Slashdot Mirror


Sporting Event Featuring Commercials

Yes folks some sort of sporting event is occuring later today. Super something or other. And while I don't know what teams are playing, I believe that trailers for X-Men 2, and the first Matrix sequel are both supposed to air during the 2 million dollar 30 second ad spots. So this time around, you can tivo in reverse!

17 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Mind you, the game will be good! by MtViewGuy · · 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.

  2. Commercials by bananaape · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

  3. Re:"Sporting Event" by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. "Super Bowl" is trademarked by Motherfucking+Shit · · 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.
  5. Re:wtf! tv commercials in internet by handsomepete · · 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...

  6. Re:Go Bucs, Sorta... by leviramsey · · 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.

  7. Re:$2m for 30 secs? by Rend+Flesh · · 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)
  8. Speaking of TiVo by 1stflight · · 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?

  9. Re:I have all of you nerds beaten - by edmo · · 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.
  10. Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by Cuthalion · · 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!
  11. What is so great about commercials? by duckpoopy · · 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.
  12. Re:The US Govt Bought 2 Ads by spun · · 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
  13. So... by abulafia · · 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.
    1. Re:So... by dytin · · 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.
    2. Re:So... by abulafia · · 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.
  14. Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by kmellis · · 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.

  15. Re:OT - Re:$2m for 30 secs? by kmellis · · 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.