. It forces strategy to become sophisticated in ways that calling a football game a chess-match doesn't even come close to.

And the interesting question would be, if America's favorite sports became 5-color games, would we see a corresponding increase in the sophistication with which we perceive international affairs?

I throw it out for conversation. (And secretly I hope that a few mod-makers (or budding sport-inventors) are inspired. I'd love to go hack WarCraft2 to make it support larger maps and a 5-color match up, or making a TF mod for such a game (maybe when TF2 comes out *chuckle*). Or maybe someday my internationally-savvy children will teach their old man how to play '5-color ball'... )
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by /dev/trash · 2003-01-26 07:15 · Score: 1

I was with ya there ( although if the Steelers should have done a better job early in the season.) til ya mentioned Penn State. JoePa, is a relic that needs to leave. Oh I just realzied...we have the same ISP.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by E-Rock-23 · 2003-01-26 08:10 · Score: 1

PENN STATE!

As an aside, sitting in section NC's upper deck seats, we always did that half of the chant.

--
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by SlashdotLemming · 2003-01-26 08:36 · Score: 1

Also on campus is the Mary Beaver White building. And in the adjoining town is Beaver Avenue on which lies the Beaver Terrace apartments.
And don't forget Penn State Beaver, a satellite campus located in Beaver County, PA.

Back to main campus, 20,000 Beavers between the ages of 17 and 23. This, my geek friends, is why one goes to college.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by fewl · 2003-01-26 09:26 · Score: 1

There is a game with more than an us vs them mentality. If you've ever played an online free-for-all game in Warcraft 3 you know what I'm talking about. It's one of the hardest variations you can play on battle.net.

--
Your actions on earth echo in eternity.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by jgerman · 2003-01-26 12:26 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter whether they took a nap or not. They did what they had to to give themselves the win at the end and the chance was taken away from them by the officials. The NFL admitted the mistake, there should have been an untimed last play of the game per NFL rules. Post season officiating is a problem, as can ALREADY be seen in the Super Bowl. Tampa Bat has to waste a challenge because the official are a bunch of nitwits.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by jgerman · 2003-01-26 12:31 · Score: 1

Additionally, they didn't blow a 24 point lead, they weren't given the chance to protect that lead because the final play was taken away from them. The better team lost that day.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by schlach · 2003-01-26 12:44 · Score: 1

See, I'm not sure. 3 player FFA has been around for a while. I remember playing war2 that way. But I don't think it changes the way you think about the game - everything bad that happens to your opponents is good, everything bad that happens to you is bad.

I thought about 3-team before settling on 5-color. Trying to play 5-color like a FFA is only going to get you knocked out first. A 3-team tournament-situation would probably always dictate a logical alliance. Two of the teams would recognize which competitor they could least afford to let win, destroy him first in hardly-competitive two-on-one play, and then duke it out between themselves. First it's Us vs. Them, and second it's Us vs. Them. I skipped over 4 players, since that would probably end up in 2v2 alliances (or worse, 3v1), and when I got to 5 I remembered the old Magic Five Color game.

The set up would largely prevent the "which competitor can we underdogs least afford to let win" scenario. If that competitor is one of your allies, you would probably be unwilling to team up against him, since you would be depriving yourself of his strength. This leaves his enemies to team up against him... which really shouldn't be that surprising. Of course, you would probably rather destroy him than let him win, so at some point when your mutual foe is almost vanquished, you might betray him. But perhaps he's already anticipated this, and his other ally and he have already almost destroyed your last ally, leaving you powerless to prevent them from overwhelming you...

anyway I digress. But 5-Color is a truly interesting playing experience that FFA doesn't measure up against. In War3, is it possible to set the winning conditions for a player as the elimination of two other players? If so, you could easily set up a 5-color game, and I would love to play one.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by davidhan · 2003-01-27 06:00 · Score: 1

No, they had plenty of chances to protect the lead before that attempted field goal. All they had to do was play defense against a team with just one good offensive player. They could not do even that. The better team did not lose that game.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by jgerman · 2003-01-27 06:29 · Score: 1

Whatever, believe what you want. The facts are the game wasn't completely played out. The refs fucked up so badly that the NFL had to apologize. The rules weren't followed so the Giants WERE NOT allowed to protect their lead and get the win. Until the untimed last down is played, as I've said before, per NFL rules, the game hasn't ended. It's that simple. The 49ers backed their sorry asses into the the next round of the playoffs.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by il_diablo · 2003-01-29 03:14 · Score: 1

> Wow, who would have thought that there'd be a
> moderated discussion of football on slashdot...
> What's next? Maxim magazine reviewing computer
> games?

actually, Maxim DOES review computer games.

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Hulk Trailer out now by thatguywhoiam · 2003-01-26 02:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Just noticed that the Hulk commercial is available at Movie-List.

Anyone else think that the Hulk looks like Shrek?

--
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.

Superbowl HDTV This Year BABY!!!! by BRock97 · 2003-01-26 02:52 · Score: 3, Informative

Forget TIVO, this is the year that HD will be widespread enough so that here in Omaha, NE USA we will have it for the first time broadcast over the air. ABC has announced that the broadcast will be HD and in Dolby Digital 5.1. The post game will also be that way as well! Plus, if that wasn't enough, Alias (with Jennifer Garner, yowza) will be on right afterwards, which has been in HD since its beginning.

I am pretty excited as this will be my first taste of the 21st century broadcasting technology for a live sporting event and it will only get better!

--

Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....

Re:Superbowl HDTV This Year BABY!!!! by Boone^ · 2003-01-26 03:21 · Score: 1

Same for our market, so we'll be enjoying the game in HD with a front projector. It'll be strange watching something without TiVo again, but I'm hoping the quality jump will make me forget it. I guess TiVo won't get to use me as a statistic this year (most rewatched play/ad/etc).
Re:Superbowl HDTV This Year BABY!!!! by Chris+Carollo · 2003-01-26 06:40 · Score: 2, Informative

hd over cable would be a lot better. but hd over airwaves? it doesent even get the range that normal uhf gets
I know you're trolling, but I can't resist...

I'm getting HD (CBS and ABC) over Time Warner cable. I can also get CBS, NBC, and WB digitally over-the-air. All of the digital signals are crystal-clear, even when broadcasting in SD, and I can receive CBS OTA even though it's low-power and low-antenna (for now), which would have resulted in a grainy, fuzzy picture were it analog.

I will enjoy my $6000 TV, thankyouverylittle.
Re:Superbowl HDTV This Year BABY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 07:10 · Score: 0

have fun with your $6000 tv.

I too hope you have fun in your $6000 trailer park home with your 9" TV...

Re:I hear the authorities are worried about terror by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 02:56 · Score: 0

Yeah. The Ass Raiders' fans are a bunch of trashy drunks. Anything will set those acerebral twats off.

Blithe ignorance of football by Creosote · 2003-01-26 03:10 · Score: 2

Back in the mid 1970s, Swarthmore College was one game away from breaking some NCAA record for consecutive losses in football. Their upcoming game was against one of the teams that would annually tromp them--Franklin & Marshall, if I remember. Or maybe Muhlenberg. (Hey, I didn't go to the games...) So one of the TV networks thought it would be good fun to do a feature on the nerd-school-where-nobody-gives-a-shit-about-footba ll, and they sent a crew to cover the game and interview students about it.

One of the interviews was with an archetypal Geek of Classics (GC dpu s++:++ a-- C-- !tv b++++ r--), a roundish undergrad who looked like a cheerful Polish maiden aunt. She allowed as how she didn't know anything about the upcoming game: "I don't pay much attention to football, I guess--I spend most of my time reading Herodotus."

(Swarthmore went on, unbelievably, to win the game on a last-second goal-line play. Thirty-five years later, Herodotus would prevail when the college dissolved its intercollegiate football program.)

Re:Blithe ignorance of football by Creosote · 2003-01-26 03:12 · Score: 1

Thirty-five years later, Herodotus would prevail when the college dissolved its intercollegiate football program.)

Er, make that "twenty-five years later".

Re:aka National Homoeroticism Day by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:11 · Score: 0

That's "congressmanwoman" of course.

last year's superbowl by dubiousmike · 2003-01-26 03:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ther is an article about Tivo releasing commercial viewing habits from last year's superbowl. Though the winning kick by the Patriots was the most Replayed event, The ritney commercial cam in second. In fact a number of comercials were Replayed by more viewers than any other actual part of the game, including an amazing trick play.

This is a perfect example of additional creativity in the production of commercials resulting in great ratings and even repeat viewings.

I know I can watch the Bud Light commercial with the two chicks wrestling in water and then mud every single time it comes on. :P

Re:last year's superbowl by murphj · 2003-01-26 04:06 · Score: 4, Funny

I know I can watch the Bud Light commercial with the two chicks wrestling in water and then mud every single time it comes on. :P

Clearly that Miller Lite ad is not particulary effective!

--
SONY. Because caucasians are just too damn tall.

Re:Purpose of sports by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:15 · Score: 0

damn straight!!!
duh, football!

You know... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:18 · Score: 0

a more fitting title would have been

"A Commercial Event Featuring some sports to fill in the extra time"

Bah. Not going to warch it. It's not played with a J5V.

Gangs of... East and West?? by gymbrall · 2003-01-26 03:19 · Score: 1

A group of east coast buccaneers is going to be fighting a group of western raiders.

Yeah, I heard about it as well. Doesn't Martin Scorsese have something to do with this?

Oh and heaven help me but who wouldn't spend whatever amount time is necessary to get the chance to see Leonardo DiCaprio get creamed by large angry men...

Re:Gangs of... East and West?? by Tim+Browse · 2003-01-26 06:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh and heaven help me but who wouldn't spend whatever amount time is necessary to get the chance to see Leonardo DiCaprio get creamed by large angry men...

It's just possible that you may want to rephrase that :-)
Tim
Re:Gangs of... East and West?? by gnovos · 2003-01-26 18:03 · Score: 1

Oh and heaven help me but who wouldn't spend whatever amount time is necessary to get the chance to see Leonardo DiCaprio get creamed by large angry men...
It's just possible that you may want to rephrase that :-)

I'm not so sure... I think I could enjoy seeing it either way.

--
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"

Re:nasty little geek nazi faggot by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:29 · Score: 0

boy, you did a good job disproving that statement. Foaming at the mouth so bad, you had sort of Gollum quality:

"Nasty little hobbitses! Nasty little Bilbo Bagginses! My precious!"

It's ok for geeks to like sports by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:29 · Score: 0

"And while I don't know what teams are playing,"

Give me a break. In this day and age it's ok for geeks to like sports.
Let's face it, the fine line between geek and blue collar programmer is non existent.

How the use of the term football should be decided by red-beard's · 2003-01-26 03:36 · Score: 3, Funny

Ouch ... "Gay Rugby" Thats a bit harsh . How about we take a soccer team and pit them up against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in a game of real american football (no pads) . Then we see who is standing at the end . The winner gets the official use of football for their sport and the looser has to use "The fanciful fairy ball ballet" . Sounds fair to me .

More links by edox. · 2003-01-26 03:40 · Score: 1

About.com has a very nice guide to Super Bowl XXXV11
check it out here>

--
quote:port 17 udp

Re:You better know who's playing! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:42 · Score: 0

Dude, thank you for that. I see Braad Johnson getting taken out quickly. That will leave Rob johnson as the quaterback. When that happens, may the raiders rain shite on the buccs...

Apple Ad by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2003-01-26 03:42 · Score: 1

The Apple PowerBook ad is rumored to be showing today, too. Although I'm admittedly partisan, I think it's pretty funny. Even if you dont see the game, you might like to check out the commercial.

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar

Because I'm a tool by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 03:46 · Score: 0

Oakland isn't quite on the west coast (SF Bay) and Tampa Bay isn't quite on the east coast (Gulf of Mexico).

But both be sailin' the salty seas, arrr!

Ad schedule by RedX · 2003-01-26 03:56 · Score: 4, Informative

SUPER BOWL XXXVII ADVERTISERS - SPORTS BUSINESS DAILY

1ST QTR ADVERTISERS
Anheuser-Busch*
Columbia Pictures: 30-seconds
DaimlerChrysler: 30-seconds
DaimlerChrysler: 30-seconds
FedEx: 45-seconds
Gatorade: 30-seconds
H & R Block: 30-seconds
PepsiCo: 45-seconds
Quizno's: 30-seconds
Universal Pictures: 30-seconds
Warner Bros.: 60-seconds

2ND QTR ADVERTISERS
Anheuser-Busch*
Hanes 30-seconds
Levi Strauss: 30-seconds
Monster: 30-seconds
PepsiCo: 30-seconds
PepsiCo: 45-seconds
Philip Morris: 30-seconds
Subway: 30-seconds
Touchstone/Disney: 30-seconds
Trident Gum: 15-seconds
20th Century Fox: 30-seconds
Universal Pictures: 30-seconds
Visa: 30-seconds
Visa: 30-seconds

3RD QTR ADVERTISERS
Anheuser-Busch*
AT&T Wireless: 30-seconds
Cadillac: 90-seconds
Columbia Pictures: 30-seconds
Nat'l Drug Control: 30-seconds
PepsiCo: 30-seconds
Reebok: 60-seconds
Salton: 30-seconds
Yahoo's HotJobs: 30-seconds

4TH QTR ADVERTISERS
Anheuser-Busch*
Columbia Pictures: 30-seconds
myfico.com 30-seconds
Nat'l Drug Control: 30-seconds
Sony Electronics: 60-seconds

Anheuser-Busch has bought five-and-a-half minutes of time on ABC's broadcast and will advertise in all quarters. The Bud, Bud Light and Michelob Ultra brands will all be touted.

Re:Ad schedule by sean23007 · 2003-01-26 05:02 · Score: 1

$104 million in advertising over the course of 1 football game. Does anybody else envy ABC's position?

--

Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:Ad schedule by leviramsey · 2003-01-26 06:11 · Score: 1

They're paying, between ABC and ESPN, $2.4 billion over eight years for the rights to televise three of these fuckers. On the whole, they're losing money on this deal, though it could be argued that the program promotion aspects of having the football make up for a lot of the losses.

OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by rewster · 2003-01-26 03:58 · Score: 4, Funny

It's time we catch up with the rest of the world and realize that Medical Marijuana provides the ability to relieve the pain of many sufferers with debilitating illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's disease.

And which of these do you have?

Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 04:07 · Score: 0

I believe he suffers from terminal whining. It usually occurs after substained periods of thinking being a lazy fat ass qualifys as a disability and therefore entitles one to park his big old SUV in the handicap spot.

See it all the time. Nothing a good ass kicking attitude adjustment wouldn;t clear up.
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by elvum · 2003-01-26 05:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ah yes, "proof by attacking the person".
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 06:28 · Score: 0

It's time we catch up with the rest of the world and realize that Medical Marijuana provides the ability to relieve the pain of many sufferers with debilitating illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's disease.

And which of these do you have?

One of my best friends has MS. She uses marijuana to cope with some of the symptoms. It is quite effective for her, while nothing else really is... at least not without nasty side effects. I don't smoke marijuana, nor do I wish to. But I'll definitely keep advocating against our (U.S.) outdated drug policies to help people like her
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by rewster · 2003-01-26 11:17 · Score: 1

Ah yes, "proof by attacking the person".

Most of the people I know who advocate medicinal marijuana have nothing wrong with them, and you're kidding yourself if you think they're in it for their friend's brother-in-law's mom with glaucoma. If you read his comments, notice how he says that the ads are targeting him if he purchases marijuana. Since he seems to have a problem with his inability to do this legally, I kinda figured his following arguments, would.. ya know.. apply to him. Also, he advocates the growing of marijuana, which I'm pretty sure isn't covered by medicinal marijuana laws (side note - it's a damn good thing things like Excstacy don't sprout if you plant it). Seriously, everybody assumes that since someone is - coincidentally - furthering the interests of people who are in pain, they're doing the world a big favor, when they're probably in it for themselves.

If you ask me, McClane put it best:
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the fucking problem"
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by kmellis · 2003-01-26 12:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, I don't smoke pot and haven't since I tried it 25 years ago when I was in junior high. And that's the only illegal drug I've ever used in my entire life. But not only do I support medical marijuana, I also support legalized marijuana and the legalization of some other recreational drugs.
So, maybe most people who advocate some sort of controversial political position are doing so in self interest, but not all of them. In this case, and others, I'm certainly not.
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by rewster · 2003-01-26 14:18 · Score: 1

Well, I don't smoke pot and haven't since I tried it 25 years ago when I was in junior high. And that's the only illegal drug I've ever used in my entire life. But not only do I support medical marijuana, I also support legalized marijuana and the legalization of some other recreational drugs.

This might sound like a stupid question.. but.. why would you fight for a right that you don't intend to use? I realize that there are certain basic rights that everyone deserves, but if you ask me, reefer doesn't sound like one of them. If you want to worry about rights that are disappearing then join the EFF and tell companies to stop telling us how to use the media we buy from them. Or even better, go to a third world country and observe those that can't afford food much dream of pot.

So, maybe most people who advocate some sort of controversial political position are doing so in self interest, but not all of them. In this case, and others, I'm certainly not.

.. which still doesn't make sense to me, is it that you're following a crowd on something because it's controvesial? I don't see what difference you're trying to make...
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by kmellis · 2003-01-26 15:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

"This might sound like a stupid question.. but.. why would you fight for a right that you don't intend to use?"
Because I want to live in a just and rational society? The fact that most people only fight for rights that they have a vested interest in protecting is, well, very sad.
"If you want to worry about rights that are disappearing then join the EFF and tell companies to stop telling us how to use the media we buy from them. Or even better, go to a third world country and observe those that can't afford food much dream of pot."
Well, I am a member of the EFF. That one happens to be in my self interest. But I'm also a member of the NARAL, and I don't have a uterus. Let's see, I'm also in the ACLU, but I'm an American so that makes selfish sense. Hmm, I'm also a member of GLAAD, but I'm heterosexual. Weird. I'm a member of Amnesty International, too, although I've never been a political prisoner. I've been outspoken against the Taliban since the beginning of their regime, and I was never forced to wear a burka or stop going to school (or get medical care). I have always supported NAFTA primarily because it transfers desperately needed capital to Mexico, and only secondarily because I believe that it eventually increases wealth north of the border.
I am informed and outspoken about the starving people in Ethiopa and Zimbabwe, and about the millions of people who have died of AIDS in Africa. But I'm neither African, nor starving, nor HIV-positive.
I can go on.
I don't just want to live in a just and rational society, I want to live in a just and rational world. Why?
At the beginning of Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics", he begins an argument by pointing out that at some basic level doing what is most in the interests of encouraging our own "well-being" is what is self-evidently the "right" thing to do. He then goes on to show how "well-being" cannot be restricted to merely immediate gratification and health. He asks, all things being equal, would you prefer that your descendents be healthy and happy? And if you prefer that, then isn't that part of the telos of "well-being"? Philosophers for thousands of years have reiterated or amplified and improved this argument. Quite simply, I don't perceive my well-being to be independent of everyone else's.
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by rewster · 2003-01-26 16:56 · Score: 1

But I'm also a member of the NARAL, and I don't have a uterus. Let's see, I'm also in the ACLU, but I'm an American so that makes selfish sense. Hmm, I'm also a member of GLAAD, but I'm heterosexual. Weird. I'm a member of Amnesty International, too, although I've never been a political prisoner. I've been outspoken against the Taliban since the beginning of their regime, and I was never forced to wear a burka or stop going to school (or get medical care). I have always supported NAFTA primarily because it transfers desperately needed capital to Mexico, and only secondarily because I believe that it eventually increases wealth north of the border.

I am informed and outspoken about the starving people in Ethiopa and Zimbabwe, and about the millions of people who have died of AIDS in Africa. But I'm neither African, nor starving, nor HIV-positive.

So, let me get this straight. You're a member of a variety of organizations concerning issues that don't, or some cases can't techincally apply to you? Way to be trendiliciously superficial. Seriously, there's a point where it goes beyond caring to resume padding, and I think you've hit the mark. Though I can't see how someone who claims to support such seemingly logical causes (except for NAFTA, of course) could support the proposed legalization of an illicit drug.

I don't just want to live in a just and rational society, I want to live in a just and rational world. Why?

Rational is where people don't burn and then inhale chemicals to alter their neurochemistry to make themselves happy.

At the beginning of Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics", he begins an argument by pointing out that at some basic level doing what is most in the interests of encouraging our own "well-being" is what is self-evidently the "right" thing to do. He then goes on to show how "well-being" cannot be restricted to merely immediate gratification and health. He asks, all things being equal, would you prefer that your descendents be healthy and happy? And if you prefer that, then isn't that part of the telos of "well-being"? Philosophers for thousands of years have reiterated or amplified and improved this argument. Quite simply, I don't perceive my well-being to be independent of everyone else's.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But what about the many that are going to lose themselves in the drug culture once it's legalized and mainstreamed and fritter away life savings? Or the people who are murdered so their medicinal marijuana may be sold on the street to the highest bidder? No thanks, I want my descendants to be healthy, happy, and drug free.
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 17:06 · Score: 0

Rational is where people don't burn and then inhale chemicals to alter their neurochemistry to make themselves happy.
Nice troll(?). Let's work through this one together. If pleasure is the byproduct of neurochemical states (it is), and drugs alter neurochemistry (the ones in question do), then people can use drugs for pleasure (some do). This is irrational how? The pleasure you get from anything is neurochemical, and while addiction/excesses are disgusting, your logic easily extends to the assertion that any sort of pleasure-seeking behavior is irrational. I know that's not what you meant, so I'm wondering if you're thought about your position. Drug use is just an example of rewarding behavior that reinforces itself, like sex or videogames. That some people take it to disgusting excesses (think compulsive masturbators or Everquest addicts) doesn't make them an inherently irrational source of pleasure.
Also, nobody's going to murder anybody for their medical marijuana. What a joke. Even outlawed, it is one of the cheaper illegal drugs. Fritter away life savings? If pot were legal, it would probably be no more expensive than cigarettes.
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by kmellis · 2003-01-26 17:43 · Score: 1

"Way to be trendiliciously superficial."
Oh, please. If there's one thing I'm not, it's that. I'm a liberal, not a leftist, and that in itself condemns me to being considered politically incorrect by everyone in the current climate. I form my own values and select my own causes. I included NAFTA and trade in my list to imply that, seeing that a lot of people would think that it doesn't fit with the others. And you don't. (And you call it illogical! But then, you probably don't know a damn thing about economics.)
I joined those organization because I found myself with more than enough money a couple of years ago that I felt that I could, for the first time, make the small financial contributions to some of the causes I believe in. I listed them in my post as, first, the example of the EFF which you chided me about when you assumed I wasn't a member; and, second, as examples of various things that I care about in which I don't necessarily have a personal interest.
You're being needlessly insulting, so I'll tell you what I really think. Your one question, "...why would you fight for a right that you don't intend to use?" shows you to be a shallow fucking idiot. It's an insult to anyone who cares about liberty, anywhere.
Finally, you're making assumptions about all drug users and all illicit drugs that are unwarranted. Frankly, you're off your rocker. This sentence is just stunning in its idiocy: "Or the people who are murdered so their medicinal marijuana may be sold on the street to the highest bidder?". Medical marijuana is already legal, or legal as a practical matter, in many jurisdictions. I challenge you to provide one single example of a sick person being murdered in the course of being robbed for their stash of marijuana.
Drugs in general, and certainly specific drugs, are not wholly benign. Some of them are inherently quite malign. The group of more malign drugs include legal drugs, certainly tobacco and alcohol. Marijuana is probably as carcinogenic as tobacco, but it's not as addictive. Alcohol is fine in moderation, but is also quite addictive and enormously deadly in a whole host of different ways. Some of the drugs that are now illegal are only illegal because they have been stigmatized for cultural, not scientific, reasons. Some of our hysterical drug policies themselves foster the worst of the demonstrably worst effects of drug use. Our attitudes and policies are not rational. And actual individual people are paying a human price for these irrational policies. It's obscene.
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by MegaHamsterX · 2003-01-26 17:49 · Score: 1

Good come back. It looks as if you might have outgrown slashdot, or maybe slashdot has degenerated from what it was in the 'day', all of the comments after you seem to indicate some slashdotters can't see beyond the tip of their nose.
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by jim3e8 · 2003-01-27 03:32 · Score: 1

This is the most well-founded series of rebuttals I've ever seen here; my congratulations.
Oh, and the other poster is a wanker of the nth order.
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 03:37 · Score: 0

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But what about the many that are going to lose themselves in the drug culture once it's legalized and mainstreamed and fritter away life savings? Or the people who are murdered so their medicinal marijuana may be sold on the street to the highest bidder? No thanks, I want my descendants to be healthy, happy, and drug free. "

Yeah, and Hitler wanted his descendants to be Jew-Free too, but that doesn't justify oppression, now does it? The needs of the MANY are made of of millions of individual needs; you hardly have the right to speak for society, or anyone else for that matter. Have you stopped and thought about what anyone but YOU wants? It seems unlikely. What is likely is that you'd be STUNNED by the number of people who smoke pot for RECREATIONAL uses that live normal, productive, happy lives. It's also obvious that your opinions come from an uneducated, "this-is-what-i-was-taught-by-my-momma" type of upbringing, which in my experience is usually held up by a foundation of ignorance, denial, and youth.

The problem with ignorance is that it speaks so loudly, you can't hear anyone else talking.

"In my few short years of working, I've held a few jobs. Most of them I've either quit from out of disgust or was forced out of, or the job ended. Since I started working in my junior year of high school, I've been a clerk at a pharmacy, a computer consultant, a dj, a gadget salesman at a Brookstone, a bulk-advertising mail inserter operator, and for two weeks I was even a postal worker. During the school season, I'm a full-time student and I do part time hardware support at my college. I'm not really sure what I want to do when I get out of college yet, whether it be software development or hardware or tech support or consulting or whatever, but I've pretty much ruled out anything in retail (I can't stand retail). My first real experience with software development is the basis of this webpage, and you can read more about it here."

Quote from your 'blog. Recognize it? Well hey, some of us have been working for YEARS since we graduated YEARS ago, and have what we like to call "experience". You should get some, in the real world. Once you've got some, use that towel they handed you on the way out of high-school. It's especially good for drying behind the ears.
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by rewster · 2003-01-27 09:37 · Score: 1

If pleasure is the byproduct of neurochemical states (it is), and drugs alter neurochemistry (the ones in question do), then people can use drugs for pleasure (some do). This is irrational how? The pleasure you get from anything is neurochemical, and while addiction/excesses are disgusting, your logic easily extends to the assertion that any sort of pleasure-seeking behavior is irrational. I know that's not what you meant, so I'm wondering if you're thought about your position. Drug use is just an example of rewarding behavior that reinforces itself, like sex or videogames. That some people take it to disgusting excesses (think compulsive masturbators or Everquest addicts) doesn't make them an inherently irrational source of pleasure.

The difference is that the changes in neurochemistry from sex or playing games are (usually) within the human body's ability to adjust itself. The irrationality comes from using chemicals that have no other purpose than to cause the human brain to go beyond that - and risk damaging it in the process.

Also, nobody's going to murder anybody for their medical marijuana. What a joke. Even outlawed, it is one of the cheaper illegal drugs. Fritter away life savings? If pot were legal, it would probably be no more expensive than cigarettes.

Gambling is legal, and a shot at a slot machine costs, what, a quarter? Now, tell me no one's ever blew their life savings on that, and that Gamblers Anonymous is a sham.
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by rewster · 2003-01-27 10:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, and Hitler wanted his descendants to be Jew-Free too, but that doesn't justify oppression, now does it?

Oh, I'm sorry that the lack of marijuana is causing you that much pain. How dare you compare the suffering of a people who were truly oppressed and murdered to your inability to get high.

The needs of the MANY are made of of millions of individual needs; you hardly have the right to speak for society, or anyone else for that matter. Have you stopped and thought about what anyone but YOU wants? It seems unlikely.

Society has spoken - marijuana is already illegal. I think I'm at least in the right ballpark in assuming that most people out there consider this a good thing.

What is likely is that you'd be STUNNED by the number of people who smoke pot for RECREATIONAL uses that live normal, productive, happy lives. It's also obvious that your opinions come from an uneducated, "this-is-what-i-was-taught-by-my-momma" type of upbringing, which in my experience is usually held up by a foundation of ignorance, denial, and youth.

Yeah, but the funny thing is you never hear about them, only the ones that abuse it and end up in the gutters. And when you suggest I'm uneducated by drugs, if you mean I've never used an illegal drug, you're right. I don't know how it makes one feel, but then again I don't need to either. I know all that I need to come to a decision on the legality of marijuana, and I agree with the way things have been where it's against the law.

Quote from your 'blog. Recognize it?

Yes. My powers of short and long term memory still function impeccably, since I don't use nor abuse drugs.

Well hey, some of us have been working for YEARS since we graduated YEARS ago, and have what we like to call "experience". You should get some, in the real world. Once you've got some, use that towel they handed you on the way out of high-school. It's especially good for drying behind the ears.

Funny thing is I've probably seen a ton more drug abusers my own age fail out of school and give up on life than you did when you were my age. Gee, I wonder why that is, like maybe the problem is getting worse?
Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-28 19:00 · Score: 0

Ive just read all your posts in this thread, and I can say in all certainty that you, sir, are a self-centered, ignorant troll. You are sharing your inherited, assumed, baseless opinions with no regard for the freedom of others, no regard for the opinions of the other posters, and little regard for rationality. You dont seem to even consider the possibility that there might be an ounce of truth in any of these posts, and you certainly have not taken the time to contemplate the logic and reason behind them.
Bah to you, troll.

The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by iluvpr0n · 2003-01-26 04:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Thankfully, the White House Drug Czar's office has seen fit to, again, buy *two* of these overpriced ad slots to propagandize about the evils of marijuana. What a perfect way to spend my tax dollars, thanks guys!

NORML.org has a page up about this huge waste.

iluvpr0n.

Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 05:45 · Score: 0

cool.... 2 more times to toke up during the super bowl... "hahaha ddude, the gov is so stupid hahah... pass the cheetos man"

who cares if drug money goes to terrorists? my taxes already go to the gov who wants to bomb everyone on earth.
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by /dev/trash · 2003-01-26 06:54 · Score: 1

You did see he latest study that suggests that marijuana is a gateway drug?
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by Thing+1 · 2003-01-26 07:03 · Score: 1

Thankfully, the White House Drug Czar's office has seen fit to, again, buy *two* of these overpriced ad slots to propagandize about the evils of marijuana. What a perfect way to spend my tax dollars, thanks guys!
Ah, the irony: right above your post is a post saying that Anheuser-Busch bought five-and-a-half minutes of commercial time.
"Use only government-approved poisons!"

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by Jus+ad+Bellum · 2003-01-26 07:08 · Score: 1

Actually I think you would find more users of crack and heroin are more likely to start using gateway drugs like caffine, nicotine, and alcohol.

Of course if you like the idea of throughing 15 year olds in jail for a holding weed charge with a bunch of murderers and rapists...
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by Cuthalion · 2003-01-26 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Where there's correlation there's causation" - the motto of shitty research everywhere.

--
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by /dev/trash · 2003-01-26 07:54 · Score: 1

I like how when someone points out that weed is a gateway drug, someone always brings up alcohol. All the people I know that drank just alcohol or smoke cigarettes never went on to weed or coke. On the other hand, everyone I know taht has smoked weed is either a cokehead, smack user or is into Ecstasy.
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by /dev/trash · 2003-01-26 08:10 · Score: 1

If it's so shitty why is it still done????
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by Cuthalion · 2003-01-26 08:34 · Score: 1

I could very well ask you the same question!!!

--
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by flewp · 2003-01-26 09:18 · Score: 1

There really isn't any concrete proof that smoking marijuana leads to going on to harder drugs. I'm not denying that most people who use harder drugs started off with marijuana. What I am saying is that marijuana is the most accessible, the most common, most socially-acceptable, and most prevalent drug. So, my theory being that people get it first because of the above said reasons. However, if marijuana were non-existant or extremely hard to come by, the people who would use the hard drugs had marijuana been easily accessible, would still do harder drugs regardless of the availability of marijuana.

--
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by spun · 2003-01-26 09:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

In other news, scientists have determined that 100% of IV drug users used Coca Cola before moving on to the harder stuff.

People who never used Coca Cola (Mormons, Quakers, etc.) are much less likely to move on to harder drugs.

Coca Cola is a gateway drug!

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by gozar · 2003-01-26 12:10 · Score: 1

Here's an article about the research:
Early marijuana use can lead to harder drugs, says Australian twin study

--
What, me worry?
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by kmellis · 2003-01-26 13:12 · Score: 1

"'Where there's correlation there's causation' - the motto of shitty research everywhere."
I had an argument (usually I discuss, but this was an argument) with someone who said that "correlation is not causation" is a false maxim because correlation usually is causation. This person was a scientist. (Okay, a neuroscientist or somesuch.) I was utterly dumfounded. It seems patently obvious to me that there's far more acausal correlation than there is causation.
But then, I'm a student of the history and philosophy of science, so what do I know?
Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by Cuthalion · 2003-01-27 07:59 · Score: 1

Well, there's usually some kind of causal relationship, but often it's "these two things are caused by a third thing that we didn't even think to study".

--
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!

The fanciful fairy ball ballet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 04:04 · Score: 0

Mod up! I just pissed myself laughing

Speaking of TiVo by 1stflight · 2003-01-26 04:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

I remember it being said that if you watched a show and skipped the commercials you were essentially "stealing" it (don't look at me, I try to keep my stupid comments to a minimum), but what happens if you're watching a show JUST for the commercials? Seeing as though neither of my teams made it to the Superbowl. All I'm interested in are the commercials, what then, should the cable networks pay me for my time?

--
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still

Hurray for Canada by TheTomcat · 2003-01-26 04:16 · Score: 4, Funny

I won't get to see the $2mil commercials. I'll see local commercials for "Guy's Used Cars"

)-:

S

Re:Hurray for Canada by Sgs-Cruz · 2003-01-26 05:40 · Score: 1

This is the one time of year that I'm happy I _don't_ have cable / satellite! I pull in my TV signals from the airwaves, baby, and I get Buffalo stations quite clearly. So while all my friends are watching the expensive American commercials replaced by ads talking about how great the CBC's news coverage is (okay, guys, it's the ONLY freaking news on Canadian TV, we get it), I get to see the hilarious commercials.

Okay enough bragging. :)

--
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
Re:Hurray for Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 12:59 · Score: 0

Here in Australia the government-sponsored Special Broadcasting Service (which usually broadcasts foreign arthouse films) are the only ones that will touch the SuperBowl, so in our case, the ads are replaced by analysis of the game.
Re:Hurray for Canada by TheTomcat · 2003-01-26 15:54 · Score: 1

(self-reply)

Sure-enough.. Rayovac (batteries) commercial (at least) 14 times, Mazda 6 commercial at every break, FAKED graphics, including the Canadian Tire, and Pizza Pizza logos rotoscoped onto Qualcomm stadium, and my favourite, coverage of the 5cents/minute long distance blimp flying over the stadium (in the no-fly zone)..

They even kept changing the lighting on the blimp to make it look more real (they did a good job, but it still didn't look QUITE real.. ; would've been believable if not for the no-fly zone).

S

Websites for Ads by kilonad · 2003-01-26 04:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does anybody know of any websites that will be hosting copies of the superbowl ads? In years past, I've relied on AdCritic.com, but it seems they now require you to sign up for a $70/year subscription just to watch ads. They don't even have a cheaper monthly subscription, nor do I really want to pay to watch ads in the first place.

So, any sites?

At least for once... by eXtro · 2003-01-26 04:34 · Score: 2, Funny

CmdrTaco won't be able to ruin the season finale for people in different time zones.

--

Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware

drink, fight, repeat as necessary by handy_vandal · 2003-01-26 04:48 · Score: 1

First "drunken brawl" ... then "mass melee".

--
-kgj

Who's playing. by mcgroarty · 2003-01-26 05:12 · Score: 1

On Friday, one of our secretaries asked me who was playing in this year's Super Bowl.

"Shirts versus Skins this year."

She bounced, smiled and thanked me.

WTF is the SuperBowl? by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · 2003-01-26 05:32 · Score: 1

I mean seriously.

What is it the culmination of? How is it decided who plays?

www.superbowl.com doesn't help.

Just curious.

Re:WTF is the SuperBowl? by SideshowBob · 2003-01-26 06:32 · Score: 2, Informative

The league is divided into two conferences, the NFC and the AFC. Each of those conferences is divided into 4 divisions. The team with the best record from each division, plus 4 "wildcard" teams, 2 from each conference, go to the playoffs.

The playoffs are a single elimination system; the division winner with the overall best record having the top seed, then so on down the line. The top two seeds get a "bye" in the first week of the playoffs, i.e. don't have to play to advance to the next round. Then single elimination progresses as you would expect.

Each conference has its own playoffs, and the winner of the two conference championships advances to the Superbowl. So in that sense the Superbowl is a game between the year's best AFC team and the year's best NFC team.

This system was developed because the AFC used to be the AFL and was a completely independant league. Then it merged with the NFL to become the AFC.

The divisions are more or less geographic (this year was the first year after 'realignment' when, after decades of expansion teams and relocations the divisions no longer bore much relationship to the geographical locations of the teams, so teams were moved to different divisions to more accurately reflect their geography, and in one case - the Seattle Seahawks - a team was moved to a different conference to balance the number of teams in each). So for instance the Superbowl this year is between the Tampa Bay Bucaneers of the NFC South division, and the Oakland Raiders of the AFC West division.

This is all from the recollection of a football afficionado (I hate the term 'fan') on his first cup of coffee, so pardon any errors. Hope it helps.
Re:WTF is the SuperBowl? by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · 2003-01-26 09:32 · Score: 1

Thanks - it's nice to know a bit about what everybody is talking about.
Re:WTF is the SuperBowl? by FurryFeet · 2003-01-27 07:12 · Score: 1

This is all from the recollection of a football afficionado (I hate the term 'fan')

You hate the term "fan" but you like "afficionado?". Dude, that's gotta be an 8 on my weird-shit-o-meter (TM).

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-01-26 05:49 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I thought things seemed longer... by gilroy · 2003-01-26 05:57 · Score: 1

Blockquoth the main page:

both supposed to air during the 2 million dollar 30 second ad spots

Wow. I know that TV needs to expand its revenue stream, but should they really be playing two million ads during the game, even at a dollar a piece?

Ah, the lovely lack of verbal parentheses! You gotta love English.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-01-26 05:59 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

If only, one day ..... by craigandthem · 2003-01-26 06:01 · Score: 1

GO LIONS!!!

2 to watch out for by GMontag · 2003-01-26 06:03 · Score: 1

Lookout for the Monster.com truck commercial (literally) and the Ozzie/Osmonds/Pepsi commercial. Both are a hoot!

Just seen clips of 'em on FOX.

--
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL

buuuuuuuucs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 06:15 · Score: 0

GO BUCS!!!!

haha by drinkypoo · 2003-01-26 06:39 · Score: 1

Tivo should offer an option to record only the commercials during the superbowl. I can't imagine that advertisers would get pissed off about that one...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

The heading for this should have been ... by blinq · 2003-01-26 06:42 · Score: 1

"Commercial Event Featuring Sports"

There will be considerably more advertising effort surrounding and throughout the SuperBowl than there will be football. TV ads are just the tip of the iceberg. Of course there will the expensive, eye-catching, watercooler-discussion commercials. There will probably be superimposed ads in strategic shots of the stadium. Everything is "brought to you by" some sponsor, or has the sponsor's name prefixed (The My Nasty Beer Play of the Game).

But, at least from home I don't have to sit on advertisement, wear advertiesement, drink advertisement out of advertisement, walk on, over and through advertisement to use the potty, or be advertisement.

--
~Chris

goddamn nerds... by Stalyn · 2003-01-26 06:45 · Score: 1

See the Super Bowl for me is supposed to be about football and the ads are a plus but not the main attraction. There is just something unsettling about watching a major broadcast event for not its content but for the commercials wrapped around it. It just seems very manipulative and evil. To tell you the truth I wish they had less ads, if you have ever been to a NFL game the tv time outs are ridiculous. Most of the time you sit there waiting for the play to start.

--
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend

Re:goddamn nerds... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 07:55 · Score: 0

i think you're on the wrong site buddy

Re:People Who Eat Shit by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 06:54 · Score: 0

so what does that have to do with people who eat shit?

Re:People Who Eat Shit by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 06:54 · Score: 0

Hey! I watch Babylon-5 AND football all season long. I guess if watching football makes me stupid I'll have to rip up my Mensa membership card.

Not Forget Hulk, Puny Man! by Abductor · 2003-01-26 07:23 · Score: 1

The Incredible Hulk and Terminator 3 will also be hyped today... (you have to click "on to the superbowl" to get past the nag screen ad)

For viewers in the UK.... by EnglishTim · 2003-01-26 07:29 · Score: 1

For viewers in the UK, The Superbowl is being shown on Channel 5, starting at 11:05pm.

I watched it (for the first time) last year, my American fiancee explaining to me how American Football works. Unfortunately I fell asleep at the beginning of the second half - I'll try to do better this time...

Super What-now? by dragontooth · 2003-01-26 07:30 · Score: 1

I am so sorry to say this about a community that I respect so much but get a life! Its freaking Super Bowl! I know we are geeks but the anti-jock (exercise) attitude is so sterotypical of geeks that it is no longer funny. Go out and get some exercise, talk to a real girl and play a game that doesn't involve a mouse or controller. Oh yeah, and discover one thing you didn't learn on the internet. Man, it really peevs me because I see posts all the time that tell people to get a life yadda yadda then you get a thread like this where no one knows ANYTHING. (I apologize for anyone that said something intelligent in this thread, I am not talking about you) AT LEAST GET EXCITED ABOUT SEEING SOME CHEERLEADERS! My WIFE gets excited about seeing the stupid commercials.

--
"Laugh, and the whole world laughs with you. Cry, and they still think its funny." - Mr. Boffo

Re:Super What-now? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 07:52 · Score: 0

im sure some people here like sports and are just trying to sound like nerds but for me, i 100% cant stand ANY sport... first off im fat and lazy so i cant play em, and i have no balance, bad vision, i cant catch ANYTHING you throw at me. And I cant see any reason why youd wanna WATCH someone play sports... thats like have a show where people can watch me at work making phone calls as CSR... stupid..i watched it last year cause it was an excuse for me to go over my friends and smoke pot...the commercials sucked though so it was totally pointless (cept for the pot)

as for the cheerleaders... maybe if they were naked... 20 years of watching porn and never touching a real female kind of makes looking at girls pointless, unless some real girl is grabbing my cock, im not interested

yes, im a loser :(
Re:Super What-now? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 16:26 · Score: 0

Cry me a river, tubby. Quit smoking so much pot and get some excercise.

Tivo in Reverse by harlows_monkeys · 2003-01-26 07:45 · Score: 1

Well, I have an UltimateTV, not a Tivo, but same idea. Besides using it to watch the Superbowl commercials, it is also good for the game itself. The time it takes them to start one play after the end of the last play is about the length of a commercial, so the skip-30-seconds button works great.

Site Lost Links Just Now by dbCooper0 · 2003-01-26 07:52 · Score: 1

About 2:30 Eastern - I was browsing through the clips, etc...got a error that closed my browser on a QT file (I think) and went back - Links were gone...

Methinks ABC or the AIAA (Advertising Industry Association of America) got to them?

--
db
Cig:
ôô
/`

What is so great about commercials? by duckpoopy · 2003-01-26 08:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

These are the same ads that will be replayed ad nauseum for the rest of the year. What makes them so great now?

--
word.

On JoePa by E-Rock-23 · 2003-01-26 08:16 · Score: 1

Yes, I agree. JoePa does need to go. He has passed Bear Bryant, and should now retire and bask in his record from his living room every Saturday. What PSU needs is a younger head coach who can take what tradition Paterno has created and build on it, adding his own two cents to the whole mix.

I'll admit. It was nice watching PSU win two National Titles (and get screwed out of a third oppertunity in 94, To Hell With Nebraska) under Paterno. But let's face it. All good things must come to an end, and it's time for the Paterno Era to end and give way to the next generation at the Pennsylvania State University.

And I think it's obvious that if there's a God, he/she is a Penn State fan. Why else would the sky be blue and white?

--
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man

Re:On JoePa by /dev/trash · 2003-01-26 10:01 · Score: 1

Joe shulda left in 87. Leave on top I say.

His staying so long is only going to make the years after his departure, even worse.

more like by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 08:46 · Score: 0

Commercials featuring a sporting event. Well with this crowd anyways.
I know the commercials are the only reason I watch.

fscking hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 09:10 · Score: 0

better hurry run out and buy tickets for those cool new movies...

you are nothing more than what the man wants you to be, jeez.

Re:People Who Eat Shit by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 09:19 · Score: 0

WHether you like it or not, queers are big into football. That's just the way it is. My sister married one, and he was always going out to "watch the game" with his buddies. I shit you not. And some of those guys were pretty tough looking customers. Never would have guessed they were out buggering each other.

Sports are good for you! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 09:20 · Score: 0

Reading all the posts about people claiming that they don't know anything about sports and downing physical activity is kind of disturbing.

I am a geek, just like you. But I love sports and I love to exercise. I played football and tennis in high school. Now, I'm getting my master's in applied computer science. Let me tell you something. If you exercise, you will feel better! In lots of ways. You will feel better physically. You will have more energy. You won't tire as easily. You will think clearer! Exercise releases endorphins, so you will be happier. Exercise is awesome! Give it a shot, you might just like it.

Sports are exercise and are fun. It doesn't matter if your any good or not, you will have a really good time just playing. Go to your local gym and give it a try. I promise you will enjoy it.

There is more to life than looking at a monitor!

Tivo! by Boba001 · 2003-01-26 09:27 · Score: 1

I prefer to have my tivo record the superbowl and then I'll just skip past the football part and watch the commercials. :o

Re:You better know who's playing! by Joey7F · 2003-01-26 09:40 · Score: 0, Redundant

I can understand the off topic moderation, but how the hell am I a troll?

Go BUCS!

--Joey

Re:aka National Homoeroticism Day by spun · 2003-01-26 09:46 · Score: 0, Flamebait

How is it flamebait to call Superbowl Sunday National Homoeroticism day?

A bunch of big sweaty men running around patting each other's asses. Tight ends. Showering togother in the locker room.

And the fans. There's even a commercial that makes fun of this. Some guys sitting around watching the game, one guy reaches behind another for some chips and gets a weird look. They have to sit too close together on the couch, with more weird looks, then, TOUCHDOWN! (get it, touch... down...) and they all start hugging and rubbing up against each other.

Yeah, you go girl.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

So sad :( by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 09:58 · Score: 0

I think the only thing more sad than watching a four hour game with the intent of seeing the commercials, is that you actually have a schedule for the commercials.

I thought Slashdotters were morally opposed to commercials.

Oh well, I'll be watching the game, for the sake of the game.

Go Buccaneers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

two things by Xtifr · 2003-01-26 10:20 · Score: 1

1. American Football really should have geek appeal. It's a complex and interesting game that involves a whole lot more than just big, hairy guys hitting each other. I never realized this until I tried playing some of the computer simulations, and discovered worlds of fascinating strategy that I'd never realized were there when watching big hairy guys hit each other on TV (or, rather, when not really watching, but being annoyed because my friends were watching). Video games made this geek into an American Football fan.

2: as a resident of Oakland, current home of the Raiders (one of the teams playing in the big game today), I have to say: Al Davis (the team owner) is a complete scumbag who deserves to die! He has ripped off and or sued the city of Oakland more times that I can count, he screws over his fans, as a result of which, the local games are almost always blacked out (not shown on local TV), and as long as he is the owner of my home team, all I can say is: GO WHATEVER TEAM THAT IS THAT ISN'T THE RAIDERS! YAY WHOEVER-YOU-ARE! Oakland is pulling for you! :)

Re:two things by janda · 2003-01-26 12:17 · Score: 1

Why I like football (the american kind, not the real stuff):

1) Tight pants.

2) Ex-players as commentators.

Now if they would just set it up so I could control the camera amgles...

--
Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).

homoeroticism by Jayson · 2003-01-26 10:34 · Score: 0, Flamebait

People here are too busy trying to say that football is homoerotic. They aren't allowed to touch another man or they may be gay! Losers.

I played football for years all up through high school. I showed with guys and got my ass hit. Big fucking deal.

Mastercard Commercial by AnalogDiehard · 2003-01-26 11:02 · Score: 1

Cost of a 30 second ad on Super Bowl: $2,000,000
Cost of production crew for ad: $275,000
Cost of materials: $70,000
Cost of Steve Ballmer running around like a crack monkey hollering "Commercials! Commercials! Commercials!": priceless

--
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10

Football Jocks. Who gives a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 11:10 · Score: 0

Who really fucking cares, though? Think about it:

The SuperBowl is played by the same assholes who beat you up, took your lunch money, laughed and pointed at you when you grew up in High School. You reviled them for having the mentality of 12 year olds who didn't understand that life wasn't just about sports, date-rape, and beer. And now those same bastards are on TV making millions of dollars and judging by the constant antics of many of the players, are still stuck in their 12 year old mentalities, except now they're making millions, still hate you and think you're some kind of freak and weirdo, and did I mention are making millions?? What I'm getting at is I hated these so-called "sports heroes" in HS, and I certainly won't support an industry and rewards them for being pricks.

Yeah, I know there's exceptions and that I'm pigeonholing a lot of athletes, but I never got picked on by the fucking tennis, golf, or hell, even the wrestling teams (they were too busy cutting weight to worry about me). I certainly won't be "tuning-in" to watch.

Commercials will win by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 11:20 · Score: 1, Funny

I think the commercials will win the game. Reason? Time of possession. Neither team will hold the ball as much as the commercials will!

Bowl Video Quality? by PotatoPhysics · 2003-01-26 11:35 · Score: 1

I watching it and it looks to me like they've
got something wrong with their video feed. Moving
edges are all hazy/swimmy.
I don't know what it looks like to have
the fields reversed but this is what I
would guess it might look like. It really
blurs things together under motion.
Watching the crowd behind a panning camera
is painful.

Could this have something to do with the
down-conversion of progessive scan HDTV to
NTSC?

Re:Bowl Video Quality? by JDWTopGuy · 2003-01-26 12:13 · Score: 1

That depends on how many empty beer cans are in front of your TV.

--
Ron Paul 2012

I just creamed my pants by KJE · 2003-01-26 11:51 · Score: 1

I just saw the new Matrix trailer up here in Canada... I actually got goosebumps.

Request granted by Xebikr · 2003-01-26 12:04 · Score: 1

To watch Superbowl commercials, just go to AdCritic. Not only do they usually have the commercials available, but they also let you rate them.

Re:Request granted by Xesdeeni · 2003-01-27 02:36 · Score: 1

They don't "let" you do crap. For $70 a year, you can view the commercials. Kind of ridiculous to ask you to pay for a commercial asking you to pay for a product.

Xesdeeni

You just answered your own question... by SuperKendall · 2003-01-26 12:06 · Score: 1

All of the good ads for the whole year, played in just a few hours in one day? I don't have to watch TV the rest of the year!!

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

So... by abulafia · 2003-01-26 12:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Are you asserting that because people who don't medically need pot will use it, it should be denied to people who medically need it? You seem to be.

Seriously, everybody assumes that since someone is - coincidentally - furthering the interests of people who are in pain, they're doing the world a big favor, when they're probably in it for themselves.
I'm running a business hoping to make money. Does that mean that when I open source things, I'm not doing something good? Think before answering.

By the way, can you explain in clear, concise terms why pot _should_ be illegal?

--
I forget what 8 was for.

Re:So... by rewster · 2003-01-26 14:05 · Score: 1

Are you asserting that because people who don't medically need pot will use it, it should be denied to people who medically need it? You seem to be.

I have yet to see a reasonable argument why anyone "needs" it.

I'm running a business hoping to make money. Does that mean that when I open source things, I'm not doing something good? Think before answering.

No, becuase if you're a business, the point is making money. Now if you were opensourcing stuff that allowed you to use their machines to DDoS something (I know that wouldn't fly in opensource, but you're the one who picked computers as an analogy), I think people would question your motivations there. My point is - they're not saying medicinal marijuana should be legal because they really want to help people who supposedly need it - they want the laws to pass so they can get their hands on it easier and so penalties will be lessened, gramma with glaucoma be damned.

By the way, can you explain in clear, concise terms why pot _should_ be illegal?

Explain to me first why it should. Studies have shown the kind of damage it does to the human brain - so tell me how that's beneficial to anyone? And why people with certain diseases should be allowed to use it, then?
Re:So... by dytin · 2003-01-26 15:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

By the way, can you explain in clear, concise terms why pot _should_ be illegal?
Explain to me first why it should. Studies have shown the kind of damage it does to the human brain - so tell me how that's beneficial to anyone? And why people with certain diseases should be allowed to use it, then?

Yes, I'm sure that there have been plenty of studies that show that an excess of pot is bad for you in some way. But there have also been plenty of studies that show that an excess of alcohol is bad for you. Should we go back to the days of the alcohol prohibition? In fact there have been studies that show that an excess of food, exercise, sex and even water can be bad for you. Should we ban those too? I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on your side.
Re:So... by rewster · 2003-01-26 17:10 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm sure that there have been plenty of studies that show that an excess of pot is bad for you in some way. But there have also been plenty of studies that show that an excess of alcohol is bad for you. Should we go back to the days of the alcohol prohibition? In fact there have been studies that show that an excess of food, exercise, sex and even water can be bad for you. Should we ban those too? I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on your side.

Actually, It's not. Think about the number of alcohol related deaths and injuries ("An estimated 513,000 people are injured in alcohol-related crashes each year, an average of 59 people per hour or approximately one person every minute." - MADD) every year, through alcohol poisoning, drunk driving, etc, or the number of people who are obese to an unhealthy level. Now, every time you throw something else out there and say "knock yourselves out," you can chalk up that many more fatalities.

So all in all, you're saying because things are already that bad, a few thousand more people wouldn't hurt?
Re:So... by abulafia · 2003-01-26 17:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Me: Are you asserting that because people who don't medically need pot will use it, it should be denied to people who medically need it? You seem to be.

rewster: I have yet to see a reasonable argument why anyone "needs" it.

Pot has been shown numerous times to be beneficial for a number of maladies not addressed by other medication. I'm not going to cite links becuase I'm sure you're aware of them. If not, Google is your pal.

Me: By the way, can you explain in clear, concise terms why pot _should_ be illegal?

rewster: Explain to me first why it should. Studies have shown the kind of damage it does to the human brain - so tell me how that's beneficial to anyone? And why people with certain diseases should be allowed to use it, then?

Ok, here is why is should be legal. I'm holding you to your side of the bargain - you have to explain in clear, concise terms why pot should be illegal.

It should be legal because we live in a country based on the concept that the individual knows best what is good for them. Roughly, one should be able to go to hell in thier own way, so long as they don't take others with them. We allow people do drive motorcycles, have dangerous sex, climb rocks, drink too much, and drop out of school. Even if pot were so harmful that it was worse that alcohol or cigarettes, it should still be legal. That the drug trade is dangerous to others is a self-referential argument - if it were legal, there wouldn't be crime surrounding the trade.

So, now it is your turn - please explain in clear, concise turms why pot should be illegal. I accepted your turn around, and answered you. Please pay me the same respect.

-j

--
I forget what 8 was for.
Re:So... by dytin · 2003-01-26 22:31 · Score: 1

So all in all, you're saying because things are already that bad, a few thousand more people wouldn't hurt?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't even know where you inferred that from my comment. I'm saying that since things are bad right now, we need to make them better. Why should hundreds of thousands of families be torn apart simply because someone harmlessly smoked a joint? Why should the US government spend billions of dollars every year just so that they can stop people from a victimless activity? Drug prohibition hasn't solved anything. There are still drugs on the streets, and there are still drug dealers. The only difference is that now drugs are profitable. If the US wants to stop funding terrorists through drugs, then they need to legalize the use of drugs. Prohibiting drugs, like alcohol, creates a market for crime.

And please, don't assume that because I stand for drug legalization means that I am a druggie. I have never even experimented with any illegal drugs. Hell, I don't even drink alcohol, I like to have control over myself. I stand for drug legalization because it is the only rational way to end the market for crime that has erupted from drug's prohibition.
Re:So... by rewster · 2003-01-27 09:26 · Score: 1

Pot has been shown numerous times to be beneficial for a number of maladies not addressed by other medication. I'm not going to cite links becuase I'm sure you're aware of them. If not, Google is your pal.

Yeah, and if you listen to marijuana users, they'd probably tell you it's beneficial for anything. So how does that make it the only remedy for said maladies?

It should be legal because we live in a country based on the concept that the individual knows best what is good for them. Roughly, one should be able to go to hell in thier own way, so long as they don't take others with them.

That's a nice theory if people were actually responsible enough to follow through with it. I've already quoted drunk driving injury and fatality statistics elsewhere in the thread to the effect that a person is injured or killed roughly every minute in the US due to alcohol. We, as a society, have proven that we don't understand things like moderation or responsibility.

We allow people do drive motorcycles, have dangerous sex, climb rocks, drink too much, and drop out of school. Even if pot were so harmful that it was worse that alcohol or cigarettes, it should still be legal. That the drug trade is dangerous to others is a self-referential argument - if it were legal, there wouldn't be crime surrounding the trade.

It is as harmful, becuase it alters the way people think, and the effects have been proven to be much longer term than alcohol. And even if the drug trade did disappear, it would be replaced by a whole new set of problems associated with rampant drug abuse. Now before you just dismiss that as pessimism, look at the stat above about drunk driving, and tell me that the US, as a society, will not abuse any other drugs that become legal.
Re:So... by dytin · 2003-01-27 11:01 · Score: 1

We, as a society, have proven that we don't understand things like moderation or responsibility.

Oh yes, so we should allow the government to be our model for moderation and responsibility. The government has never, and will never, have either moderation or responsibility. This country was founded on individual responsibility, and it is that which made our country great. Now, all we can think about is how to take away resposibility and let the government tell us what to do.

By the way, your analogy of marijuana use to drunk driving is highly flawed. Drunk driving is illegal, so is marijuana use. Yet, you argue that legalizing marijuana will lead to the same current problem that we have with drunk driving. Do you see the whhat's wrong?
Re:So... by rewster · 2003-01-27 12:29 · Score: 1

Oh yes, so we should allow the government to be our model for moderation and responsibility. The government has never, and will never, have either moderation or responsibility. This country was founded on individual responsibility, and it is that which made our country great. Now, all we can think about is how to take away resposibility and let the government tell us what to do.

Hey, they can't be wrong all the time.

By the way, your analogy of marijuana use to drunk driving is highly flawed. Drunk driving is illegal, so is marijuana use. Yet, you argue that legalizing marijuana will lead to the same current problem that we have with drunk driving. Do you see the whhat's wrong?

Nope, because while driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal, purchasing and consuming it are not - which means comparitively there's a lot more out there than something that's illegal.

Multi-team competitions. by pi_rules · 2003-01-26 12:54 · Score: 1

Specifically, why don't we have any sports/games with more than two teams? Does anyone else, for that matter? What is it that prevents us from being able to invent interesting games that perceive conflict in more than an 'Us vs. Them' fashion?

Actually, there is something like this still practiced in the United States, and just about every other country in the world. It's a fairly old sport, and not very popular theese days, but it's still featured in the Summer Olympics held every four years. They call it "Athletics" but us Americans tend to refer to it as Track and Field. Referees are basically not needed anymore, as machines can handle the only real tough calls. Who started too early and who finished when.

With your multi-billion dollar football, baseball and basketball in this country and "Us vs. Them" mentality is easy to develop. With such sports there's really no clear winner. You have to do a bracket and hope that the two best teams really end up against eachother in the end to determine who really was the best. There's alot of room for "what-ifs" and such with these types of things, so it's easy to assume your team is the best even if they don't come out on top. Unless you're a Lions fan. There's no room to argue that they're really worth much of anything these days. :)

Because running performance is measurable, the day the big race really comes along (with 8 or so people in the final heat), there are favored winners, and even people without runners in the top 3 or so can get into the race, because they know the best runner will be the one that wins.

Maybe that's why it's not a major professional sport though. It's hard to root for a guy or a team when you know darned good and well that he's got no chance at it given past performances. Severe underdog upsets just don't really happen. On the other hand, I heard the Lions actually won a game or two this year, which is enough reason for us Michigander's to tune in now and again.

Re:Multi-team competitions. by schlach · 2003-01-26 13:19 · Score: 1

It's a fairly old sport, and not very popular theese days, but it's still featured in the Summer Olympics held every four years. They call it "Athletics" but us Americans tend to refer to it as Track and Field.

I would argue that this isn't a sport. This argument has been waged time and again, but I think that in a sport, the teams have to be reacting to the actions of their competitors. Football is a sport. Bowling is not. Golf is iffy. Chess loses due to the physical exertion requirement. But races, pole vault, high jump, etc would be "competitions", but not really "sport", since your actions are not in reaction to those of your competitors. If they are, it is probably to the extent that golf is - how you play a hole might be determined based on your standing in relation to your competition. You might need to gamble, or you might be able to relax, but otherwise you're always going to play the same game. That's why golf is iffy.

Hrm by Muggins+the+Mad · 2003-01-26 13:08 · Score: 1

I'm having difficulty understanding why violent sport and rampant commercialism is supposed to be interesting to geeks.

I'm a bit shocked at the number of you who are worshipping and paying to support the very jocks who beat you up at school and the same commercial interests who are trying to take away our freedoms and who fill our brains with mindwashing spam on a daily basis.

I really don't get it.

- MugginsM

Re:How the use of the term football should be deci by bolix · 2003-01-26 14:06 · Score: 2, Funny

How about we take a soccer team and pit them up against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in a game of real american football (no pads). Then we see who is standing at the end .

Still standing as in ran around a fucking big field for 90 minutes or still standing as we gave up chasing them around and just took out the goalkeeper? Qualify, man, qualify!

Re:How the use of the term football should be deci by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 14:10 · Score: 0

ditto but against the Brisbane Broncos Rugby League team, and then see what happens. ie. They never play with pads.

Hyphen Phobia by underwhelm · 2003-01-26 14:13 · Score: 1

English has parentheses--they're called hyphens.

Observe:

People look at me funny when I date thirty year old women.

People look at me funny when I date thirty-year-old women.

--

I don't need large brains to have a good time.

The Bengals? by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-01-26 15:00 · Score: 1

Don't feel so bad, neither do the Browns or the Bengals.

The Bengals? Don't you meant the Bungles?

I swear that Al Davis, Jerry Jones and the other owners have duped Mike Brown into thinking that the NFL's not about winning the Super Bowl but about winning the first pick in the annual college draft.

As the guys from CSI would say, process the evidence. It's the only theory that fits the facts.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Milk is marijuana by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-01-26 15:06 · Score: 1

Next time someone comes out with the overused "I don't know a heroin/cocaine/crack addict who didn't start off using marijuana" politely remind them that you don't know a single alcoholic who didn't start off drinking milk. It usually shuts them up.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:Milk is marijuana by Cuthalion · 2003-01-27 08:09 · Score: 1

Even if it does trick people into shutting up, it's sort of disingenuous. Since there is no statistical correlation between milk drinkers and alchoholics, there is a statistical correlation between hard drug users and .. uh, easy drug users (pot).

In a sense pot probably is a gateway drug - if you want to use drugs to alter your mental/emotional state, you're likely to start with pot, due to its easy availability and the fact that it's really safe. As a result eliminating pot (for the sake of argument, pretend this is possible) would just mean that something else will end up as "my first drug". Which, great. :/

--
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!

Re:How the use of the term football should be deci by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 15:59 · Score: 0

"Still standing" as in who is still breathing after Warren Sapp grinds them in to a red pulp.

Re:How the use of the term football should be deci by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 16:06 · Score: 0

I'll make it abundantly clear for you embiciles who think there is some sort of comparison between rugby and football (and not that crap fake football that they play everywhere except the US):

If you play tackle football without pads (particularly, without a helmet), you die. It's very simple.

Hey, FUCK OFF and read this...... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 17:38 · Score: 0

I have MS and it helps me tremendiously when I do use it, problem is I work in an industry that drug tests, in a state that will allow you to be gang raped by bubba and "mom".

So, I don't use it as often as I'd like to, 'scripts don't seem to do anything, have nasty nasty side effects, so I suffer in hell, somedays worse than others.

Damage to the human brain huh, you should see my MRI to see what damage looks like.

It IS no worse than anything else you ingest, it's probably not as bad as the fast food you eat. I am not a scientist, but I can tell you my life is much better with it than without.

Dicks like you make my life hell, so please get a clue.

Mod parent up, please by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 17:44 · Score: 0

The party line that "I don't know what teams are playing in that dumb game" is a little too cliched now, don't you think?

Also commercials! by mozumder · 2003-01-26 19:07 · Score: 1

The Movie trailer commercials were in High Definition. This is the first time I've seen commercials in HD. Wow! I love my plasma :)

Re:How the use of the term football should be deci by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-26 20:27 · Score: 0

Ouch ... "Gay Rugby" Thats a bit harsh . How about we take a soccer team and pit them up against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in a game of real american football (no pads) .

im wondering if you ever ever had wathed one match of real Rugby?

that thing about no pads, makes me smile, i wonder why lolll

Dammit! by EnglishTim · 2003-01-26 20:40 · Score: 1

... I fell asleep after the first half!

Re:How the use of the term football should be deci by red-beard's · 2003-01-27 02:11 · Score: 1

Damn skippy . Show me how many 400 lb rugby players there are . I'm sorry but one of our pro football teams would totally kill (literally) any other team that enjoys the use of the term football(though my original post related to soccer) .Those of you who think not should watch four or five games (not matches ya english weirdies) of REAL FOOTBALL and then decide what would happen if the pads came off .

Re:aka National Homoeroticism Day by zootread · 2003-01-27 05:23 · Score: 1

Hmmm... Well, at the Superbowl party *I* was at, half the people there were women, and a number of them were hot. There was a keg, and I got all sloppy drunk, and I had my arm around some random girl most of the time.

Also, those cheerleaders are damn hot.

--
Zoot!

The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-27 14:50 · Score: 0

Why on earth would anyone care if we were downloading ads? I thought the whole point of an ad was to get as many people as possible to see it. Weird.

Re:How the use of the term football should be deci by PhxBlue · 2003-01-29 01:20 · Score: 1

As funny as this is, it would have been even funnier if you'd said it around 1976. :)

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.

Why you're a tard. by alizard · 2003-01-29 20:40 · Score: 1

I'm sure that IBM would be very interested in your explanation of why they shouldn't be promoting Linux.

You need not consider that they've forgotten more about designing stable and professional enterprise-class systems than several hundred of you are capable of learning.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Slashdot Mirror

Sporting Event Featuring Commercials

336 comments