Slashdot Mirror


10 Ads The US Won't See

prostoalex writes "Some ads made by world's leading advertising agencies for well-known brands will never be seen in the United States. The Gucci G-Spot turned out to be too risque, video for Drug-Free America was deemed too disgusting, Internet's favorite Honda "Cog" commercial won't air due to the high prices for a 2-minute spot, and Japanese commercials with American actors have contracts preventing the companies to run the same ads in the US. AdAge provides a link to the pictures and video (Windows Media .ASF format, alas) of the 10 best unaired commercials." I can get the ASFs working under VLC.

536 comments

  1. I 4 1 by Zangief · · Score: 3, Funny

    don't welcome any new ads. The only good ad is the blocked/skipped ad.

    1. Re:I 4 1 by dildatron · · Score: 1

      true that my friend. Haven't seen many ads since I got my Tivo 6 months ago.

      --


      If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
    2. Re:I 4 1 by AssClown2520 · · Score: 1

      Uh... did you look at the G-spot add?

    3. Re:I 4 1 by kitzilla · · Score: 1

      I think we're all tired of being sold, but the Honda "Cog" commercial is art. If there must be ads, let them be like that.

      The .asf worked under Xine, but not too well. Pity. ;-)

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    4. Re:I 4 1 by fireman+sam · · Score: 1, Informative

      Plays great with mplayer. Also you can save them on your HD with mencoder:

      mencoder -oac copy -ovc copy -o

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    5. Re:I 4 1 by Senator_B · · Score: 1

      I agree. In my physics class this year, we watched the film that inspired that ad. The name was in German (the english translation was "the way things work", or something to that effect). The film was set in a ware house and consisteted of a half hour series of mechanical and chemical reactions. I believe the film was shot in different pieces but it was still amazing. Also, I believe i read somewhere that the cog ad took over 600 tries to get it right.

    6. Re:I 4 1 by kitzilla · · Score: 1

      Thank you! I'll load 'er up.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    7. Re:I 4 1 by roie_m · · Score: 1

      Information about the "cog" ad, including a few links to the ad itself.

    8. Re:I 4 1 by g-doo · · Score: 1
      But I do enjoy Apple ads...and Got Milk and M&M commercials.

      Still, most ads are bland.

      I'm looking for the name (or product) of the commercial where a boy sitting at a school lunch table sees the girl he likes walking in slow motion towards him. She reaches for the chair beside him and asks, "Is this seat taken?" "No," he says, and she pulls the chair to another table.

  2. To mutilate an old phrase... by OtakuHawk · · Score: 2, Funny

    No ads is good ads.

    1. Re:To mutilate an old phrase... by terraformer · · Score: 1

      No ads is good ads.

      Nope, it should be "No gnads is good gnads..."

      See here for the background...

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
  3. But... by Click+0+Nett · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was under the impression that the Honda "Cog" commercial wasn't released in the US was because the car which was being advertised was a UK-only model! Anyway, I've seen it, and it's very impressive if you can stand the low-quality file from the Honda site.

    --

    Like eagles on pogo-sticks! -- Glottis

    1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We got the same ad but a different car in Australia.

    2. Re:But... by Buran · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, we do get it here in the US (though not the wagon version -- a huge shame, as the wagon is gorgeous) -- as the Acura TSX.

    3. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cog" is a blatent rip-off of Peter Fischli and David Weiss's "the way things work". I hope they made some money from Honda. It's scary how similar the ad is to the art.

    4. Re:But... by HillBilly · · Score: 1

      We got the Ad here in Australia, But I think they split it into 2 parts.

      --
      "Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
    5. Re:But... by Afrosheen · · Score: 2, Redundant

      Just as a post-script for those interested.. the cog commercial is ALL REAL. Nothing was rigged in the whole commercial, it's just a perfectly timed, well-executed setup. The tires were all counterweighted inside at the top to get them to roll uphill. I think there is only one place they cheated..and it took them around 60 takes to get it right.

    6. Re:But... by SiliconJesus101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Peter Fischli and David Weiss's "the way things work" is a blatant rip off of anything Rube Goldberg did (http://www.rube-goldberg.com/ ). At least credit the originator of these contraptions and not some other imitator.

      --

      "The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
      -Thucydides

    7. Re:But... by NeuroKoan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it took 606 takes

      http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/hondacog.as p

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
    8. Re:But... by Film11 · · Score: 1

      I got this DVD devoted to that COG advert free after a movie at WB. It was good watching the full thing then watching the making ;). Theres also another section where it tells you all the parts as its going through the ad. Pretty good since it's free =).

      --
      ):
    9. Re:But... by switcha · · Score: 1
      "Cog" is a blatent rip-off of Peter Fischli and David Weiss's "the way things work".

      Except it's actually well done and there's not 27 shots of a stuffed garbage bag spinning down.

      While the weighted tires rolling uphill is taken right from it, Cog is more a well-done and brief homage to a really boring frickin' movie.

      --
      You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
    10. Re:But... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was under the impression that the Honda "Cog" commercial wasn't released in the US was because the car which was being advertised was a UK-only model!

      Who cares what model they showed? They're advertising their build quality.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    11. Re:But... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not true, there is ONE join where the exhaust silencer rolls end over end.

      In the UK, Honda gave it out on a free DVD to anyone who 'phoned - I got mine, but the idiots who encoded it did it letterbox rather than anamorphic.

      I blame the agency for not knowing the difference.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    12. Re:But... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      No, all the parts in that TVC really came from two stripped down Accords.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    13. Re:But... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I've seen a shorter version in the UK too, so the length will not be the reason for not showing it in the US.

    14. Re:But... by gidds · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but what you see is only 2 of them. (There's one join in the middle; but there is no other camera trickery or effects; it's all physically happening as you see it. Quite an achievement.)

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    15. Re:But... by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Nice troll, but the movie that you say it was copied from was "The Way things go" not "The Way Things Work"

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    16. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus only /.'ers could complain about a commercial's format. Perhaps it should have had extra features and a director's commentary!

    17. Re:But... by ratpack91 · · Score: 1

      but its the kind of ad that they have to show at full length the first few times and later they show the shorter version. It just wouldn't have the effect if you only ever saw the shortened version.

    18. Re:But... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I'm just livin' the dream, baby!

      Anyway, in the UK we have 16:9 TVs, and all TVCs are required to be shot in 16:9, thus letterboxing is an atrocity to these eyes.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    19. Re:But... by DuranDuran · · Score: 1

      > There's one join in the middle

      Snopes doesn't agree with you - "it's all one long take"...

      --
      "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
    20. Re:But... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that I've ever seen the longer version on TV, but I'm sure it has been shown. I have seen it several times at the cinema though, which is where long commercials tend to get more airing. Isn't this the case in US as well?

    21. Re:But... by DuranDuran · · Score: 1

      Whoops, you're right! The join occurs right after the exhaust unit rolls off the screen...

      --
      "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
    22. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snopes is not the be-all-and-end-all Voice of Authoritah on the net. Plenty of its "debunkings" are themselves false, unfortunately.

    23. Re:But... by galaxy300 · · Score: 1

      yes, but the car in the ad has the steering wheel on the right side - someone watching in the US would be sure to notice...

    24. Re:But... by rjforster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cheating part is with the elliptical exhaust component which only just rolls far enough to hit the next thing. That is only cheating in the sense that they stiched two shots together, not in the computer graphics from scratch sense. Obviously it's approx half way through the ad. Also one of the sections only _ever_ worked properly on the one take where it all worked properly, can't remember which that was.
      The ironic part is that channel4 here in the UK had done a 3h show on the 100 best adverts in the history of British TV only about two weeks or so before Cog was first shown. I'm sure Cog would have knocked the Guinness 'Waiting' ad off the top spot.

    25. Re:But... by ratpack91 · · Score: 1

      no idea, i'm from london.

    26. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at the theaters here in the usa, rarely do I see commercials for consumer products, we see trailers for upcoming films, and ads to 'go buy popcorn and shit' and recently 'please stop pirating our shit'

    27. Re:But... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Just flip the video and sell the car as a adnoH.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    28. Re:But... by Moofie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wow, and starting at only $26,000 for an Accord...gosh, what a stellar deal.

      I'll take a Mazda Six, thanks. Or an RX-8. Honda needs to stop trying to drink from the same boring trough if they want my business.

      The RSX is a great car. The S2000 is a great motor in the body of a doorstop. Honda needs to get off the dime and start revitalizing their product, or they're not going to be top of the heap for much longer. (Top of the very boring "Cars that almost make you forget you're driving!" heap)

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    29. Re:But... by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      The first time I saw it was during a Formula 1 race.

      My wife and I support Williams/BMW and McLaren/Mercedes respectively, but when that commercial aired we were both hats off to Honda.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    30. Re:But... by Alexander+Hulpke · · Score: 1

      A smallish cheat is that -- due to the size of the room -- the process is composed from two parts (cutting point is when the exhaust rolls) which are smoothed together by CGI.

    31. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sig reminds me every terrible ad I've ever seen

      Bonus points for the irony.

    32. Re:But... by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Snopes is about as reliable as Windows 1.0.

      --
      What?
    33. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snopes is about as reliable as Windows 1.0.

      Windows 1.0 was pretty reliable in my experience. It was only after it started to get bloated (around 3.0) that the instability crept in.

    34. Re:But... by Keith+Russell · · Score: 1
      Who cares what model they showed? They're advertising their build quality.

      You must have missed Nissan's "Toys" image spot. You know, the one with the 300ZX Twin Turbo convertible that was pulled from the US market the year before the ad came out?

      It's a shame, too. The ad was quite clever. A "G.I. Joe" action figure leaps into a remote control 300ZX, drives down the hall of a family's house to the sister's room, and picks up "Barbie" at her dream house, much to "Ken's" dismay (I use quotes because they didn't use the actual trademarked dolls), set to the tune of Van Halen's cover of "You Really Got Me".

      It's hard to sell a sporty image when interested buyers are told "you're a year late, but we have this lovely Altima." These were the same ad wizards that gave us Infiniti commercials that didn't show the car, and Nissan's "Dogs Love Trucks" tagline. They don't have the Nissan account anymore.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
    35. Re:But... by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

      They could simply do the same as here (Australia). Place some text at the bottom of the screen that says:

      "Overseas model shown"

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    36. Re:But... by calyphus · · Score: 1
      When ads first appeared at movies here ('bout five years ago) they did tend to be longer and better produced, but they've quit producing significantly dif. ver. of TV ads opting to just re-air the same crap. Whether going for the shorter ver. was response to negative reactions to the ads themselves or cost cutting (I believe the latter) is beyond my knowledge.

      The first time I saw an ad at a movie was in 1984 at a theatre on Guam, and it was an old Cigarette commercial (from the early 70s).

      We would probably still be ad free at movies here if film distributors didn't rig there contracts to take 100% of admission for the most profitable first weeks of showings. Theatres really only have concessions and ads for revenue for the first month or so of a release run.

      --


      The potato it is uninformed.
    37. Re:But... by danila · · Score: 1

      And they actually do recognize the fact they are not infallible.

      No single truth purveyor, no matter how reliable, should be considered an infallible font of accurate information. Folks make mistakes. Or they get duped. Or they have a bad day at the fact-checking bureau. Or some days they're just being silly. To not allow for any of this is to risk stepping into a pothole the size of Lake Superior.

      http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.htm

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    38. Re:But... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Oh, and it DOES have extra features.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    39. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They could simply do the same as here (Australia). Place some text at the bottom
      >of the screen that says:
      >"Overseas model shown"

      The Australian media always use foreign models, for obvious reasons!

    40. Re:But... by 36-bitter · · Score: 1

      I *like* a car I don't have to think about. Not all of us can live on the California coast. Here in the Midwest, the roads are straight and flat, poorly-timed stoplights are frequent, and if I could just step into a transfer booth and step out at my destination I would cheerfully reclaim the time lost in getting there.

      (That said, I do prefer a car that will kick me in the rear when I drive over the inevitable pothole. I want to be in command of my car, but I get my excitement elsewhere.)

      Honda, please don't listen to this guy. Your products do their job without fuss and that's good.

    41. Re:But... by 36-bitter · · Score: 1

      "It's a shame, too. The ad was quite clever. A "G.I. Joe" action figure leaps into a remote control 300ZX, drives down the hall of a family's house to the sister's room, and picks up "Barbie" at her dream house, much to "Ken's" dismay (I use quotes because they didn't use the actual trademarked dolls), set to the tune of Van Halen's cover of "You Really Got Me"."

      Excellent example. If I'd been thinking of buying a Nissan, after seeing that ad. I would be looking for another brand.

      Similarly, cola is cola, but Pepsi ad.s make me want to ensure that I never give PepsiCo another penny even though their fizzy brown sugar water is no worse than anybody else's. There should be a De-Advertising Hall of Shame for campaigns that turn people away from the products they hawk.

    42. Re:But... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Uh, hello! I live in Texas. There aren't boringer drives than Dallas to Waco. Except for Shreveport to Alexandria in Louisiana.

      I STILL like a car that communicates to me what's going on on the road below me.

      Fortunately, I can get 'em. Honda just doesn't bother to make 'em. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    43. Re:But... by jo42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      The real reason the Honda "Cog" commercial isn't being released in Yankeeland is that it is way too long for the attention span of an American.

    44. Re:But... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      and it's very impressive

      It's also very boring...

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    45. Re:But... by neonduckshoe · · Score: 1

      You know what Stuart. I like you. Your not like the other kids...here...in the trailer park.

    46. Re:But... by phillyclaude · · Score: 1

      i think it was the windshield wiper spinning end over end.

      --
      A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head
  4. Another ad America won't see by Gyan · · Score: 5, Funny

    NOT safe for work...

    Hand-rolled cigars (MPG)

    1. Re:Another ad America won't see by Stile+65 · · Score: 1

      One reason it wouldn't be aired, besides the restrictive FCC content laws, is that most American consumers would be able to notice that in the beginning of the video there's nothing between her breasts. :P

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    2. Re:Another ad America won't see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I swear I thought that "crackling noise" was going to be silicone. Was surprised by the cigar, as was Clinton, I'm sure.

    3. Re:Another ad America won't see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only homos would notice.

    4. Re:Another ad America won't see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't bet on that, after all, most American's haven't noticed there is nothing between W's ears yet.

    5. Re:Another ad America won't see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes there is - a monkey's head!

    6. Re:Another ad America won't see by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I am totally outraged and offended at the sight of those boobies!...*is anyone else in the room to judge me? nope!*.....nevermind my fake outrage then! I'll save the hypocrisy for later.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    7. Re:Another ad America won't see by jezreel · · Score: 1

      I'm not 100% sure but I can only guess this ad originated from a company in Hamburg/Germany as a teaser to get a contract with Independence's mother-brand. It actually worked so far :)
      Some people then decided to contribute this movie to the ever-growing list of funny ads circulating on the net.
      How do I know? My girlfriend works for that company (which has also created/contributed to the latest european IKEA-ads) and some people there told here.

      But maybe she/they lied to me

      --
      0 001 11 1
    8. Re:Another ad America won't see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. Should have read that "NOT" part.

    9. Re:Another ad America won't see by jon787 · · Score: 1
      My girlfriend works for that company

      Really, doing what?

      (okay obvious joke)
      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
  5. What about ads you can only see here? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm more interested in the ads that won't be shown in other countries because they are too "racy", "religiously offensive", etc. It's always fascinating to see how another culture rules out elements that we think are normal. The other way around is not so surprising, since we all watch the TV here all the time, and we know what shows and what doesn't on our own tv's.

    Ultimately, I must agree that the "best" commercial is no commercial at all.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can't see anything advertised on American TV offending anyone else. Save for ads for pork products getting shown in Israel or iin Islamic countries, that orgasmic shampoo in those few spots in the world more uptight that the USA, those horrid infomercials with those insultingly sterotypical "Australian" hosts, or the plethora of ads that are just insulting to the intellegence of a demented bee. Other than that, America is hopelessly anal-retentive and whitebread. Hell, we bore ourselves to death!

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    2. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Well... you're wrong

      Take anything that has to do with WWII and the nazis, look at how France and Germany react to things like that. They're way more restrictive than we are. And Germany has serious limits on the realistic depiction of violence in video games, so that will certainly affect what can be advertised there.

      We're pretty serious prudes, but we dont have the market totally cornered.

    3. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take anything that has to do with WWII and the nazis

      Yeah, because there are lots of companies that have commercials featuring Adolph Hitler.

      In Canada, you can see full frontal nudity, on public televsion, during prime-time. When was the last time you saw something like that in the states?

      And you know what? Canadian TV is tame compared to TV in parts of Europe.

    4. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Zarhan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I made my first trip to States in September. I didn't have too much time to watch TV, but I kept it on when I was in my hotel room, and I noticed a few things about the commercials compared to Finnish ones.

      - Commercials every 5-7 minutes (and they lasted 5-7 minutes, too!)
      - LOTS of car commercials. And the arguments were not about fuel economy, environment, or safety, but how fast and impressive they were.

      The most absurd commercial I saw were clips advocating coal energy. The tagline was like "Electricity from coal: Cleaner, more
      affordable and abudantly better.".

      Also, regarding the article: I remember watching some sort of short documentary by Playboy a few years back, and they also covered commercials in Europe. I was quite fascinated when the narrator and commentaries were like "How can you even remember what they are advertising, this is hot stuff" - In a Rexona ad, two women get sweaty at the gym and afterwards go take a shower and use Rexona's soap. I don't think anyone in here would have considered that erotic or arousing, but apparently to American eyes it was like hard-core porn :)

    5. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peter Kay's 'John Smith' beer adverts are fucking brilliant... but I can't see them working in the U.S.

      Anyone who's every seen the competition diving one will agree.

    6. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I can't see anything advertised on American TV offending anyone else.

      You've never seen me during an H2 (fake Hummer) commercial.

    7. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by puz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In America, you see many ads saying brand A (ours) is better than brand B (our competitor's), and I think there's nothing wrong with that. FWIW, in Japan, you aren't alowed to mention your competitor by name and trash them, because doing so is considered undignified.

      --
      Download Mazes and Puzzles from www.puz.com
    8. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'm more interested in the ads that won't be shown in other countries because they are too "racy", "religiously offensive", etc.

      Whereas I want to see the ones that aren't shown here because they're too racy, etc. Basically, I'm a perv.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by ThePlasticSurgeon · · Score: 1

      I think that is illegal in the United Kingdom as well. We always get advertisements which refer to a competitors product using phrases such as Brand X and displayed in white coloured packaging (its a good way to insult the competitors without being sued for slander).

    10. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      The times I've seen US TV, it's so utterly - really quite *amazingly* - bland and inoffensive I would be surprised if anything coming out of the States (other than obvious stuff like ads for pork products in Muslim countries, etc.) got banned by anyone else. Not that ads in other countries are particularly racy in my experience either, mind you, but nudity in ads is pretty common in many European countries I suppose.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    11. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by marc_gerges · · Score: 1

      There's not much WWII and nazi related stuff Germany is not 'allowed' to see. What they're basically after is making sure nobody denies the holocaust. Hogan's Heroes reruns on german TV, and nobody cares.

      It's not the laws and regulations that are restrictive, it's the people that are sensitive, in this case.

      As for the violence in video games... you can show a lot in late night TV. You can show very much in prime time. I was just watching Full Metal Jacket at 9 PM. And no, it wasn't cut at all.

    12. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by LeoDV · · Score: 1

      You're quite right. I noticed that the other day when I was watching MTV (it's my guilty pleasure to watch these, they're so bad they become funny) and I noticed that they blurred out things like guns and cigarettes and beeped out cusswords.

      In here (France) this isn't a problem at all, but there is a law that prohibits mentioning brand names on television (except when it's part of news), in order to undercut "product placement schemes". So in music videos, all the carefully placed products are blurred out in the French broadcasts, but if you watch the same MTV from the US, it's the cusswords, guns and smokes that are left out.

    13. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Comparative advertising is legal in the UK. But ads almost never stick to verifiable facts (as required), so we end up with "Brand X" or "Other Leading Brands" to avoid encouraging a competitor to make a complaint.

    14. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by byolinux · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's illegal in the UK anymore, as I've been adverts for Burger King where they've mentioned McDonalds.

      I personally love the idea of Coke being able to say "Pepsi, it's crap" or something in an ad.

    15. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just watching Full Metal Jacket at 9 PM. And no, it wasn't cut at all.

      Excuse me while I wander off-topic...

      I saw FMJ on DVD, and to be honest, I don't remember anything even remotely cuttable in it. Did I see an edited version? What in that movie do you think would normally be cut?

    16. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by jrumney · · Score: 1
      I personally love the idea of Coke being able to say "Pepsi, it's crap" or something in an ad.

      Nice thought, but to do that, they'd need a repeatable scientific study showing fecal matter was present in Pepsi.

    17. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Coke couldn't say 'Pepsi, it's crap' because that's an assertion that can be challenged (in court if necessary).

      They could probably get away with '9 out of 10 people who we surveyed said that they preferred coke' though.

    18. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't illegal anymore in Britain or the Republic of Ireland. But I remember when it was made legal, and people tried it in Ireland - basically, such ads do NOT work on Irish people, they find them extremely distasteful and often ended up avoiding the car that the advert was for.

    19. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "Friends of Canadian Broadcasting" has a current TV ad campaign promoting home-grown drama television production. The spots are pretty funny and feed off the cliched ignorant-aboot-Canada American stereotype (in all four, a US director is in the great white north working on set on TV productions about Canada).

      Sir John A. Macdonald (QuickTime 4.4MB):

      Richard the Rocket(QuickTime 4.2MB):

      Snow Gangsta (QuickTime 4.2MB):

      Bobby Orr (QuickTime 2.8MB):

    20. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by treke · · Score: 1

      The first half of the movie.It would be tough to dub over every word R. Lee Ermey says.

    21. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got an email from an American I met in Japan about his travels to Canada. Funniest shit I ever read. Americans actually think our beer sucks, that we don't really say eh, that we say aboot, and worst of all that it snows here in the summer. Anyway the ignorant American cliche is not a clichet at all it's a fact. Most Americans don't even know where Canada is, of course most Americans couldn't point out their own country on a map either.

    22. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by TwistedSquare · · Score: 1
      LOTS of car commercials. And the arguments were not about fuel economy, environment, or safety, but how fast and impressive they were.

      In the UK, car adverts are banned from using their speed (even indirectly, in the case of one ad) as a selling-point for a car, which seems fairly sensible to me :) Instead advertising either focuses on safety, the high-tech gismos, or the image of the car.

    23. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, right. I forget that the US likes to chop out particular words. It's kind of hard to reconcile with that 'freedom of speech' thing they keep claiming they really have.

      But thinking back on, hmm, just about EVERY movie I've seen this year, they must be absolutely chopped to shreds when you watch them on TV :(

      Oh well, I guess it gives them more time to add commercials. Hey, you could probably watch Pulp Fiction in about 20 minutes!

    24. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, we in the US are stricken with the interesting idea that sex (life-creating act) is bad while violence (life-destroying act) is acceptable on the screen. Also interesting is the notion that an increasingly large portion of the English vocabulary is unacceptable.

      Not that I'm particularly hot on the idea of censorship, but I could at least understand the mentality behind limiting violence more than sexuality instead of the polar opposite we find outselves with.

    25. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Fizzog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually nowdays in the US marketers are more into psychology than direct comparison. They phrase their ads so people read something into their statements which they aren't actually saying.

      They make statements like:

      'No other xxx is more effective'
      'No other xxx is stronger'
      'No other xxx is better at...'
      'Even xxx isn't better than...'

      But if you actually think about what they are saying with those statements, they are not saying that their own product is better than any other product.

      They are actually saying that they are *all* just as effective/strong/whatever as each other.

      People just read into statements phrased that way that they are saying their product is better than the others.

      Listen to how they compare stuff these days in ads and you will see what I mean, and probably be astonished at how many ads do this.

    26. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh boy.

      Lets all start USAian Bashing again! I haven't heard it all before and its not like they didn't protect our asses during the cold war... Yeah!!.

      Get on teh spoke buddy.

    27. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      I'm more interested in the ads that won't be shown in other countries because they are too "racy", "religiously offensive", etc. It's always fascinating to see how another culture rules out elements that we think are normal. The other way around is not so surprising, since we all watch the TV here all the time, and we know what shows and what doesn't on our own tv's.

      More fun to smell anothers stink than your own?

      Try spending more time looking at what other cultures don't consider offensive, yet are taboo in your own country...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    28. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Coke couldn't say 'Pepsi, it's crap' because that's an assertion that can be challenged (in court if necessary)

      If I ever get invited for jury duty, I'd go with Coke on that one.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    29. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where are you that you think you have more freedom of speech than the US?

    30. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by DaemonGem · · Score: 1

      I don't think this will happen, mainly because america is much more up-tight about religious or racy things (eg. Political Correctness) than the rest of the world. For example, in Germany you'll see advertisements touting topless women, which is something I guarantee you won't see in the US. Furthermore, I don't think a company would make an ad that would at all be seen as religiously or racially offensive, because they would think that that might interfere in their profits. Think about ads you see in magazines. There's usually a 50% female 50% male ratio, with as many different ethnicities and colors represented as possible.

      However, I do agree with you that the best advertisement is a non-existent one, but I doubt that will ever come to pass.

      -Dae

      --
      "Alle reden vom wetter. Wir nicht." - SDS Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund.
      j00 4r3 3n73r1ng l337 w0r1d.
    31. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by treke · · Score: 1

      My favorite example of the tv censorship Blazing Saddles where they dub over "shit", but leave in "nigger." It seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to offend the most people.

    32. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Marlor · · Score: 1

      However, I do agree with you that the best advertisement is a non-existent one, but I doubt that will ever come to pass.

      And that's why I rarely watch commercial TV.

      I live in Australia, so I primarily watch the ABC (similar to Britain's BBC). Advertising is banned by the ABC charter.

    33. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      sex brings idiots into the world; violences sends them out

    34. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe I made any claim of having more freedom of speech than the US. I did make the point that many Usonians are always shoving their unequivocal freedom of speech in everyone's face, when they're not allowed to say seven special words on TV.

      Meanwhile, many other countries save their censorship for things that can truly offend a large number of people.

    35. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by jandrese · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Man, where was this? I was in Canada when I was 16 and I scoured the tube looking for any nudity. The only stuff I ever found was some late night (scrambled) movies. From what I could tell, they were even more conservative than the US. Maybe it was the region I was in (Calgary--Canada's version of Houston, TX) or something. The only really notable thing was that some really odd stuff got on TV just because it was made in Canada since the Canadian equivelent of the FCC requires some percentage of the TV air time to be filled with Canadian stuff (to avoid becoming Americans I guess).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    36. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Ah, my kingdom for mod points!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    37. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate the stereotype that because there isn't alot of nudity on mainstream television outlets that all americans are bible thumping right wing nuts who would rather die than see nudity on TV

    38. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh- so your still pissed about that southpark song?

    39. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      America is the most religous country in the industrialized world based on the number of churches versus population and the number of people that attend them. I am sure that MOST people in the US would probably be ok with racier TV (see cable and movies) but when someone does something that is even a little over the top the religous right comes out and mails a gazillion letters.

      Keep in mind that many of the people that originally came to this country did it to escape religious persecution. So in other words many of the worlds religious nuts came to this country and are now sending letters in to fox because they said the word "ass" one too many times. Well things are changing alittle. I think it is actually ok to say "ass" on tv and in fact fox is thinking of changing their slogan so it has the word "ass" in it. So basically the US is 20-30 years (at least) behind the rest of the world when it comes to putting sex on TV.

      What I don't understand is that I believe that we are 10-20 years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to putting violence on TV and movies.

      enter rant mode:

      I mean WTF? It is ok to have a movie where millions of people have their cuts spewed out of them in violent death scenes but god forbid if anyone could use the media to figure out where babies come from. Many years ago I saw in the video store that they made a PG version of the movie titanic. What made it PG? Did thousands of people not get sent to their horrifying death? No mostly they just took out the sex scenes. I mean no one should know that Kate Winslet is acutally anatomically correct. And another thing, why the hell do they put brail instruction on drive through ATMs? ... oops went to far better stop now ...

      rant mode off

    40. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Practically any country in Western Europe, Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand for starters. And they are just the ones I have visited.

      You have been force fed such a diatribe of propaganda for so long that you actually believe it! Just because the government, media and marketers tell you that you have such incredible freedoms does not make it true. Every law that gets enacted in this country reduces your freedom.

      Why don't you pay attention to what actually goes on in the world and LEARN SOMETHING rather than relying on what corporate America wants you to know and think in order to make you a good little corporate slave.

      You obviously drank the coolaid...

    41. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1

      Regarding Hogan's Heroes - I was told they had to dub over all the "Heil Hitler" lines in the show...

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    42. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Simeon2000 · · Score: 1

      Your blanket statement is only true if it actually does apply to all those you throw it over.

      I'm an American and I can sing the freaking Canadian national anthem. From memory. Eh? Your beer has a higher alcohol content. But I don't drink so I won't comment. Some of my Vancouverite friends do indeed ponounce it, "aboot." Your weather, except in the northern extremities, is remarkably similar to that in the northern United States. I didn't learn this in school, but I have acquired the knowlege somehow.

      Stereotypes are funny because they apply in a great number of situations. But to delare $stereotype == true is an infinitive and will likely never be corerct.

      Kinda like saying all Canadians bash their neighbors to the south because they have the short man syndrome. See, it's just not always going to be true.

      --
      warn "Just Another Perl User" if $anyone_cares;
    43. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "LOTS of car commercials"

      Perhaps because this is what people care about ...

      " but apparently to American eyes it was like hard-core porn :)"

      Most of the world hardest porn is created in US- what's your point ?

      "The tagline was like "Electricity from coal: Cleaner, more
      affordable and abudantly better."."

      How do you it isn't ?

    44. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a fucking free country !

      You are free to start your own TV and disregard all these "bazillions of letters". It is not like the government is preventing you from showing some racy stuff, is it?

      You don't have here any 'ministry of culture" making sure that x% of your content is this and Y% is that like they have in some of the European countries.

    45. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want nudity why don't you just rent a movie that was designed with that very single purpose ?
      There are plenty of these available in just about every rental place in US.

    46. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by erc · · Score: 1

      For example, in Germany you'll see advertisements touting topless women, which is something I guarantee you won't see in the US.

      Yeah, and they also make kaviar klub movies in Germany that show guys licking girls asses clean, and that's something else you'll never see in the US. So, which is better, hmm?

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    47. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      And where are you that you think you have more freedom of speech than the US?

      How about *any* country that has allowed the late, great Bill Hicks to appear on network TV?

    48. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by tindur · · Score: 1
      " but apparently to American eyes it was like hard-core porn :)" Most of the world hardest porn is created in US- what's your point ?
      I also saw this Playboy documentary. They presented this the commercial as hot porn that is shown abroad as a commerical. Then they showed an ordinary body care commercial that you had seen a hundred times during any time of the day on any normal TV here.
    49. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Net_Wakker · · Score: 1
      And where are you that you think you have more freedom of speech than the US?
      In Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Trinidad and Tobago, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Lithuania, New Zealand, Slovenia, Hungary, Jamaica, South Africa, Costa Rica, Uruguay, France, United Kingdom, Portugal, Benin, Timor-Leste and Greece.
      See the second world press freedom ranking.
    50. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I remember watching some sort of short documentary by Playboy a few years back, "

      Yeah, show me all facts!

    51. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by jerde · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to mention the fact that Americans have decided that the penis is the most horrible awful thing that must be shunned at all costs. NEVER allow one on tv.

      Naked ladies are okay though.

      ?

      - Peter

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
    52. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Keep in mind that many of the people that originally came to this country did it to escape religious persecution. So in other words many of the worlds religious nuts came to this country and are now sending letters in to fox because they said the word "ass" one too many times.

      It's a little like white Australians trying to keep immigrants out.

      The USA is now a 'stale' country. Lack of immigrants, misguided belief that the state can protect them from terrorism, and a very strong isolationism that is helped by the geographic position. Fear is a big help for people to join up with churches.

    53. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FREEEEDOOOOOM!

    54. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by szmccauley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You want annoying? How about those ridiculous ads for prescription drugs, whose purpose is unknown at the time of the viewing. "Ask your doctor about Xanthanaxamum". And the idiot sitting in his pickup truck (can't see the gun rack) nods his head and thinks, "yeah, I gotta ask ole doc Carson about Xanthanaxamum". What the fuck is Xanthanaxamum!! Idiocy.

    55. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight...he states that it feeds off the ignorant, cliched stereotype...and you take this as meaning that he's anti-American?

      And no...it isn't aboot. It does sound like that to American ears however. The reason is (some linguistic tidbit I picked up somewhere) is that we have retained a sound from English that is no longer used in American English...so it sounds that way to you, because you have no equivalent phoneme.

      Wish I could remember where I saw that explanation tho...

    56. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by 36-bitter · · Score: 1

      "They phrase their ads so people read something into their statements which they aren't actually saying."

      Right-o, and my kids and I have lots of fun working out what the ad.s really say and don't say, so we can ridicule them. I've trained my oldest boy well, if I do say so myself.

      Free clue for advertisers: more manipulation == more chance that I will make a note never to buy any of your products. (File that alongside "change your name often enough and I'll give up trying to track down your product and just buy whatever's cheap this week.")

    57. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by 36-bitter · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought I was afflicted with the idea that invading someone's privacy at such an intimate moment is shockingly bad manners and I wouldn't want to do that. C'mon, if you're selling toothpaste then tell me about the toothpaste.

      Sadly we're also afflicted with a small group of very loud people who profess to read their Bibles five times a day but apparently never read the bit about, "how can you see the mote in your brother's eye when you have a beam in your own eye?" Or the verse that says, "if they won't listen, shake the dust from your shoes and move on."

    58. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by jacoby · · Score: 2, Informative

      The best commercial is one that comes off as news to you. Not "presents itself as news", but comes off as news.

      I was told this by a journalism prof, thought it was bullshit, then picked up a copy of Maximum Rock'n'Roll, saw that there was a new Fugazi album coming out (because Dischord put in an ad to tell me) and I was enlightened.

    59. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

      "It's always fascinating to see how another culture rules out elements that we think are normal"

      The you're going to get a kick out of this: My wife and I were recently in China and though I don't recall much about commercials I did notice that the HBO and Cinemax (actually, "HBO Asia" and "Cinemax Asia") channels there (two of the five English-language channels out of 76 total in our hotel. The rest were CNN, The Weather Channel, and CBS) were somewhat "sanitized"; almost NO nudity (and absolutely no "frontal" nudity -- I don't even *have* cable here in the states, but from what I've seen of Cinemax I know that wasn't a coincidence!) and particularly "violent" scenes were toned-down with the blood and gore cut somewhat (for example, in the latest "Jason" slashfest there's a scene where Jason freezes a woman's face in liquid nitrogen and then smashes her newly-brittle mug against a counter -- I haven't seen the "uncut" version but I'm sure the FX guys made sure the visual matched the "breaking glass" sound though the Asia version was just a "from behind" view with the actual impact of face into counter happening outside the frame.) Also, all the "M-Fer"'s were deleted, but the "G-D"'s were intact (I couldn't help but think how "Scarface" or "Pulp Fiction" would have just been about 30 minutes long over there...) Very curious indeed what they find offensive (and what they don't...)

      Anyway, I'm no fan of the nudity, profanity, or the blood-and-gore stuff but, like you, I'm intrigued by the cultural "taboo gap" that international broadcasting or the exportation of entertainment from one country to another often exposes. BTW, I only had a couple of days to carry out my observations while in Beijing; after we got down to Guangzhou and met our new daughter there wasn't much time for TV (or, oddly enough, much interest in it...go figure.)

      --


      This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
    60. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by glwtta · · Score: 1
      Naked ladies are okay though.

      On TV? Where?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    61. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by jo42 · · Score: 1


      In the Toronto area, Rogers broadcasts real genuine porn on the movie channels...

    62. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      There may be some rules over here that you probably don't have. Such as when advertizing a product you can't put down another product (say, a cola add saying "Pepsi tastes bad, Cola is better" would be illegal)

      or kids toys must not be depicted doing something they can't, ie, you can't have an airplane flying on its own unless it can do that in reality, if it can't you have to be able to see a hand holding it.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    63. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by Wanker · · Score: 1
      This link clears up why some ads don't say what the drug does:

      http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/198_ads.html

      So not only is it idiocy, it's legislated idiocy. ;-)

      To quote:

      by stating the drug's name but not what it was used for, the ads were exempt from a Food and Drug Administration regulation that generally requires prescription drug advertisements to disclose the risks of the medication as well as its benefits. From the drug companies' perspective, it was impractical to include detailed risk information in a 30- or 60-second TV spot.


      The actual regulations are here In particular, scroll down a bit to see 202.1(e)
    64. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by CentrX · · Score: 1

      I don't know what market you were in, but most shows have commercials no less than 10 minutes apart, and last for 3-5 minutes. As for the car commercials, that's only due to the shows you happen to be watching. With certain shows, you will never see a car commercial, as it doesn't fit the demographic. Of course, the same is true about a lot of other things.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
    65. Re:What about ads you can only see here? by DaemonGem · · Score: 1

      True, but it must be remembered that what most of us see as an abuse of freedom is not a reason against the existence of freedom. Just because there are disgusting porn movies in Germany doesn't mean that such a level of freedom is bad. Furthermore, I'm sure you'd find there are some pretty disgusting movies made in the US as well.

      -Dae

      --
      "Alle reden vom wetter. Wir nicht." - SDS Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund.
      j00 4r3 3n73r1ng l337 w0r1d.
  6. kazaa by Pompatus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Do a search on kazaa for banned commercials. It's too bad they are banned from tv because most are hilarious.

    --

    ----
    Squirrel ... It's not just for breakfast anymore
    1. Re:kazaa by LostCluster · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as an ad that's truely banned from TV.

      If the FCC doesn't like it, put it on cable where there's no government censorship, or air it from 10pm to 6am local time which is declared the "safe harbor" where anything goes because kids aren't likely to be watching.

      If the major networks won't take it, air it on the minor networks. Sure, the major media companies control a lot of cable networks, but there's still a few standalone cable networks and until you've asked them all, you can't say there's nobody who will take your ad.

      And, besides, there's always being talked about on /. That's good for something at least...

    2. Re:kazaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's one commerical you can download that features some really attractive asian girl slurping away at something. her head is bobbing like crazy and the noises are really wet. all you can see is her face from the nose up. then the camera pulls back and you see that she's actually enjoying a bowl of ramen noodle soup instead of giving some lucky stiff the blowjob of a lifetime. it's worth downloading, for sure, but there's no way in hell this would ever get shown on american tv. no fucking way.

    3. Re:kazaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's government (FCC) censorship on cable. Pay channels are largely exempt, so most Americans are left out.

      If no major network will take an end-the-war-on-drugs ad at any price (fact), I say we don't as much free speech as I think a democracy needs. I understand that many don't agree.

    4. Re:kazaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's government (FCC) censorship on cable.
      No there isn't. All censorship on cable is voluntary.
    5. Re:kazaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      air it from 10pm to 6am local time which is declared the "safe harbor" where anything goes because kids aren't likely to be watching.
      "Safe harbor" programming is still subject to FCC content regulations, they're just not as strict.
    6. Re:kazaa by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      the fact that you would even recommond the filth that is Kazaa makes me sick

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    7. Re:kazaa by Peyna · · Score: 1

      If the FCC censors non-paycable, how on earth did Comedy Central get away with showing the entire South Park movie uncensored, as well as the South Park episode where they say "fuck" a few hundred times?

      --
      What?
    8. Re:kazaa by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Where is this at? URL? Torrent?

      Myself, I haven't seen that much (being in the US) that's very funny.

    9. Re:kazaa by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it 'shit'? And the episode revolved around their being able to say it uncensored? And didn't they keep score?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    10. Re:kazaa by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 1

      Shit, not fuck, and it's 143 times IIRC. After 10 pm.......

    11. Re:kazaa by Abm0raz · · Score: 1

      Yes, they showed the shit episode, but they did show the movie, "Southpark: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" as well. They showed it complete this past fall 4 days in a row from midnight to 2am each night without comercials or censor. They even included the dildo scene between Saddam and Satan (as would be implied by showing it uncensored and complete).

      -Ab

      --
      Nothing fails quite like prayer.
    12. Re:kazaa by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 1

      Without commercials? Really?

      *goes to check his TiVo*

      There are comercials on the showing my TiVo recorded at 1 am on november 30th....

      But, yeah, I was impressed that they showed it....

  7. Doge Aries K Class by dildatron · · Score: 3, Funny

    Even though it's not a real commercial (used to be on AdCritic back when it was good), I loved the Dodge Aries K-Class car commercial. It was a hilarious spoof of car commercials...

    98 horsepower... standard.

    map light... standard.

    etc.

    --


    If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
    1. Re:Doge Aries K Class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      AM Radio... standard.

      Ah man, I miss that old car. It scarred me for life driving that thing to commute to college 25 miles each way every day. It had a tendency to stall if you didn't shift into neutral at stop lights and keep the engine revved up. What an enormous piece of shit.

    2. Re:Doge Aries K Class by Buran · · Score: 1

      0 to 60?

      No.

    3. Re:Doge Aries K Class by dildatron · · Score: 1

      Cool, I found a link to it once again. Check it out here if you haven't seen it before.

      --


      If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
    4. Re:Doge Aries K Class by dildatron · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, poop. Here is a link that doesn't require an evil subscription.

      --


      If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
    5. Re:Doge Aries K Class by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      That clips sucks - long pauses with voice but no video.

      Try this though - requires QuickTime unfortunately but it does seem to be the full deal.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  8. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Dear Slashdot,
    I find the above very offensive. Please terminate their account asap and block them for ever posting again. Thanks!

  9. The ones that got away... by tenchima · · Score: 1

    ... But what about the Nibble Nobby's Nuts ads in Australia?

    --
    If at first you don't succeed, so much for skydiving.
    1. Re:The ones that got away... by dejinshathe · · Score: 1

      I remember those ads. I can't help but wonder whether they tried several different formats and styles of delivery for that (in)famous, brightly delivered, line before they settled on the old, 20's & 30's posters coming to life - which kind of took the edge off by suggesting that, "way back then", such a phrase wasn't as suggestive.

      If that's what they were trying though, it didn't work. I was still at school when they aired, and if there was one line guaranteed to bring down the house (treehouse, that is) it was, "I know! Why don't we nibble nobby's nuts?"

      --


      "It is the prerogative of fools (or noobs) to utter truths that no one else will speak."
    2. Re:The ones that got away... by tenchima · · Score: 1


      I think it was less suggestive because back in the 20's and 30's there was no-one called Nobby, they were all called Bruce.
      It was only in the 40's that the letter B was discovered after a desperate search when it was realised that you couldn't call guys Sheila....

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, so much for skydiving.
  10. There are some things money can't buy... by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Production costs: $1.2 million
    2 minutes of network airtime: $2 million
    Mention on Slashdot: Priceless.

    1. Re:There are some things money can't buy... by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Production costs: $1.2 million
      2 minutes of network airtime: $2 million
      Mention on Slashdot: Priceless."


      This is not off-topic.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:There are some things money can't buy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU SUCK. GET OFF THE STAGE.

    3. Re:There are some things money can't buy... by LostCluster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I thought the Troll mod was stranger myself...

    4. Re:There are some things money can't buy... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mention on Slashdot: Priceless.
      Stop deluding yourself and others ;)

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    5. Re:There are some things money can't buy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is hard to find Nanogater's sig offensive when comments like this are modded off-topic.

    6. Re:There are some things money can't buy... by mnewton32 · · Score: 1

      Production costs: $1.2 million
      2 minutes of network airtime: $2 million
      Mention on Slashdot: Priceless.


      I'm sure this won't get read, since I'm posting 24 hours after the parent, but I just had to post a correction:

      Production costs: $1.2 million
      2 minutes of network airtime: $2 million
      Mention on Slashdot: free
      Replacing the burned out shell of what was once your web server: $4000
      Telling your friends you got slashdotted: priceless

    7. Re:There are some things money can't buy... by hadek · · Score: 1

      I read it.

  11. The solution to TV advertising by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sick of seeing the same old ads on TV? Seems like every hockey game I see involves 5 minutes of ads, 3 minutes of which are repeats! Well I've got the solution!

    All advertising must be done live. No pre-taped commercials, ever. Even if it's the same script read by the same person there will be some difference. Now if a company spends a mil or two on a commercial it'll really mean something.

    Of course it'll never happen, but if it did I'd be alot happier with advertising.

    Jonah Hex

    1. Re:The solution to TV advertising by bryanthompson · · Score: 1

      At the radio station I work at, we started using Live Copy for some commercials. What happens is when the commercial comes up, there's a little block of text, which you can use to make up an ad-lib commercial. We don't use it on most spots, but there are a few.

      Also, During the morning show, businesses pay to have a live commercial, where someone from the advertiser, which is usually a local store, calls and talks to the announcer. A lot of the time it doesn't even sound like a commercial.

    2. Re:The solution to TV advertising by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't know, that's how it was during the 40's and 50's. And back then, every show had a sponsor.

      (No, I wasn't alive back then.)

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
    3. Re:The solution to TV advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a better solution: don't watch hockey.

    4. Re:The solution to TV advertising by JM+Apocalypse · · Score: 1

      I dunno ... I think you were. Then what explains why you have you pants pulled up so high?

      --

      - - - - - - -
      Orppf urp mf y.ppcxn. yflcbi otcnnov C am yflcbi yr n.apb Ekrpatv (Dvorak -> Qwerty)
    5. Re:The solution to TV advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I was in Las Vegas what looked like live car dealer commercials were showing. I assume they were live because the salesman gradually fell behind trying to describe the cars driving past, hilarious when he had to start skipping some.

      Even stranger it was better than any of the real programmes! Though not as strange as watching a UK drama, then watching with mounting disbelief the 10 minute explanation of what US viewers had just watched! It seemed such a straightforward plot to me...

    6. Re:The solution to TV advertising by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1

      If you were "my size", you'd need to pull your pants up that high too, mister. Gotta keep decent, after all. :-D

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
  12. Call it a hunch... by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Something tells me the second ad, "Gucci's G Spot," will be the one primarily responsible for the site's eventual Slashdotting.

    1. Re:Call it a hunch... by chipster · · Score: 1

      What are you nuts?!?! This is Slashdot!

    2. Re:Call it a hunch... by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      If only because people will be curious as to what a G Spot is.

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    3. Re:Call it a hunch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be just me but I find it pretty boring, tasteless and cliche.
      If they're wanna show porn, why not go all the way there?

    4. Re:Call it a hunch... by hdparm · · Score: 2, Funny

      New Apple's processor?

    5. Re:Call it a hunch... by bakes · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I looked, but I couldn't find it.

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    6. Re:Call it a hunch... by Abjifyicious · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, there actually was a company a while back that tried to sell a G4 upgrade card called the G-Spot. I don't remember any details though, except that it failed miserably.

    7. Re:Call it a hunch... by rfsayre · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure this ad ran in Artforum or something. I saw it back when it came out.

    8. Re:Call it a hunch... by lemody · · Score: 1

      everyone knows what g-spot is!
      it's 'codec information appliance'

      http://www.headbands.com/gspot/

      --


      class he-man extends man!
  13. I bet we'll never see an ad for this... by Sevn · · Score: 3, Funny

    *useful product.

    *credit goes to some person on fark a while ago.

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
    1. Re:I bet we'll never see an ad for this... by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

      Well never see ads like this or this.
      I made them myself in Photoshop!

    2. Re:I bet we'll never see an ad for this... by ejito · · Score: 1

      The McDonald's Hot Apple (American) Pie thing has been done already. In fact they actually placed their ad in McDonald's drive-thru menus.

      Hot Apple Pie

    3. Re:I bet we'll never see an ad for this... by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's where I got the inspiration for mine, but mine is done differently. Mine implies a more direct endorsement.

    4. Re:I bet we'll never see an ad for this... by Nai7 · · Score: 1

      So, why is there nutritional information on the "mountain douche"?

  14. Ad Blocker by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I tried to go to the site but my ad blocker filtered teh it. I thought /. was against ads, I guess only until they are censored from us, then we insist on seeing them.

    1. Re:Ad Blocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, gaylord. No one cares about your stupid ad-blocker, or your distaste for ad commentary.

  15. What about TiVo? by phillymjs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why not break up a block of late-night "paid programming," and broadcast some of the more enticing ads within that time so TiVo can pick them up separately.

    Stick a line on the Now Showing screen labelled "Check out the ads THEY don't want you to see!" or something like that.

    If the ads are compelling enough to straddle the advertisement/entertainment line, people will watch. I watched those BMW commercials that ran in the same slot a while back-- didn't make me run out and buy one, but they were entertaining.

    ~Philly

    1. Re:What about TiVo? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Your Tivo already does that, it records a lite night infomercial on the Discovery Channel and they call it Showcases.

    2. Re:What about TiVo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When FOX runs out of COPS, WORLD'S DEADLIEST SURGERIES and the like (usually August), they air a WORLD'S FUNNIEST ADS type program. I occasionally bump into it and watch until I remember that I am watching ads in between ads. Then I feel like a sucker and do something slightly less unproductive.

    3. Re:What about TiVo? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Its funny. There is a "World's Naughtiest Outtakes" show on TV. It is so heavily censored that a lot of the segments don't even make any sense, because half the words are bleeped out!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  16. How do you download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like downloading it then looking at it first. I can't seem to right click on it to download though, does anyone know what's wrong?

    Thanks

    1. Re:How do you download? by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      I believe that the nut holding your keyboard is malfunctioning.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  17. Also not to be seen by ackthpt · · Score: 0
    Also not to be seen...

    The advertisement which violates the Windows Media EULA by pointing out bugs, flaws and general lack of quality control in Microsoft products.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Also not to be seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, karma whore.

  18. So? by WildBeast · · Score: 1

    Just why exactly would I want to watch even more ads?

    1. Re:So? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If it is entertaining, does it matter that they are ads?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. This is wrong by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some ads made by world's leading advertising agencies for well-known brands will never be seen in the United States.

    So basically, the good ads aren't broadcast, and I have to Tivo-triple-fast-forward all the ones I *do* get on TV because they're such a tripe.

    Here's a suggestion for TV networks : instead of trying to sue DVR manufacturers because it lets customers skip your crap, why don't you replace the crap with good ads (and no, I'm not talking about Budweiser or Taco Bell ads)? Of course, you may have to leave good taste behind once in a while, but I bet good ads would being better brand recognition with less airtime, meaning less ads for viewers overall and less DVR zapping.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that a 'good' as is only good the first several hundred times you see it and then it starts to get a little old/stale.

    2. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you meant to say "Here's a suggestion for TV networks : instead of trying to sue DVR manufacturers because it lets customers skip your crap, why don't you replace the crap with good ads (and yes, I'm talking about naked bitches rolling cigars between thier boobs... boobs... booooooobs...)

    3. Re:This is wrong by valkraider · · Score: 1

      "I would have looked out for the water main..."

    4. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then live porn is the solution. have two chicks screwing each other with Craftsman Powerdrills with a "screw-do" attachment, while wearing some verchase sunglasses, on top of a new Infinity(r).

      Guaranteed to get the 14-65 male market watching and keep them watching for 30 seconds, and for them to never turn the channel waiting for the return of said lesbians. Not to mention men get paid more than woman, and spend more than woman (partially because of the prior statement of fact)

      You knuckleheads,
      -FuckYourYankeeBlueJeans

    5. Re:This is wrong by Cylix · · Score: 1

      I always stop and watch the new IBM commercials.

      So yeah, if I see one, I rewind a bit and play it back. Then i tell my friends... this is hilarious... then we go back to skipping commercials.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    6. Re:This is wrong by switcha · · Score: 1
      Here's a suggestion for TV networks...

      Aside from the fact that the networks don't make the ads (apart from their promos), the only way shitty advertising will go away is when shitty advertising stops getting people to buy stuff. Why shoot for the moon, when barely getting off the ground seems to work pretty damn good?

      --
      You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
    7. Re:This is wrong by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 1

      Here's a suggestion for TV networks : instead of trying to sue DVR manufacturers because it lets customers skip your crap, why don't you replace the crap with good ads.

      Wait a cotton pick'n minute...

      Didn't someone suggest this with the MUSIC industry?? Didn't someone suggest this with the MOVIE industry??

      I'm not sure whether to scream because every damn industry is pulling the same old stunt ("We're crap? No, sue someone for trying to bypass/steal our lovely product") or to be afraid because it'll never change?

      --
      When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
    8. Re:This is wrong by chia_monkey · · Score: 1

      why don't you replace the crap with good ads (and no, I'm not talking about Budweiser or Taco Bell ads)?

      That's right. Those Bud commercials are sooooo mid '90s. It's all about the Coors commercials. And the TWEEEEEEIIIIIINNNNS. *drooling*

      Of course, it is a shame US consumers don't get to see the good stuff. You just gotta love seeing all the good commercials in other countries and go "man...they get to see skin, funky music, and provocitive stuff on prime time. I have to wear a trench coat and sunglasses and drive to the shady part of town..."

      --

      "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    9. Re:This is wrong by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      I have to Tivo-triple-fast-forward all the ones I *do* get on TV because they're such a tripe.

      <SARCASM>
      You, sir, are obviously an Evil Content Pirate(tm). Please remain where you are, and the Copyright Police will be there to arrest you soon.
      </SARCASM>

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    10. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a cool dance music video here in europe that is along those lines. Lots of women running powertools. It's not a REAL ad for powertools, but it's done like one - you see "interlocking cable grip" and crap like that in a feature list down the side while some very hot women work the tools. :-)

      There's also a dance music video here for a song called "plug me in" that is two women playing with various vibrators on a bed.

      Americans, though, are UNBELIEVABLY uptight about sex, and obsessed with it because of that, I guess....

    11. Re:This is wrong by Saeger · · Score: 1
      "Everything's encrypted you damn fascists! And you can't torture my passphrase out of me - I've got human rights that trump your perpetual-profit rights!"

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    12. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Americans,though, are UNBELIEVABLY uptight about sex, and obsessed with it because of that, I guess...."

      But it's not just Americans... And when you think about it, it's not really the Americans themselves who are uptight, at least not everybody, everywhere.

      The media establishment is what's really uptight. Outside the US it must seem like the media censorship is really a reflection of the society, but all it is, is corporate censorship.

      There are a whole lot of people in the US who aren't nearly as prudish as the media would have you believe.

      More importantly, I've seen the same phenomenon in other countries, including much of Europe.

    13. Re:This is wrong by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Screw "good ads" which loosely translates to an amusing joke, pretty people/landscapes, and appeals to emotion.

      Show me some facts. Tell me why your product is better than your competitors. Show me a good price.

      I'm not holding my breath, a fact-based advertising model would kill so many popular brands and empower consumers it wouldn't even be funny.

    14. Re:This is wrong by edo-01 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Here's a suggestion for TV networks : instead of trying to sue DVR manufacturers because it lets customers skip your crap, why don't you replace the crap with good ads (and no, I'm not talking about Budweiser or Taco Bell ads)? Of course, you may have to leave good taste behind once in a while, but I bet good ads would being better brand recognition with less airtime, meaning less ads for viewers overall and less DVR zapping.

      This and other posts I see all the time on Slashdot hit that most hit of nails sqaure on the head. The market (that'd be us) wants to be able to watch our shows when it suits us and skip the crappy commercials so we buy PVRs. The Industry responds by suing PVR manufacturers, putting the commercials IN the shows themselves and generally jamming it's fingers in it's ears and humming really loud. And yet these same people, so terrified of losing advertising viewers, when confronted with the evidence that there are many commercials that not only do consumers want to see, they actually want to download them and pass them around to each other - (ie, the same people who skip over crappy ads like the good ads so much they will happily spend their own time and resources to distibute them) - the industry responds by trying to shut down the websites that make this possible (remember what they did to the first incarnation of adcritic) and if they ever do decide to make them available online they do so in some crappy streaming format. It must be just me, but if I'd spent a million dollars to produce a spot so funny/compelling/whatever that ordinary people are going out of their way to see, I'd make damnned sure it was available on the net in every format possible, via webistes, bittorrent, kazaa and carrier pigeon.

      Faced with their markets avalanching away from their beloved business models to third party on-demand digital alternatives the various industries (RIAA, networks, advertisers et al) have made the decision that it's the consumer who is wrong and therefore the only solution is to re-apply their failed methodology with even more vigour only now with DRM, region encoding, lawsuits and "re-education" campaigns.

      Networks and advertisers should be partnering with PVR makers, not fighting them - every PVR should not only report back (anonymously) exactly how many people are watching what show, but what commercials they are skipping and which ones they are stopping to actually see. Let the advertiser's message live or die by the quality of that message; no-one watches your ad? Tough. Make a better one. (I'm talking to whoever made the current crappy "Intern" Dell commercials here)

      The networks also like to bleat on about trying to fund their shows from dropping advertising revenues. I worked on a show for years, and I can tell you that not only was money pissed against the wall, it was more often than not fed into high pressure hoses and blasted directly into the furnace. There's no way these shows actually cost these huge amounts to make. It's just from inefficiancies on set, all the way up to the top-heavy upper echelon parasites, vast amounts of production money is either wasted or siphoned off as "fees". If networks really are worried about the cost of producing these shows versus the amount of money they can recoup from selling advertising they could probably start by firing a few VPs, (for christ's sake, these people are simply content aggregators - how many "development execs" do they need to just buy shows from production companies and put em on the air?) and actually putting some damnned oversight into how their production budgets get spent.

    15. Re:This is wrong by jaylene_slide · · Score: 1

      I fully agree. See adbusters for example.

      That's one way of trying to alert people to the possibility of living in a world not based on deceit.

      More power to them.


      slide

      --
      "Your proactive bipartisan synergy is indemnifying. Good work, carry on."
    16. Re:This is wrong by evilviper · · Score: 1
      why don't you replace the crap with good ads

      Well, maybe because the ads you think are good, are the ones that cause 60% of Americans to get up in arms, protesting and boycotting products and the TV stations that air the ads.

      Just because you find the ads entertaining, doesn't mean you'd want in on the air, broadcast in the middle of some kids' show.

      It's true, commercials could be much better, but this sure as hell isn't the way to go... If anything, it would result in more people buying Tivos to skip these ads, or people turning off their TVs permanently.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    17. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically, the good ads aren't broadcast, and I have to Tivo-triple-fast-forward all the ones I *do* get on TV because they're such a tripe.

      Tivo 30 second skip code:
      select play select 3 0 select

      *DING* *DING* *DING*

    18. Re:This is wrong by jswitte · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but seeing "genuine, agonizing" labor or someone slop around with their "presmably realistic" grey matter is just a tad bit disgusting for my tastes, and apparaently 60% of America's tastes as well..

      I have trouble enough with the apparent absolute *obsession* that both shows like Alias AND the "news" broadcasters have with showing needles stuch in people's arms (or other parts, in the case of Alias), and the amount of explicit "hard" torture (I mean by hard torture meaning depection of sever pain) shown on the last season of 24. Of course, that was Fox for you, and maybe I'm just a softie..

      The Cockroach ad was probably viewed as either offensive to Buddists (and Hindus too probably), or just stupid (after the first viewing). And for people whose empathy-genrating centers in the brain are set a bit too high for our current culture of sarcasm (and which do not easily turn off when the conscious mind knows something is not real, see above note about tortune scenes), it might also be a bit hard to watch (although probably not as hard as above-mentioned ads)

      And, oh, by the way, why is it a WOMAN who is reincarnated as a cockroach - just a tad bit mysogynistic here (and isn't it a jackal that's used as a reincarnation target to keep women "in their place"?)

    19. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only think of one "good" advertisement.

      That was the one for the Lexus, I believe, where it was nothing but a minute or so of classical music and a continuous, visually interesting camera shot where they kept zooming out and the scene kept changing in interesting ways (e.g. you zoom out from a castle, which is really a rook on a chessboard some people are playing on a train, which is really a train set, etc.) You get several shots of the car they're selling in it, and it clearly identified the product at the end (no more guessing "what on earth are they selling!?")

      Now, if only we could have more *interesting* commercials like that, rather than obnoxious ones (nothing makes me reach for the mute button/change channels faster than carrot top) ...

  20. Yeah, that's what I was thinking by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny

    After watching the Simpsons and the 10 minutes of commercial I get from that and coming to slashdot to waste some time geeking out and seeing an ad for "OSDN personals" (WTF, by the way...) I just got the feeling that I wasn't watching nearly enough commercials.

    1. Re:Yeah, that's what I was thinking by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Targeted advertising... A slashdot dating agency is *so* targetted it's unbelievable. It's not like most of use can get a *real* date is it? :)

  21. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by Soulfarmer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Highly OFFTOPIC, but insightlful nevertheless.

    Dear AC, I live happily outside the US, and were I live, if I find something offensive, I can stop finding it by not looking.

    In other words, if you hate modern art (which the above is certainly not) or whatever, do you have to take a look at it?

    Little offtopic, but in the US I have noticed that it is not correct to do something if there is POSSIBILITY to find that something offensive. I mean, like I shouldn't be able to swim nude in my own pool because highflying plane would make it possible for the pilot see my naked butt...

    Also, if you are not searching, you cannot find. That goes for offensive also... and some blaa blaah to go with the above ranting.

    --
    -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
  22. Drug-Free America by tstorm · · Score: 1

    The drug ad wasn't a Drug-Free America ad, it was for a New Zealand anti-drug campaign.

  23. Re:Censoring ad agencies by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    First it was an attack on those evil amendment thingies. Now this. I feel our freedoms slipping away.

    Don't think of it as your freedoms slipping away, think of it as complying with the Patriot Act.

    Have you seen those little announcements around? I went to a credit union and saw one, you can't open an account unless you swear allegiance or some muck.

    Think what a fine commercial you could make around that!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  24. UK ads by Master+Of+Ninja · · Score: 1

    It seems like UK ads have a different kind of humour to them than US ones (especially taking #4 as an example).

    There's a brand of crisps (US=potato chips?) in the UK. They got a very famous footballer, Gary Lineker, to do the ads for them. The ads were basically taking the piss out of him. The US company who owned the brand were absolutely against doing that as in the US it wouldn't be done. Suprisingly it worked a treat in the UK.

  25. Yet Another ad America won't see by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft Windows...stability guarenteed or your money back!

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
  26. Ads by mrpuffypants · · Score: 2, Funny

    Speaking of ads, my roommatte pointed out something funny about my TiVo:

    I got the tivo partly to skip ads, now I never have to watch them during the shows I record (thank GOD for the 30-sec backdoor)

    However, every week a new add will show up on the tivo main screen and I always watch those. He asked me why, if I hate ads so much, I watch the longer-form ads just because tivo wants me to see them.

    thats some Zen shit i tell ya....

  27. Excellent by HermanZA · · Score: 1

    Who in his right mind would want to see them?

  28. The Drug Commercial by Savage+Conan · · Score: 1

    That drug commercial had to have been inspired by the movie Bad Taste. An oldie but goodie from New Zealand directed by Peter "lord of the Ring" Jackson.

    1. Re:The Drug Commercial by Louis+Guerin · · Score: 1

      That's certainly the first thing which occurred to this Wellingtonian.

      Since leaving NZ it's struck me that NZ ads are pretty vicious, compared with those from other countries. Drink-driving ads showing mangled children, ACC ads showing people falling into plate-glass coffee tables, that sort of thing.

      L

  29. Re:I WANT TO STICK MY PEE PEE IN YOUR POO POO HOLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll give you thirty minutes to stop that.

  30. The biggest tragedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that the U.S. won't get the brilliant parody of the Honda advert that the U.K. 118-118 directory service hippy-athletes are "running" at the moment, consisting of two men alternating their way through a similar but funnier sequence.

    Except it is probably on P2P by now. Link anyone?

    1. Re:The biggest tragedy by wackybrit · · Score: 1

      I've only seen that ad once, and it was in a cinema. I've never seen it come on TV, and I even told a few people about it, but I've never seen it come round, or heard back that it has ever been on TV. Clearly it got/gets very few slots, or hasn't been fully released yet (some humourous ad campaigns are run in cinemas first to gauge reaction).

      Where did you see it?

    2. Re:The biggest tragedy by riscthis · · Score: 1

      Here you go... appears to be an official site for their ads, and it's got the "Honda" one:

      http://www.the118118experience.com/

    3. Re:The biggest tragedy by Tet · · Score: 1
      I've only seen that ad once, and it was in a cinema. I've never seen it come on TV, and I even told a few people about it, but I've never seen it come round, or heard back that it has ever been on TV.

      It's available at http://www.thenumber118118.com/flash/video/hondaad .mpg

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
  31. Gwyneth Paltrow.... by vchoy · · Score: 1

    Check this out (link)
    in a Martini commercial is another you will not see in US, Britain or Australia. Quote from the article:

    In one of the commercials, Paltrow is seen rising apparently naked from a hotel bed shared by an equally unclothed male.

    "Pausing to put on only a shirt, she tiptoes downstairs, hoists herself over the bar and prepares Martinis on the rocks for herself and her bedmate."...But what distinguishes Paltrow from previous faces of the company is her very public, healthy living image.

    "She particularly asked that the advert was not shown in Britain or the US because people in those countries are much more aware that she doesn't drink," a source at Martini & Rossi's headquarters in Turin said.



  32. Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    don't welcome any new ads. The only good ad is the blocked/skipped ad.

    Yeah, but I hate to break it to you: you're not the majority. How many non-football fans watch the SuperBowl each year because of the commericials? A lot. That's because it's the one time of the year that you can be guaranteed that advertisers are honestly trying to catch your attention. So much of the other advertisements are bland and uninteresting. They're just not trying.

    I think as technologies like TiVo start to take off there is going to be more and more pressure placed on adverising companies to come up with innovative ads that people won't mind sitting through. The real pickle for these companies is constantly coming up with new ads that are entertaining and push the limits and still not offensive to the majority of the American public. When I was younger I often wondered why ads suck so much. Surely there are tons of witty people who could write clever ads! Why aren't they being given the chance? Well, as I grew older I started to realize that a lot of humor is actually borderline offensive to a lot of people. Or they're simply too slow to 'get' the joke. Humor is, of course, the cheapest way to construct an interesting commerical. Other ways include novel imagery but this takes more talent and, arguably, more money.

    Anyhow, I'm thinking that in the next 5 years we're going to see an improvement in the quality of advertisements to the point that they start to become entertainment in their own right. If companies do not do this, their ads are simply going to get blocked/skipped by an increasingly dissatisfied viewing public.

    GMD

    1. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by M.+Silver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So much of the other advertisements are bland and uninteresting. They're just not trying.

      It's not just that, either. It's that the same commercial gets shown every break, and occasionally twice in the same break. We have a commercial-skipping VCR, so on those rare occasions when we actually watch something non-timeshifted, we're boggled that anyone would voluntarily watch TV that way. Even when it's a decent commercial, by the fourth time in fifteen minutes it's just unwatchable.

      --

      Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
    2. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So much of the other advertisements are bland and uninteresting. They're just not trying.

      Not trying, or not spending 20,000,000 USD ?

    3. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by pla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hate to break it to you: you're not the majority. How many non-football fans watch the SuperBowl each year because of the commericials?

      Along similar lines, I hate to break it to you but Superbowl ads do not reflect peoples' opinions of ads in general. I would tend to agree with Zangief, that most people consider most ads (excluding those rare ones such as Superbowl ads or Honda's "Cog") at best ignorable, and if possible would completely eliminate them altogether.


      I think as technologies like TiVo start to take off there is going to be more and more pressure placed on adverising companies to come up with innovative ads that people won't mind sitting through.

      I agree, and would welcome that. We even have a precedent for that, where daytime soaps (which, although I personally consider them not much more entertaining than ads, they do seem popular) started out as serial soap commercials.

    4. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think as technologies like TiVo start to take off there is going to be more and more pressure placed on adverising companies to come up with innovative ads that people won't mind sitting through.

      Alternately, they could shove the adds down our throats, as whitnessed by the adds shown in the bottom of the screen after every commercial break on Fox. And if that isn't bad enough, they have sound effects that can cover up dialog.

      I'm not an optimist when it comes to commercial quality.

    5. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but I hate to break it to you: you're not the majority.

      And as we all know, being in the majority is all that matters.

    6. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by fermion · · Score: 2, Troll
      I think the ad people are already doing the best they can. It is like all content. The vast majority of it is crap. Some of it is very good. A tiny slice is excellent and becomes part of the culture. They might be able to do better if they let the creative end own the process, but then perhaps you don't end up with the hybrid needed to push products.

      As far as whether a commercial is offensive, the criteria is really whether your target market is going to react negatively, and then whether any religious of political fanatics will react negatively. For example, beer commercials can show nearly naked women all they want because it is not offensive to the target market and others that are offended really can only complain. On the other hand, a beer commercial is not going to show much male skin because it will offend the homophobic males that make up a significant portion, though not necessarily the majority, of the demographic.

      The future probably holds an increase in embedded ads, or a return to days when a single company sponsors a show. Either one will get a company exposure while maintaining a reasonable ad budget.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1
      We are inundated with more and more ads. We have gone from around 12 minutes of ads per hour on TV to over 20 minutes per hour. we have ads on web pages. We have spam. we have ads in elevators. Ads on disposable insulators on coffee cups.

      Go to the movie theatre and pay your bucks. You see the still ads until showtime. Then we see 15 minutes of ads before the movie starts!

      Enough already. If the advertisers want us to pay attention to ads, they should be limited to where they are appropriate. They should be limited to where they are paying for content. TV ads are OK, but give us too many and we will TiVo past them. Web page ads are OK. They pay for content and hosting.

      If the torrent of ads was reduced to a reasonable level we might actually pay attention to some of them.

      --

      Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    8. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by calyphus · · Score: 1

      Elevator ads, if only it had stopped there (what movie predicted that? I'm sure it's another P K Dick short adaptation)
      ...we have ads over urnials...next my contacts will be free because they are chipped to provide ads...

      --


      The potato it is uninformed.
    9. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by jigyasubalak · · Score: 0
      > I think as technologies like TiVo start to take off there is going to be more and more pressure placed on adverising companies to come up with innovative ads that people won't mind sitting through.

      A good point made. But the novelty of the innovative ads go away after the, maybe, the third time u see them. Add to this the fact that a person will have to thru 5 oft-repeated ads to see a new and innovative ad. That's what makes the ads break not so worthwhile, IMHO.

      --
      The best planning can be done after the project completes.
    10. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but I hate to break it to you: you're not the majority. How many non-football fans watch the SuperBowl each year because of the commericials? A lot.

      Huh? Really? People's oddities never cease to amaze me. S'pose I should go out and talk to people more often.

      On a second thought... I believe I shouldn't.

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    11. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by dafoomie · · Score: 1

      They -should- make better ads. But they're taking the easy way out and doing product placement everywhere. It will become so blatant and disgusting that network tv will become unwatchable. It's already there in a lot of shows and movies, but it's getting to the point where one of the characters will stop and do a spot for something mid-scene. Way past the level of even the Back to the Future movies.

    12. Re:Ads will HAVE to become better very soon by jo42 · · Score: 1


      If they put on the Stuperbowl in HD, I just might watch the maroons...

  33. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by Basehart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I saw a woman get kicked out of shopping mall once for breast-feeding her baby. I was sat close by with my wife and we didn't even notice. She was just sat quietly next to her stroller feeding her kid.

    With that kind of brute insensitivity to the naked body you really expect the U.S. to show ads that just might disgust an audience that thinks breast feeding in public is perverted?

  34. The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by elflet · · Score: 4, Informative

    Honda's "Cog" ad is a direct homage to The Way Things Go, a 30 minute film of an amazing kinetic art installation (here's a video clip.)

    You have to see this at least once in your life -- it's the most amazing "Rube Goldberg" contraption you'll ever see.

    1. Re:The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by oberondarksoul · · Score: 1

      The best thing about the Honda "Cogs" advert, is the fact that absolutely none of it is CG. Everything was performed live, in one final take (although it took one hell of a lot beforehand to get it all working). Knowing this, and seeing the advert again, it all seems much more 'special'.

      --
      And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
    2. Re:The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually it has 1 cut, ill leave it to you to find out where :)

    3. Re:The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by PollGuy · · Score: 0

      Not quite. They couldn't get the whole thing to run correctly in one take because the studio was too small, so they split it in half at the muffler and used CG to link the takes together. source

    4. Re:The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by elflet · · Score: 2, Informative
      The best thing about the Honda "Cogs" advert, is the fact that absolutely none of it is CG

      I doubted this was true (the quality of the light is almost "too perfect") so I did a bit of looking around and found a little more about the production. Wow. (And it only took 606 takes.)

      As someone else noted, there's one bit of CG work. Quoting the Daily Record Just one second of computer generation is used to link the two halves - when an exhaust pipe rolls across the floor.

      OTOH, "The Way Things Go" is a single 30 minute take.

    5. Re:The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by BlindSpot · · Score: 1

      You have to see this at least once in your life -- it's the most amazing "Rube Goldberg" contraption you'll ever see.

      Agreed. You see it once and then you'll notice something and think "Well how the fuck did they do that?" and then you'll have to go back and watch it again, and then again and again. I must have watched it at least a dozen times straight at first, and I was hypnotized each and every time.

      I was surprised that Slashdot didn't run a story exclusively about the ad. (Or did they? If they did, I must have missed it, but I did look.) I can't think of anything more nerdy than a pointless expensive science experiment conducted (discounting the fact it helps sell cars of course) just because "they could".

      Besides, few things at all are so truly brilliant, never mind a TV commercial!

    6. Re:The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I was surprised that Slashdot didn't run a story exclusively about the ad.

      They did... twice, IIRC.

      I've never really believed it wasn't faked at least partly (eg. when the wheels run uphill... just doesn't seem to make sense without trickery).

    7. Re:The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by frostman · · Score: 1

      And the artists in question are Peter Fischli and David Weiss of Switzerland.

      Who, for what it's worth, are household names in the art world.

      --

      This Like That - fun with words!

    8. Re:The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by nfg05 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, I think this was achieved with weights in the wheels.

    9. Re:The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by tcoady · · Score: 1

      How could it have taken 606 takes as well as being shot in two halves? Did both halves take 606 takes or did they need 303 each? In any case why does it matter whether or not CGI was used? Who is going to know? After all the Honda execs did not appreciate this fact when it was shown to them.

    10. Re:The inspiration for Honda's "Cog" ad by Oggust · · Score: 1
      OTOH, "The Way Things Go" is a single 30 minute take.

      As impressive as it is, no, it isn't one take. It has about 5-6 cuts in it, where the camera will zoom into something (usually fire or some foamy chemical reaction), hold for a while and then zoom out again, post cut.

      /August.

      --
      "An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1." -- 6.1.2.5, C99 standard.
  35. That's odd... by Simon · · Score: 1
    I thought these were the ads that the US won't see.

    In a totalitarian system, you aren't allowed to talk back to the government; in the capitalist system you can't talk back to the sponsor.

    --
    Simon

    1. Re:That's odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW A TV AD ABOUT HOW MUCH TV SUCKS TALK ABOUT 3DGY!!!!! EXXXXTREME CULTUREJAMMING!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Re:That's odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post sucks, even though I agree with the content. I want to mod you up. I really, really do. But I won't. Sorry.

    3. Re:That's odd... by pHDNgell · · Score: 1

      This is really good stuff. I hope more people see this.

      --
      -- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
  36. funny == good && good > bad by bersl2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear advertising execs:

    If you're going to put ads on the air, make them good and funny. And I don't mean ha-ha-shut-up funny, I mean really funny, maybe even piss-my-pants funny (but only the first ten times). I still won't buy your product, but you could at least entertain me.

    With much contempt,
    bersl2

  37. Yeah - don't buy a Honda - buy two :-) by northwind · · Score: 1

    Thanks - I liked the Christmas play, the drug abuse adv and the Honda in particular. Just what the Doctor ordered for a Monday :-)

  38. Re:no, please welcome the cocaine/eth/etc ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inanimate objects are not evil.

  39. That anti-drug ad... by vorpal22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...is just about the most intelligence-insulting thing I've ever seen. I mean, really... the truth of the matter is that the majority of widely used drugs don't cause considerable brain damage, or at least brain damage on the level that is wreaked by say, alcohol abuse.

    I think it should be banned for sheer stupidity rather than for any sort of inappropriateness.

    1. Re:That anti-drug ad... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Brain damage is one thing, but life damage on the other hand is a whole other issue. I won't get into that, because I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence... New Zealand has never let reality get in the way of a good government sponsored propaganda advertising campaign.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:That anti-drug ad... by Grr · · Score: 1
    3. Re:That anti-drug ad... by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because going to clubs on X or LSD just makes people want to go out and rob a convenience store for cash. And when was the last time you heard about domestic abuse related to psychadelic drugs?

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    4. Re:That anti-drug ad... by vorpal22 · · Score: 1

      The fact that humans, for hundreds, if not thousands of years, have been consuming certain drugs like coca, opiates, marijuana, and psilocybin containing mushrooms (some in moderation, some to excess) without recorded disastrous long term effects? Even the hardcore opiates, like heroin and morphine, are extremely unlikely to cause brain damage, and while you do run the risk of overdose and addiction, the withdrawal is not dangerous in the majority of cases, and the drug itself is not directly harmful to the body.

      Experience speaks for a lot, and many of these drugs have been used and abused throughout the history of humanity. Only a small handful of them have been shown to have really horrible long term side effects (e.g. alcohol, daturas, cocaine, amphetamines, and more recently, speculation unto the dissociative anaesthetics, but those, with the exception of nitrous oxide, are a relatively new class of drugs anyways so it's reasonable to assume that they're still poorly understood).

    5. Re:That anti-drug ad... by vorpal22 · · Score: 1

      but life damage on the other hand is a whole other issue

      *nods*... but this so-called "life damage" is caused by people who simply can't maintain a level of moderation in their lives. The blame falls largely on the individual rather than the drug.

      I can't claim to know this for a fact or have read it from any reputable source, but I'd wager that a large number of people who feel compelled to use drugs in excess would probably find other ways to be self-destructive by indulging in excess if they didn't get hooked on drugs in the first place.

    6. Re:That anti-drug ad... by TheGreatGraySkwid · · Score: 1

      Caller: "I wanna talk about that SPANK stuff. People say it's bad for you. It's not bad for you at all. Why aren't you talking? Oh, you think I'm strange? Am I on the air? Hello? Answer me, you pansy!"
      Lazlow: "Err...what's your question?"
      Caller: "SPANK! SPANK SPANK! SPANK!"

      --
      The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
  40. Avi Player works with asf files too by weathergeek · · Score: 1

    Avi Player works; but since that site uses mms links, I had to paste the *asf urls to the command line.

    1. Re:Avi Player works with asf files too by hdparm · · Score: 1

      Totem works as well - fedora users can get it easily through apt repositories. I'm in a bit of hurry right now but will post url_s later if anybody is interested.

  41. best commercial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ultimately, I must agree that the "best" commercial is no commercial at all.

    TV Programming has come to the point where the shows themselves are simply vehicles for product placement.
    Look at all the coca-cola and ford positioning in the American Idol show for example of extreme product
    placement.

    I'd rather see a good well-done commercial than another half hour of typical drek television any
    time. The expense per unit time of the commerical
    is hundreds of times more than the show, especially
    if the show is animated or syndicated.

    Then again, I'd rather watch a Seinfeld rerun than a new episode of that stupid P. Hilton moron any time.

  42. one of the funniest... by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Funny

    Won't see this in the U.S., been trying to find a download of it since coming back from Australia but no luck. Goes something like this...

    Beautiful woman is sitting at a restaurant table. The waiter delivers her drink and says "take your top off for a chance to win $10000!"

    Woman: "You're joking!"

    Waiter: "No, really!"

    Woman: "Take my top off, that's all I need for a shot at $10000?"

    Waiter: "That's right."

    Woman has her already-skimpy top off in a flash. Cut back to the Waiter with a stunned expression.

    "I meant the top off your Diet Coke..."

    1. Re:one of the funniest... by frostman · · Score: 1

      Also, it's a lot harder to make it sexy if it's her cap and not her top.

      --

      This Like That - fun with words!

    2. Re:one of the funniest... by Jimbookis · · Score: 1

      Nah, it was fairly lame and tame. Though it may have appealed to Sydney's Eastern suburbs set. My favourite ad of 2003 is The Quest featuring a well meaning tongue. Official copy here (gotta register) http://www.extradry.com.au/ but it's lurking out there (google "tooheys quest").

  43. Drug Free America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the slashdot:

    video for Drug-Free America was deemed too disgusting

    But the article says this:

    The Partnership for a Drug-Free America produces tame stuff compared to this nauseating Saatchi & Saatchi, Auckland, anti-drug spot for Care New Zealand.

    So... didn't even bother to read it yourself, huh?

    And then what's up with the AD disguised as #10 for another web site?

  44. Re:no, please welcome the cocaine/eth/etc ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pffft.

    Allow me to introduce you to my Dell Dimension XPoS 166 with 64 MB RAM.

  45. Entire archive by $exyNerdie · · Score: 1


    Here is the entire archive

    1. Re:Entire archive by shepmaster · · Score: 1

      Also note the appearance of beloved Slashdot darling, Natalie Portman. Although, its strange, but I don't see any hot grits... They must have been cut in post-production.

    2. Re:Entire archive by radixvir · · Score: 1

      better yet the genki drinks with arnie are the best!

    3. Re:Entire archive by calyphus · · Score: 1

      hmmm, couldn't help thinking of the Simpsons episode with the "in your prefecture" video....

      --


      The potato it is uninformed.
    4. Re:Entire archive by berniecase · · Score: 1
  46. whoa by Digypro · · Score: 3, Funny

    How about this---
    John Smith's wildly popular U.K. beer spots by TBWA star well-known comedian Peter Kay as an overweight, useless parent who uses a sausage and a beer glass to illustrate the facts of life. Only a U.K. marketer would endorse such a loser as a brand spokesman
    Umm, hello?
    Dell Dude anyone?

    1. Re:whoa by KingDaveRa · · Score: 1

      How wide of the mark are they on this one?!?!

      For starters, Peter Kay is amazingly funny.

      Secondly, ITS A JOKE!!! He didn't tell his 4 year old that. THE FOUR YEAR OLD DOESN'T EXIST! He's the no-nonsense man, he tells things like they are. Its the people he's talking to, and their shocked reactions... oh what's the point?

      Stupid, really is.

    2. Re:whoa by michaelhood · · Score: 0

      overweight, useless parent who uses a sausage and a beer glass to illustrate the facts of life.
      Is this a Simpsons episode I missed?

    3. Re:whoa by Zardoz44 · · Score: 1

      My first thought was Jared, but who's counting?

  47. Honda "Cog" Commercial: Non-US Product. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Accord in the Cog commercial is a Non-US body style. It's different than the US body, and the US body doesn't come in Wagon form as it is shown in the commercial.

    FYI: This Accord is being introduced at the Acura TSX in America. It's a neat commercial really, but the product doesn't exist in US.

    Kevin

  48. Knock-knock. Who's there? A Bonus! by cabra771 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know where one can find a copy of this commercial from a few years back, or even remember what the commercial was for? It was something about getting money back or whatnot, Bonus was the big word:

    Knock-knock
    Who's there?
    A BONUS!

    Hello? Bonus? Speaking.

    --

    -my other sig is your mom
  49. American advertising is *really* conservative... by Goonie · · Score: 2, Informative
    Television advertising in Australia and the UK is considerably racier than in the US, and I believe the same is true in continental Europe. In fact, when I go to the states I'm constantly amazed by how much money American companies blow on such lame ads.

    I'm from Australia, and the one thing that's extremely noticeable about US advertising is the huge numbers of drug commercials. Here in Australia, advertising perscription drugs is banned (though drug companies try to subvert the ban by funding ads that say something like "consult your doctor about treating disease X" without mentioning the drug they're pushing).

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  50. Re:Censoring ad agencies by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 1
    Have you seen those little announcements around? I went to a credit union and saw one, you can't open an account unless you swear allegiance or some muck.

    That's the whole point of a credit union, isn't it? To have some kind of arbitrary rule to decide who can open an account. Of course, most use employment or geographic locations. I don't see why a credit union requiring allegiance to the U.S. or whatever is so bad.

  51. mutilationlsd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the "Anti-Drug Mutilation" really from 2003?
    I've had it on my disc for quite a while.

    Although I'm for the legalization of sombunal ("some, but not all". Go read Robert Anton Wilson for a virtual headfsck.) classified drugs, I think this video is really good.

    Anti-drug-messages are overdone most of the times, but then again, there are usually (and I mean usually, far from all the time.) elements of truths in their messages. Stimulants are best done infrequently and with some care. IMHO.

    Do take your time reading up on the chemicals you're about to swallow/snort/inject/inhale or otherwise allow into your body.

    The Internet has information on most stuff, even the very weirdest molecules.

  52. Clean coal burning by jesterzog · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The most absurd commercial I saw were clips advocating coal energy. The tagline was like Electricity from coal: Cleaner, more affordable and abudantly better.".

    I'm not an expert, but from what I understand there are very clean ways of extracting energy from coal these days. It has a bad reputation embedded in many people's eyes from the past, though, so it's not always a politicians' first choice from a public relations perspective.

    Whether these cleaner methods for burning it make it more affordable and "better", I couldn't say. I guess it depends on the situation.

    1. Re:Clean coal burning by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It's pretty bad from a radiation perspective. Tons and tons of Thorium get pumped out by coal production, aside from any greenhouse gases.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:Clean coal burning by SkArcher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The main problem with coal (and Oil, for that matter) is that they both involve releasing large quantities of Carbon from geo-lock. Because Fossil fuels have been sealed away from the environment for so long the chemical balance of the atmosphere and the ecosystems in general have evolved to deal with less carbon abundance. The rate of release of the fosil fuel carbon is astounding in terms of evolutionary and environmental studies, and could have a number of long term bad effects (lower atmospheric oxygen levels on a global scale) too soon in the near future for a solution to have been devised. It is better (cleaner, cheaper, more affordable) to burn trees: modern oxidation methods can reduce carbon particulate polution to almost nil, and trees get their carbon from the air - making growing a tree and burning it again a zero delta for carbon levels.

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    3. Re:Clean coal burning by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1
      It is better (cleaner, cheaper, more affordable) to burn trees
      You forgot to mention the other obvious advantages - "not as costly" and "less expensive" :D
  53. What does this have to do with technology? by cpopin · · Score: 1

    This is more of a moral venue. Slashdot must be straying.

    --
    -=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
  54. Mplayer works good too by jshepher · · Score: 1

    Mplayer works good as well. Try 1.0pre3 since the previous one I had audio but no video. It can even stream them as well if you run mplayer mms://<url>

  55. Re:Censoring ad agencies by arazor · · Score: 1

    >First it was an attack on those evil amendment thingies. Now this. I feel our freedoms slipping away.

    >Don't think of it as your freedoms slipping away, think of it as complying with the Patriot Act.

    Thats right no ad in the history of the united states of america has been banned before January 2001 when Bush got in office.

    /sarcasm/

  56. Guess it was inevitable... by telstar · · Score: 1

    It's nice to see Slashdot doing their part to ensure America still won't see these ads. Ah... I love the smell of slashdotting in the morning....

  57. Don't Forget The Puma Ads by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Although they are fake, we cannot discount the highly suggestive Puma ads. Hubba Hubba!

    --
    When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
    1. Re:Don't Forget The Puma Ads by mraymer · · Score: 1

      Here's the snopes page on the fake images.

      --

      "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

  58. Help us out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does "taking the piss out of him"

    You mean mock him? Or making him look stupid? Help. Your english is different than my english.

    1. Re:Help us out by dejinshathe · · Score: 1

      Yes. Exactly that. To "take the piss" is to mock, usually with a mixture of caricature and ironic commentary. That's not from a dictionary - that's just how I (as an accredited piss-taker) would describe it.

      --


      "It is the prerogative of fools (or noobs) to utter truths that no one else will speak."
    2. Re:Help us out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      mock him and thereby make him look stupid to anyone watching (including him and you if there's nobody else.). Common usage in Britain and Ireland.
      Ireland also has "taking the mickey out of him", which is much the same thing - the phrase comes from you notionally "reducing the efficiacy of his penis" by embarrassing him. Island nations (Britain, Ireland, Japan, etc.) tend to run societies like that.

    3. Re:Help us out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. In america, "knocking the wind out of his sails" might be closest in meaning.

    4. Re:Help us out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite, as Lineker is part of the gag in his cameo role.

    5. Re:Help us out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, "taking the piss" is more good-natured than "knocking the wind out of ones sails" - the expectation is that the piss-taken will be back up and laughing at his own silliness almost instantaneously (though american tourists act all mortally insulted when you take the piss out of them...)

  59. U.S. actually match show contents by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    The ads in U.S actually pertain to the content of the shows even if they suck. For example, I watch an NBA game, I expect commercials about sneakers and Yao Ming selling laptops etc etc.

    If you have been to some other countries, their TV broadcasts are just completely off subject. Showing a rerun of Cartoons, then viagra commercial. Maybe some music karoke hour show, followed by insurance commercial about death and terrorism. It's that bad. Sport broadcasting always have lingerie and some fat chocolate commercials. It's unbelievable.

    1. Re:U.S. actually match show contents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..must be gay people coordinating the ads. "Girl, you are on FIRE! Doesn't that just FIT? *uh*"

    2. Re:U.S. actually match show contents by calyphus · · Score: 1

      duh... it's called demographics, and we've got the big start on market research here, so, for the moment, we get more targetted ads, just give the rest of the world time to learn targeting.

      --


      The potato it is uninformed.
  60. 2-minute spot? by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

    Internet's favorite Honda "Cog" commercial won't air due to the high prices for a 2-minute spot.

    I often see the same annoying 30 second ad 6 times in a 30 minute show, sometimes twice in a single break.

    A single 2 minute ad once during the show would be a lot more effective than the same ad 6 times, and since it's less total time, it would probably be cheaper too.

    Jason
    ProfQuotes

  61. Remove her as she wishes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "She particularly asked that the advert was not shown in Britain or the US because people in those countries are much more aware that she doesn't drink,"

    I don't know and care if she drinks or not, just remove her from ads as she wishes. That's what she's asking. I don't want to see her ugly butt-face in any ads, TV or films at all. Topless? Who cares! She's UGLY.

    Removing her will make a win-win situation. She'll be happy, I'll be happy, everyone will be happy. See, no one will lose. :p

  62. Becks Beer Ad by mge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    one for the poms...
    Any truth to the story I've heard about a new Becks beer ad ? tagline (supposedly) goes
    you don't need to be Posh to swallow Becks

    1. Re:Becks Beer Ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd think it's more a joke than a real advert, anyway if it's real at least it's not too new:

      Usenet references

    2. Re:Becks Beer Ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Any truth to the story I've heard about a new Becks beer ad ? tagline (supposedly) goes
      you don't need to be Posh to swallow Becks"

      Nope. But it was good. Well done.

  63. Re:no, please welcome the cocaine/eth/etc ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. They force people to take it.

    And shoot the guy who is giving people what they want.

    Its sort of like food. There are so many people disgustingly fat and its killing them. The stats say 40% of people are obese (in the US).

    In your world, we would ration food.

  64. Re:Censoring ad agencies by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

    Lots of businesses seem to find the recent terror-reactionist laws useful. Recently, Orbitz.com refused to refund some money to me from a cancelled plane trip, citing the Patriot Act or some such rubbish. How convenient for them.

  65. How to save these mms:// files below by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used SDP, but search google groups for "mms download" and you'll find lots more.

  66. She is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a little too skinny for my taste. Nonetheless, I would bang here silly as long as she didn't talk. I'll bet she's annoying when that trap opens.

  67. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My grandmother got married a month before she graduated from highschool and had to keep it a secret or they would hav expelled her because she might corrupt the other girls. Whatever. To this day we segregate girls who get pregnant in highschool like they had some sort of communicable disease. And we still get our panties in a twist because the someone might want to marry someone who has the same genetals as them.

    The USA is incredably sexually screwed up.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  68. Re:no, please welcome the cocaine/eth/etc ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha! point well taken.

  69. Re:Allow me. by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

    New ?!

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  70. No! No! Too Radical! Throw him out!!! by dejinshathe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hear and read so many people bagging on television advertisements: too many, too long, poor quality, what's the deal with tampon ads during sport, etc.

    I have a radical solution to television advertising. It has worked for me for almost 18 months now - and I think you know what's coming next...

    Throw out your television.

    Yeah, yeah - I get flamed by people irl about this too. The lady at the cigarette counter at my local supermarket told me just last night that for someone to lack a television in this modern day was "just tragic!"

    I see less shit ads though...

    --


    "It is the prerogative of fools (or noobs) to utter truths that no one else will speak."
    1. Re:No! No! Too Radical! Throw him out!!! by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not sure why it was the clerk's business whether you had a TV or not. You say you get flamed by people for not having a TV? Why does the subject come up if you do not volunteer the information? I hope you're not like the guy in the Onion article.

      The TV is not the problem. Keep it for the console games. It's the broadcast that is broken. Are your friends upset because your house isn't entertaining enough to them since you don't have a TV, a DVD collection, etc? That would make sense, and of course it'd be their problem and not yours.

      But I'm still trying to figure out how the subject of your not having a TV became a point of interest for the "lady at the cigarette counter."

      I'm also wondering how you got the strength to quit TV but not quit smoking.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:No! No! Too Radical! Throw him out!!! by dejinshathe · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see I may have to tell the story in a little more depth - no-no, it's no trouble, I like to tell stories.

      I walked down to the supermarket with my cousin, who is also my flatmate, and who smokes. As he is a very sociable and chatty person, he knows all the staff at the local supermarket. This particular clerk, who I've also spoken with previously, didn't know that my cousin and I co-habitate. So in chatting, she discovered we share an apartment, discovered we are cousins, and proceeded to compare us to characters in some sit-com or drama show or other, at which point we had to tell her that we'd not the slightest idea of what she was talking about, as we own no television.

      As for the rest of it, I'm more into board games than console, so that solves the need for a console, and also hints at how we entertain guests (as well as both being good cooks and lovers of long conversations)

      Add a computer with a DVD player (17" screen, but I really don't watch too many DVDs at all) and four full bookcases, and you have a life without television.

      *shrug* I don't know anything about the guy in The Onion article, but I know that I sometimes have a lot of trouble with people at parties, work functions, in the office caf, etc when they so often begin conversations with, "Did you watch insert-name-of-show-here last night?" and everyone in the circle nods enthusiastically and I have to say, "Ummm... no. I didn't. I read part of The Arabian Nights and had a conversation with my neighbour about her third boyfriend since June and why she always dates losers." That is when the flaming usually starts. Meh. It's a life.

      --


      "It is the prerogative of fools (or noobs) to utter truths that no one else will speak."
    3. Re:No! No! Too Radical! Throw him out!!! by Doug-W · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he's the Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television? Would be my first guess from the post...

    4. Re:No! No! Too Radical! Throw him out!!! by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you didn't want to make an issue out of you not having a TV you wouldn't bring it up, even when people are talking about TV shows.

      It's the same way I deal with vegetarianism. Even though I don't eat meat, I don't feel the need to mention it or point it out to every person I am with when food is being discussed or eaten. It's not that hard to turn down food you don't eat; just likes it's not that hard to say "sorry, I didn't watch that show." without having to turn the conversation into one about you not owning a TV.

      So unless you're trying to look cool by always pointing out you don't have a TV or are trying to be an anti-TV evangelist, you've got some serious issues.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:No! No! Too Radical! Throw him out!!! by dejinshathe · · Score: 1

      Firstly, I'm not a person who often awards "cool" for non-participation - not even to myself - but you're right, I don't have to mention it every time, and I don't think you honestly believe that I do.

      Secondly, I don't think "evangelist" is quite the right word. I'm not trying to save anyone from their television. Further to that, I'm not telling anyone that they need to be saved from their televisions. Rather, my initial point was simply this: if you do not have a television, you won't see shit ads. It was a throw-away comment & it really contributed nothing to the conversation at all. To be frank, I'm a little surprised it wasn't mod'ed as being off topic (I suppose it still could be? I'm new here)

      I'm not going to argue with you about the having "some serious issues" bit though. Let's face it, if I didn't have "some serious issues", I'd do like the people do - I'd have a television and I'd eat meat.

      NB: I'll read your reply if you post one, but most likely won't post on this issue again unless your is really very thought-provoking. This is nothing personal, I just have a personal tendency not to post more than three times in the one thread. Saves me getting bogged down. Cheers.

      --


      "It is the prerogative of fools (or noobs) to utter truths that no one else will speak."
    6. Re:No! No! Too Radical! Throw him out!!! by dk4 · · Score: 1

      Mind you, in the US we don't pay TV tax, so if we just watch a show every now and then, there's really little harm done.

      However ads don't really bug me, since I pretty much only watch Food TV and G4TV, and quite enjoy their ads...

    7. Re:No! No! Too Radical! Throw him out!!! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Just in the interest of full disclosure, I feel compelled to mention that I stopped watching television on the day of the OJ Simpson car chase, whenever that was. I didn't own one again until the end of 2001. Didn't miss it, don't care about it much now. But I did encounter the phenomenon where people cannot relate. What bothered me was the realization of what it meant:

      People spend as much as 10 hours a day in front of the TV. Some of them manage more. They don't have anything else to do with that time. They picture you without a TV, sitting around bored, picking lint out of your ass or whatever. It does not occur to them that there are other things to do besides sit and watch TV. They can't relate to me, I can't relate to them, and I don't have a problem with that status quo!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    8. Re:No! No! Too Radical! Throw him out!!! by Cornelius+Chesterfie · · Score: 1

      "I have a radical solution[...]: throw out your television, it has worked for me"

      You wouldn't happen to be this guy , would you?

  71. Honda ad in a "Single shot" after 605 bad takes by Soskywalkr · · Score: 1

    Just to mention. The Honda ad was done in a "single" shot. The camera never cut away. It just took 606 tries at that single shot before every bearing, wheel, wiper blade, and drop of oil was perfectly aligned to yield one of the most complex ads ever filmed.

    Here is an article explaining it:

    The Daily Telegraph

    1. Re:Honda ad in a "Single shot" after 605 bad takes by seangw · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly there was talk that although it was done in a "single" shot, there was some splicing right before the end. I think it was near where the window lowers or something.

      Can anyone confirm or deny?

  72. American ads are very tame by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

    British adverts are also fairly conservative. Continental European ads onthe other hand are comparatively racy.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re:American ads are very tame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way - I mean what about the 'tongue slave' advert for Carling Lager with the oral sex intimations at the end (after he'd already cleaned the toilet bowl with his tongue)? I'd hardly call that fairly conservative...

  73. Also not safe for work by G27+Radio · · Score: 4, Funny

    I saw this Dutch ad on the Internet a couple years ago. Apparently it's an ad for English classes. That's not the only reason it would never been shown in the US though.

    Quicktime Video

    1. Re:Also not safe for work by dirkdidit · · Score: 1

      In case anyone is wondering, the song is called "I Wanna Fuck You in The Ass" by the Outhere Brothers. Real American classic, it is.

    2. Re:Also not safe for work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that ad never ran. I believe it was an entry to a competition, but was never used.

  74. OSDN Personals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a Match.com ad, basically. No, it's not girl geeks for guy geeks and geeksers for geekesses.

    1. Re:OSDN Personals by strike2867 · · Score: 1

      Anyone wanna actually try that?

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    2. Re:OSDN Personals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The annoying thing is that the Match.com site is somewhat Mozilla and Opera unfriendly :/

  75. VW Bug Chappaquiddick TV Ad by hypertex · · Score: 1

    Back in the day, this commercial aired a couple of times on TV before being pulled. It claimed that if Kennedy had only been in a VW Bug...and you would see the car floating down the stream. I would love to find a copy of this again.

  76. Minnesota Firm Victim of Bad Timing by mojoNYC · · Score: 1
    in some cases, an ad is pulled for other reasons;>

    Valley Pools & Spas in Andover, Minn., might be regretting its choice of the pitchman featured in its television commercials. Sitting in a hot tub in the TV spot is Todd Bouman of the Minnesota Vikings. The young quarterback now is caught up in an investigation regarding an alleged sexual assault that took place in a hot tub. Two women reported that they were assaulted at the Vikings' "Arctic Blast," a three-day charity event organized by the football team in February. Authorities haven't said that Bouman is a suspect, but he has been the only player named as a possible witness. Bouman's attorney, when informed about the commercial by a reporter from the Star-Tribune, was surprised. "I don't know, frankly, what I can say. Bad timing, I guess?" Former Viking Mike Morris also appears in the hot tub commercial with Bouman.

    more info: http://www.startribune.com/stories/464/3720454.htm l

  77. Ad Agencies & Rats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There a joke that begins with the 'news' that scientists have begun to use lawyers for certain experments. It goes on to explain that was "because there are things you can't get a rat to do."

    It's nice to know that ad agencies are more like rats than lawyers.

  78. You can download the mms:// urls with mmsclient by jdbarillari · · Score: 1

    You can also download the videos with mmsclient. It works like wget -- you just give it the mms:// url. You can get it here. That site has an XMMS plugin, too, but I haven't tried it.

    1. Re:You can download the mms:// urls with mmsclient by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      I downloaded them with mencoder directly

      mencoder -oac copy -ovc copy mms://longurl/video.asf myvideo.asf

      as I could not get enough download speed to watch them comfortably, i first download, and then watch locally.

  79. Japanderers by LuYu · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
  80. They did use CG/Editing. Honda's claims are false by HEbGb · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think that Honda, and the ad agency, is lying.

    Rob Steiner, agency producer for Wieden & Kennedy, says that not only were practical effects more attuned to the tagline of the commercial, but CG would not have done the job visually, either. "You couldn't create that type of tension with CG," he says.

    However, computers did come into play in the editing phase. Indeed, what looks to be one continuous shot is actually two, seamlessly stitched together by Flame operator Barnsley of The Mill in London.

    "Our reason for shooting it in two 60-second pieces was damage limitation, really," explains Steiner. "We knew everything physically worked." But the contraption simply wouldn't fit down the length of a single wall at the Paris studio, so half was built and filmed on one side and half on the other.

    With the intent of making the spot look like one continuous take, lighting and shadows in the studio had to look smooth over the full two minutes. Still, "due to constant movement, we couldn't even give [Barnsley] a good lighting reference," says Steiner.

  81. Video for Drug Free America deemed too disgusting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet they play the retarded "pot got my 13-year-old pregnant" one all the time... could it really have been that much more (at least intellectually) disgusting?

    How much more can they lie about something before people catch on?

  82. Not quite right... by nakedbonzai · · Score: 1

    This was covered on slashdot before, and it took 606 takes to get it. They had to cheat one of the transitions with cgi because they didn't have a room long enough to do it all in one shot.

  83. She is a dog-ugly skank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously there are plenty of "stars" I don't like and/or find unattractive to my personal aesthetic but Gwyneth Paltrow is UGLY! Objectively,unequivocally...I just don't get it.I know her parents are/were entertainment media bigshots but how can nepotism take nothing so far?
    I mean she is so bad you would have to pay me to watch her in hardcore S/M lesbo porn with Natalie Portman and Hilary Duff.Well you wouldn't have to pay me much but you get what I mean.

    1. Re:She is a dog-ugly skank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here ye, shes one of the only stars that makes me want to barf.

  84. Arnold in Japan! by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 1
    --
    Wearing pants should always be optional.
  85. This Rebok Ad was real, and quite disgusting by anti-NAT · · Score: 1

    Apparently, Rebok put an ad on the tv that used a very disgusting fake company name during a recent Superbowl. The guy at this site was sure it was intentional, so he rang them up ...

    Felcher and Sons

    I don't know if this actually happened, I'm an Australian, don't watch Superbowl.

    --
    The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
    1. Re:This Rebok Ad was real, and quite disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if this actually happened

      Yes, it did actually happen, I saw it. And yes, it was absolutely hilarious. I think the only reason they got away with it is those that should have been outraged wouldn't have recognised the term.

      I personally think the entire ad was comic genius - on so many levels. (I'm a Brit living in the US).

    2. Re:This Rebok Ad was real, and quite disgusting by sharkey · · Score: 1
      I don't know if this actually happened, I'm an Australian, don't watch Superbowl.

      Yep, it sure did. I was rolling. In fact, you can download it here. You can see the Super Bowl commercial without joining "Terry's Hit Squad". but if you join, there are 4 more clips to download.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  86. I beg to differ by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Ads will HAVE to become better very soon"

    Apparently you missed some of the finer points of this bit here. Why make better commercials when you can redefine the medium to require viewing of commercials? Think "Disney DVD."

    We already have the "broadcast bit" in our flavor of ATSC now, what's to stop some new standard including a "no channel surfing bit?" It would allow broadcasters to charge even more to advertisers, which they would then argue would enable more/better shows. Why wouldn't Congress let this happen?

    1. Re:I beg to differ by lelnet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >what's to stop some new standard including a "no channel surfing bit?"

      The same thing that keeps them from prohibiting TVs with an "Off" button or a removable plug-in power supply...it interferes too much with the average consumer's usage pattern, which means that no standards body or even legislative body is going to make it happen.

      Anything that interferes with how Joe Sixpack watches TV is not going to become part of American TV, no matter who might want it to. Channel-surfing has been part of that since the remote control was invented, and skipping commercials on the VCR (with the fast-forward button, if your VCR doesn't do it automatically) is pretty much there too.

    2. Re:I beg to differ by fyonn · · Score: 1

      and skipping commercials on the VCR (with the fast-forward button, if your VCR doesn't do it automatically) is pretty much there too.

      so why can't you skip commericlas on many dvd's, like the disney dvd's the other poster referred to?

      this is an example of technology stopping what people are used to being able to do.
      I don't want to watch the ads on a disney dvd, I don't want to read the fbi warning on R1 dvd's (I don't even live in america) but unless your dvd player has been specifically hacked to disable user prohibitions (like mine) then you have to see them.

      dave

    3. Re:I beg to differ by lelnet · · Score: 1

      DVDs are new technology. Usage patterns for them haven't become well-established yet, and the most similar technology for an average consumer (prerecorded video tapes rented from Blockbuster) doesn't have an established usage pattern (fast-forwarding through commercials) that conflicts with the behavior of the DVDs.

      We're talking about advertising associated with broadcast TV, which (behaviorally, psychologically, economically, and technologically) is a fundamentally different animal than product cross-promotion through the insertion of promotional trailers on DVDs. And I stand by my original assertion that any technological standard whose adoption absolutely depends on the average couch potato fundamentally changing the way he watches TV is going to flop, no matter what standards body or legislative body tries to say otherwise.

      No amount of bribes to Congress can make Joe Sixpack stop channel-surfing.

    4. Re:I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you can. Press Next or Menu, or fast forward through them. These unskippable commercials on DVDs that everyone talks about boggle me, because I've never seen them.

  87. In case you're having trouble with WMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldn't get them to buffer correctly under Windows Media Player, but when I viewer them in WinAmp 5 they played flawlessly, even at double size.

  88. How to save these MMS streams to your computer by Shinzaburo · · Score: 1

    You can use VLC to save these MMS streams as AVI files. From within VLC, go to File > Open Network, select HTTP/FTP/MMS from the radio button list, and paste the MMS link in the Media Resource Locator field. Then check the Advanced Output checkbox and click on the Settings button at right. In the next dialog, choose output to File, browse to a location on your HD, and choose AVI as your encapsulation method. (I couldn't get anything other than AVI to properly capture and play the audio stream.) Hit the OK buttons to exit both dialog boxes, and after a short pause VLC's playhead should begin moving. VLC won't show the movie as it's being captured, so just let it go until the playhead jumps back to the left-most "begin" position. Then you can check the location you saved the file to and open it with VLC to check that you got it all.

    The audio sync isn't perfect, but it's better than not being able to capture them at all. If someone figures out how to improve the audio sync, please let us all know. Anyway, hope this helps!

    1. Re:How to save these MMS streams to your computer by ashkar · · Score: 1

      For those using windows, asf streams can be recorded using wmrecorder. This is probably the easiest method of doing it. The demo only allows two minutes of recording per session.

    2. Re:How to save these MMS streams to your computer by Kippesoep · · Score: 1

      Or, since this is /. we might as well use an open source product, such as ASF Recorder.

  89. MMS / ASF Streams will work with mplayer! by FelixCat · · Score: 1, Informative
    Just open the source on the webpage, and find
    the mms URLS, then load them in gmplayer.


    Works great!

    #gmplayer mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/mrkippling- birth.asf

    #gmplayer mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/carenz-skul l_gore.asf

    #gmplayer mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/johnsmiths- babies.asf

    #gmplayer mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/sylvania-ro aches.asf

    #gmplayer mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/honda-cog.a sf

    (Note remove any extra spaces in the text above if you want to just cut and paste.)

  90. Speaking of ads... by SirDaShadow · · Score: 1

    anyone seen the North Dakota TV Ad? Have you listened to the jingle? Doesn't it sound familiar? Like...a 70's coca cola ad?

  91. Actually, I found it quite lame by anti-NAT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although the idea itself was a bit novel, and hadn't been done before that I could remember, here is where it falls over

    "take your top off for a chance to win $10000!"

    Most people, obviously including this girl, would take that statement as referring to their "clothing" top. She was silly enough to take it literally - which is the lameness in the ad.

    OTOH, if he had given her the drink and said "take the top off for a chance to win $100000!", it would have worked better because the "top" became ambiguous. Still, it then becomes insulting to either that beautiful woman specifically, implying the dumb "beautiful" woman stereotype (she was brunette, if she was blonde there would have been a huge outcry), or all woman in general, as it implies they all would be silly enough abandon their dignity in a restaurant for money (and only $10 000 - I'd suggest for most people the "abandon dignity" threshold is $1 000 000).

    Now, I don't think I'm a prude, but there are two things in TV ads that I find offensive, as a (male) child of the 70s, brought up in the post feminist era :

    • Ads that imply women are stupid, as mostly they are not, and no more than men.
    • Ads where if the gender roles were reversed, there would be huge outcry that the ad is sexist. Diet Coke ads in Australia have usually suffered from this in recent years. The "a group of men sexually objectifying an attractive woman" roles have been reversed, and Coke have seemed to get away with it. Reverse it "back to normal" and the ad would have been off the screen in no seconds flat.
    --
    The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
    1. Re:Actually, I found it quite lame by YetAnotherDave · · Score: 1

      >> I'd suggest for most people the "abandon dignity" threshold is $1 000 000).

      well, I'm not so sure that being nude in public == abandoning my dignity, but I am sure I'd do it for $1,000,000. Really, what's the big deal?

    2. Re:Actually, I found it quite lame by gkuz · · Score: 0
      (and only $10 000 - I'd suggest for most people the "abandon dignity" threshold is $1 000 000)

      Unfortunately, I've abandoned my dignity on more than one occasion for nothing. Maybe the alcohol had something to do with it...

    3. Re:Actually, I found it quite lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do it every day for a whole lot less, maybe I should start holding out for more.

    4. Re:Actually, I found it quite lame by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Dude, Jerry Falwell called. He wants his huge, mutant ass-bug back.

    5. Re:Actually, I found it quite lame by wizard992 · · Score: 1

      A Slashdotter analyzing the denegration of women in a diet coke ad featuring a woman topless?

      Just watch the boobies and smile.

      And FYI, the "abandon dignity" threshold is far lower than 1 million dollars. Most of the women I know will gladly show some boobs for as little as $50. Most people are not quite as uptight about their bodies as you seem to believe, and actually enjoy shaking things up from time to time. The only people that would probably be offended would be the post-feminist activist types or the christian right. But then they are no fun anway.

  92. Flawed Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ecstasy Researcher's Work Questioned"

    http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/re ad er/0,1854,567934,00.html

    Who would go to the DEA looking for unbiased information?

  93. Password Protected Bra for Office XP by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1
    I liked the Swiss AD for Office XP. It featured a semi-dressed couple getting hot and heavy. The guy tries to unfasten the young lady's bra. A dialog box pops up (in Deutch!) asking for a password. It was great!

    --

    Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    1. Re:Password Protected Bra for Office XP by Shippy · · Score: 3, Funny
      --
      -Shippy
  94. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever seen porn from just about anywhere else in the world? Say, German porn? Japanese porn? Go watch some before you say the USA is sexually screwed up.
    I think the aforementioned two nations may have lost so much good blood in the last war that their national psyches have become extremely damaged.

  95. Oh, mi dios! El Web site pobre va a ser /.'ed by SirDaShadow · · Score: 3, Funny

    Por supuesto, todavia esta vivo

    1. Re:Oh, mi dios! El Web site pobre va a ser /.'ed by DylanQuixote · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dios mio. `mi dios' no esta correcto.

      "Ay, Dios mio! El pobre web site sera /.'ado"

    2. Re:Oh, mi dios! El Web site pobre va a ser /.'ed by SirDaShadow · · Score: 1

      I did that on purpose so it could be translated properly with babelfish :) I have been speaking Spanish for 25 years...

    3. Re:Oh, mi dios! El Web site pobre va a ser /.'ed by DylanQuixote · · Score: 1

      What would slashdot be without grammar nazis?

  96. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, since that is impossible for me, watching some foreign porn, can you please elaborate? What do you mean?

  97. My Favorite Billboard by scatter_gather · · Score: 1
    That will not play in the US was about 20 years ago in England.

    With a picture of a large vacuum cleaner it said "Nothing Sucks Like An Electrolux"

    Google references claim that the company tried the ad campaign in the US, but I never saw it. I snapped a quick photo at the time, but my shoebox collection of photos is not sorted in calendar order, so sorry.

  98. Japander.com by Zastrossi · · Score: 1

    For anyone interested in celebrities going abroad to sell products and make big cash, check out the excellent www.japander.com. Not only is it an interesting site, but it's a heck of a URL.

    1. Re:Japander.com by valkraider · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, that was just the name of a website. THIS is a URL...

    2. Re:Japander.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucky for Al that no one here reads this far down: the site is still up!

      bob

    3. Re:Japander.com by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 1

      I can see you've played knifey/spoony before. (Someone had to say it)

  99. Re:American advertising is *really* conservative.. by perimorph · · Score: 1

    It was only recent that the U.S. laws changed to allow prescription drug makers to say what the drug is used for in television commercials. (They're required to list the various possible side-effects if they do so.) Previously, they could mention the name of the drug all they wanted, but that was about it. I still remember being bombarded with "Ask your doctor about Rogaine" without having the slightest clue what it was.

  100. Cog "real"? I don't believe it by groomed · · Score: 1

    I don't believe for a second that the "Cog" commercial is for real. Everything about it just reeks of CG. Why? Well, I can't put my finger to it. It's too clean. Surfaces seem odd. The lighting seems unnatural. It just doesn't jive for me. Two shots? I think it's a bald-faced lie.

    1. Re:Cog "real"? I don't believe it by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      I think you have just disqualified yourself from complaining about CG in movies like The Matrix, The Hulk, and LotR. If real things look fake to you, then what are the chances of simulated things ever looking real?

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
    2. Re:Cog "real"? I don't believe it by groomed · · Score: 1

      Also, I thought the Cog commercial was lifeless and insipid, regardless of any real or perceived CG qualities...

  101. change in direction by jamesh · · Score: 1

    I recently was sent an mpeg of an ad for a Toyota Corolla (4mb or so, by email, oh the shame). It was actually pretty good, and if it wasn't so big I probably would have forwarded it on too.

    It got me thinking... what a win for Toyota! They are paying nothing for the air time, and rather than me nipping off to the toilet or something while the ad break was on, it had my undivided attention for a minute or however long it ran for.

    Is this the future of advertising?

  102. Re:American advertising is *really* conservative.. by thogard · · Score: 1

    An example of this is that Target (a US chain store like Wal-mart, K-mart, big-w depending on where you are) has typical t week sales in some departments such as baby items or clothing. Targets logo is a red and white circle that looks like a target (see target.com).

    In Australia they run an ad for their baby stuff sales that starts out with an animated sperm that is made from their logo with a tail and it finds a egg also from their logo while the voice over talks about 20% off. I can't see that comercial ever being show in most of the US. They also have one for their bra sales that involves many sets of their logos.

    I find it interesting that it took the Aussie (Murdock who started Fox) to bring some of the slightly racey concepts to US tv's.

  103. They work fine in xine, too. by marnanel · · Score: 3, Informative

    The movies work fine in xine, too. I had to launch it from the command-line rather than the browser because of the weird protocol (what *is* mms, anyway?)

    Here are the commands you want, to save you digging around the page:

    xine mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/mrkippling- birth.asf
    xine mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/johnsmiths- babies.asf
    xine mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/carenz-skul l_gore.asf
    xine mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/sylvania-ro aches.asf

    and of course
    xine mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/honda-cog.a sf
    Remove the spaces Slashcode's put in the URLs, of course.

    (And there's only one P in "Mr. Kipling"...)

    --
    GROGGS: alive and well and living in
    1. Re:They work fine in xine, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MMS is Windows Media Player's stream protocol. You can use http:// instead, it works just as well.

      Btw, here's a useful tool for win32 users who want to save streamed ASFs to disk.

    2. Re:They work fine in xine, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use Linux you can use MMSclient to save the ads to your hard disk:

      http://www.geocities.com/majormms/

  104. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by marnanel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sadly, that sort of thing is all too common. It varies by state, though-- for example, it's explicitly legal in Florida.

    IANAL.

    --
    GROGGS: alive and well and living in
  105. Ann Summers Christmas Ad by a-aiyar · · Score: 1

    This wasn't on television, and may hurt some religious sensibilities, but I thought this Christmas ad for Ann Summers was very very clever. Possibly NSFW, depending on where you work.

  106. if you like sexism... by Scudsucker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...look no farther than how American ads portray men and fathers. You mentioned role reversals, but the issue warrants more of a mention than that. Men and fathers are portrayed as helpless idiots, inferior parents and "humorously" subjected to violence.

    There's the add where the woman takes pictures of items so her brainless husband can find the items in the store, the Dodge minivan ad with the caption "gets more work done than most husbands", the candy bar ad where a squirrel chomps on a guys nuts, the (insurance?) ad where the guy doesn't care that he's spilled hot coffee on his crotch, and worst of all, the Progressive Insurance ad where a vindictive woman tortures her ex with a voodoo doll site - including taking a pair of wire cutters to his testicles.

    If women in this country were subjected to as much humiliation, or female genital mutilation was treated as a joke in a commercial, there would be blood in the streets and NOW would be storming these advertizing agencies with tanks.

    1. Re:if you like sexism... by harborpirate · · Score: 1

      You forgot the budweiser ad where a man and a woman have clearly just finished their first date, and stand around ackwardly at her door. She then kisses him hard on the mouth, forcing him on to the hood of his car and then stands up and says something like "bye". I guaruntee if the roles were reversed the feminist outcry could be heard from here to Antarctica.

      --
      // harborpirate
      // Slashbots off the starboard bow!
  107. Re:Video for Drug Free America deemed too disgusti by valkraider · · Score: 1

    "Just tell her parents that you were getting stoned" as the toddler gets into the pool. I want to make a new version that says "Just tell her parents you were reading the bible" or "Just tell her parents you were jacking off" or "Just tell her parents you were talking on the phone" .... You get the idea.

  108. Funniest Commercial Ever by Houn · · Score: 1

    Miller Time's Evil Beaver. Hands down the funniest thing I've ever seen on TV, period. I remember catching it once or twice before it was pulled from US Airwaves, though I believe it was actually nominated for an award in the UK.

    If you can find this clip anywhere, you're in luck. So far, I haven't been able to, and I'd love to archive it to show my friends (who never have any idea what I'm talking about).

    --
    The longer I'm a member of the Human Race, the more I believe Apocalypse is a valid solution.
  109. why I cant see them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    buffering...buffering...buffering...

  110. No it's not... by Goonie · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    It may not cause as much acid rain as it used to, but it still dumps a heck of a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    Of course, nuclear power is probably a better solution from an environmental perspective, but try making *that* argument in public debate...

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  111. Great foreign ad actually blocked by U.S. abroad by Animaether · · Score: 1

    This Dutch ad starring Bill Clinton (thanks to graphics manipulation) is absolutely perfect in execution :
    The Ad

    Unfortunately, despite members of the White House having seen it and liking it (supposedly including Mr. Clinton), it was still deemed too sensitive as it was close to elections.
    The ad was subsequently retracted from Dutch T.V.

    For the curious, the end-slogan "Even Apeldoorn bellen" (if you can read it) is something of a catch-phrase in Dutch language as these types of ads (for an insurance company) have been running for years with the same style of humor.
    Ads index page - links on the left, click the eyes-icons in the bottom to view the ads - personal recommendations: 'Egel' and 'Pianist'

  112. OT: 'Ostrich Approach' -won't- solve some problems by ivi · · Score: 1


    I don't like the looks of war, racism, sexism,
    & the like.

    But - Hey! - ignoring them won't make them
    go away.

    Standing up & calling for change, when
    I see them can & has... in some cases.

  113. honda by BiggyP · · Score: 1

    absolutely love the 2 minute honda ads myself, it's a shame the US wont get to see them in their full glory...

  114. Ahh yes, but they're not really banned by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 1

    Ok, lets just call 'em "banned for now", because we all know that about once each year, one of the big TV networks roll all these commercials up into a 1 hour TV show special in which they proceed to show us these commercials.

    These specials are usually dubbed with cutsie names, such as "the world's funniest commercials", or "boobs, too hot for TV" ... but the ultimate irony is that they've just con'ed you into watching a WHOLE HOUR of commercials, most of which I'm sure they are compensated for.

    Market droids -- start your engines, spin up your beanie propellors -- godspeed.

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
  115. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by cubyrop · · Score: 1

    It's not that breast feeding is perceived as "perverted" per se; Americans are just loathe to witness a baby suckling, and in so doing realize that our foreplay methods betray us as being sexually attracted to our moms.

    --
    If I could make this sig kill you, I would.
  116. If VLC is giving you problems... by Rukasu · · Score: 1

    ...check out asfrecorder...

    Download them with asfrecorder, then watch them with mplayer. Makes streaming ASF files play nice.

    --
    http://www.narnarnar.com
  117. Some more adds the US won't see by DroversDog · · Score: 2, Funny


    George Bush's Alternative Fuels
    Saddam's Adventure Tours of Iraq
    O J Simpson's Golf Academy
    Bill Clinton's Cigar Emporium
    Osama Bin Laden's Weapons Wholesale
    Microsofts Totally Secure Software Sale
    RIAA Free Downloads
    DVD Jon's Handmade Number Plates

    but the most anticipated for 2004 is.....

    SCO's Closing Down Sale

    Linux: Worth suing everone for!

  118. UPC of the magazine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.upcdatabase.com/list.pl?type=mfr&which= 079025&skip=100&howmany=20

    This is where the UPC of that magazine should have been. 079025349708

  119. How Honda got its groove back... by frostman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Two words: Fischli & Weiss.

    'Nuff said. Look it up if you don't know.

    But OK, I can't resist, so:

    I remember when the thing came out and there was the point that they "cheated" once or twice. I believe the "cheating" was less about physics than about photography - maybe the speakers?

    In any case I hope Peter and David were paid well for this, 'cause if not then it's a rip-off of the highest order.

    Not that they'd find that a bad thing necessarily... we artists are usually tickled pink to be plagiarized by Big Capital, and it certainly doesn't hurt our prices.

    Since I live in both the "traditional" (painting) art world and the "new media" (computer/network/etc) world, I always find it amusing how people in the latter tend to be more ignorant of the former than the other way around. Even though there is always a lot of osmotic exchange of ideas between the two.

    --

    This Like That - fun with words!

  120. TV Tax??? by dejinshathe · · Score: 1

    Okay - so now I concerned. I'm concerned by two things. The first is that somewhere in the world, people pay a TV tax - like for real? Are you having me on? The second (after a moment's thought) is my ignorance in thinking that television would be all free and available everywhere (we've only had Pay TV here for less than ten years, before that it was just the same 4 or 5 free channels the whole country over)

    --


    "It is the prerogative of fools (or noobs) to utter truths that no one else will speak."
    1. Re:TV Tax??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about the USA? Because if so there has been "pay TV" for like 30 years if not more....

    2. Re:TV Tax??? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      Great Britain. They actually have tech vans that go around hunting down stray TV-on signals from addresses that don't pay a TV tax. IIRC, much of it goes straight to the BBC. Mind you, it's not "pay for certain premium channels", it's "pay to have a TV turned on at all".

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    3. Re:TV Tax??? by EddWo · · Score: 1

      In the UK we pay for a TV License that funds the BBC. Its about £109 a year at the moment. Its great value for money. We get 2 analog + 4 digital TV channels. 5 national analog radio stations, local radio stations + 4 digital radio stations. Plus a great website and news service all without advertising. All the imported American shows and films can be shown uninterupted.
      Some people think its unfair that they have to pay even if they don't watch the BBC or can't get all the digital channels, but I think an publically funded, yet government independant media organisation is a really important part of a democracy.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    4. Re:TV Tax??? by nilenico · · Score: 1

      Norway. And Sweden.

      Granted, it's somewhat of a pain, and as a student it is your duty to find ways to skip it ("oh no - that's not my TV, it's my dad's. honest", if you're stupid enough to buy one in your own name).

      In Norway, same as in the UK, it funds NRK (www.nrk.no), the national broadcasting corp. At least there aren't any ads, sort of. There are "sponsors" attached to big sport events.

      And no, you can't get around it by saying "but I don't watch NRK!". Officially, it's a licence for owning a TV or a VCR, limited to one licence per household, but the money is dedicated to funding NRK. They haven't gotten around to tackling PC with TV tuner cards yet...

      Currently, it's about NOK 1200 ($160) a year, an amount set by Stortinget (the Norwegian parliament).

      Also, they have some requirements on the type of programming they must support: good stuff for kids, educational/public , niche-stuff that wouldn't otherwise survive on a commercial channel.

      --
      .sig? No.
    5. Re:TV Tax??? by kusma · · Score: 1

      In Germany, every person that owns a working radio has to pay around 5 Euro per month, and it's around 16 for television. The money is used to fund our public stations that tend to have excellent news coverage and buy the rights for all important sports events (that is, Olympics and Soccer World Championship) but suck in most other ways.

      The main problem is how they find out if you have a TV or not -- basically they send someone to spy on you and annoy you until you give in and start paying.

  121. Grammar prude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "take the top off for a chance to win $100000!", it would have worked better because the "top" became ambiguous.

    I disagree. "Your" and "the" are equivalent in this situation. It's her clothing, her Coke, and her bottle top. She has two tops, so calling either or both "your top" makes sense.

    only $10 000 - I'd suggest for most people the "abandon dignity" threshold is $1 000 000

    You're joking, right? 10,000 is a lot of dough in CAN, USD, AUS, EUR, or whatever. Besides, as the commercial made clear, she was already wearing a skimpy top, indicating that her threshold of dignity was skimpier than the norm.

    Ask people at Mardi Gras by hundred why they take their tops off in public for a shot at exactly ZERO dollars.

    Now, I don't think I'm a prude...

    Prudes never do.

  122. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1, Insightful

    To this day we segregate girls who get pregnant in highschool like they had some sort of communicable disease.

    Stupidity can spread like a plague. Unwed highschool-age mothers are flagrantly displaying their stupidity. I wouldn't want a teenage crack addict spending time with my kids either.

    And we still get our panties in a twist because the someone might want to marry someone who has the same genetals as them.

    It's not possible. You can't marry someone of the same gender anymore than you can murder a dead man. The meaning of the word prevents it from happening.

    The USA is incredably sexually screwed up.

    Yes. Because somewhere along the line, people stopped saying "That is wrong", everything is acceptable and you're a bigot if you don't go along with it.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  123. Blah Blah Blah.. by JoshRoss · · Score: 1

    Blah Blah Blah (*)(*) Blah Blah Blah ( * ) ( * ) BLAH!

  124. Re:OT: 'Ostrich Approach' -won't- solve some probl by Soulfarmer · · Score: 1

    In case you were replying to my post, I did NOT mean that evil things would go away by looking away. I meant offending things might not be as offending is someone looks the other direction.

    I originally meant that if the "Shitnuggets blaa blaa yadda yadda" post looks like offending, there is no need to see it, by looking away.

    That was my point. Current US President is still stupid, no matter how far away I look, I know...

    --
    -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
  125. PBS = No Censor? by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    I'm curious as to why BBC programs shown on PBS are not censored? I see nude pictures of women on Rod and Dellboy's wall all the time. They also get away with saying "shit". And "feck" (Father Ted) is pretty racy I guess as well.

    1. Re:PBS = No Censor? by berniecase · · Score: 1

      Since it's sponsored not by ads, but by donations, PBS doesn't need to worry about advertisers jumping ship after a program like that airs. And, the FCC is reactionary in their actions, so they won't put the kibosh on anything before it airs.

      Any broadcaster can air what it wants... but it's the consequences afterwards that scare them into self-censorship.

  126. Re:breast feeding on live Australian TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We have a live tonight type show in Australia called "The Panel" it's done by the same people behind the movies "The Dish" and "The Castle". It consists of a group of 5 or so people sitting around a desk talking about current events.

    One of the female hosts recently had her first child, and one night after coming back from an ad break, she was sitting in her usual spot breast feeding her baby.

    Quite possibly the first time on live national television.

  127. Watching Ads? by eples · · Score: 1

    Isn't watching Ads on TV like going to an Art Museum to smell paint?

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
  128. Isn't that a typo in the ESPN ad on that page? by garethw · · Score: 1

    Looks like the red ad for ESPN I was served on that page has a typo in one of the frames...

    Ironic, on a site dedicated to advertising.

    HINT: isn't that an odd age range?

    --
    garethw
  129. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... or betray that women like their breasts sucked.

  130. even better than The Way Things Go by Savatte · · Score: 1

    is Russian Ark a 90 minute unbroken take through some famous Russian museum. And it has actors delivering lines. Imagine if some actor around the 85 minute mark flubs a line or looks at the camera.

    1. Re:even better than The Way Things Go by babbage · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bah, an actor flubbing a line isn't neceessarily a disaster. If you think about it, people have been putting on plays for thousands of years, and as far as I know, the tradition is not, in any culture, to start over from the beginning if an actor messes up a line. Usually they just try to recover & keep going, and I'm sure that it was the same way with Russian Ark.

      That's not to say that Russian Ark wasn't interesting, but the single-take thing isn't unprecedented: Alfred Hitchcock did the same thing with Rope. That film is shown as a single, uninterrupted narrative, but it was shot in a series of 8 minute takes, because traditional film cameras can't hold any more film than that. Russian Ark got around that constraint by shooting with digital film, which can run longer than a reel of 35mm movie film.

      I think there are a handful of other examples of this, but off the top of my head I can't think of any. There are some movies shot in real time -- Gary Cooper's High Noon probably being the best example, but also recent ones like Time Code and Nick of Time. Interestingly, even though it's presented as one shot, "Rope" doesn't count as a real time story, because events are presented in an accelerated way (short dinner, fast sunset, etc) so that 100 minutes of "actual" time goes by in 80 minutes of "screen" time. But then, apparently "Russian Ark" covers centuries, so it's not even trying for that one :-)

  131. Re:funny == good && good bad by vicparedes · · Score: 1

    "I still won't buy your product, but you could at least entertain me."

    And THAT's the point of Advertising. Persuasion doesn't end with the first encounter. It mutates. Long before you've forgotten the ad, you would've probably told at least 2 of your friends about it. Consequently, one of your friends might be in the market for the product the ad was selling. He might be drawn to the ad and/or visit a store to inquire about the product.

    Advertising works, even if it means going through a middleman like yourself to get the message to the intended audience. If Advertising doesn't work, the industry would've been deep-sixed a long time ago. And you'd be seeing less of it today.

  132. $1,000,000?!? by tgd · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd happily abandon my dignity for ten bucks.

    1. Re:$1,000,000?!? by identity0 · · Score: 1

      I'd happily abandon my dignity for ten bucks.

      So you're a Slashdot Subscriber, huh?

  133. Ads overall suck... by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

    But there are some funny ones that I like..

    Rolling Rock commercial where the guy gets married, has an austrailian animal tv show type voice in the background, and he opens the bottle of beer with his wedding ring.

    Pretty much any of the Budweiser commercials on the radio.. (tribute to the taco-salad maker guy, etc) I think they have done a couple tv ads like this but im not too sure, ive only caught the end of it.

    Sierra Mist commercial (Superbowl commercial) where the monkey in a zoo catapults over the wall to the polar bears or whatever it was.

    You could probably take.. 10,000 commercials and find only like 50 that were good though, and thats the problem.

  134. Well by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's because you have less free speech. Like when you try and call the Prince gay in a newspaper. To a US point of view those restrictions are abhorrent.

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    1. Re:Well by eyeye · · Score: 1

      You have no censorship in TV ads?
      I find that very strange.

      In reality you will allow some things we don't and vice versa (e.g we wont dub "shit" out from blazing saddles). Its not because you are more free, or I am more free its just the rules that have been made.

      None of us are truly free, only free to do what we are allowed to say and do.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    2. Re:Well by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Like when you try and call the Prince gay in a newspaper.

      Do try and get it right, won't you? If you lived in the UK and watched the Graham Norton show, you'd here a comedian on prime time TV explicitly insinuating on an almost nightly basis that Prince Edward is gay. Nobody gives a shit about that in the least.

      The allegation that was suppressed wasn't that Prince Charles was gay, but rather that a servant claimed that he witnessed him sodomizing another servant. It wasn't surpressed because you can't say such things in general. It was surpressed because it was libellous and untrue.

      Incidentally, how much coverage have you seen in the mainstream US news media of George W. Bush's cocaine use? Or his illustrious military record?

      Thought not. Can you say 'hypocrite'?

      To a US point of view those restrictions are abhorrent.

      Oh, I think you'll find that you have libel laws in the United States as well. Try claiming that you've witnessed one of your politicians buggering another man sometime (particularly if it isn't true, but even if it is) and see how far you get without a subpoena landing on your doormat?

      While the US may have some nice constitutional protections on free speech that are lacking in other countries, the reality is that you actually have *less* free speech because you have a media oligopoly that only represents the views and interests of the advertisers and is terrified of upsetting the religious right. As a consequence, for all of your much lauded free speech, the USA actually has the blandest, most insipid media coverage in the Western world.

      But I know that that's precisely the sort of 'free speech' that the USA is comfortable with. The freedom to spam. The freedom to sell you shit that you neither want nor need. And the freedom to insist on conformity.

      When your mainstream media presents a wide range of genuinely challenging ideas and opinions, and doesn't freak out at the prospect of upsetting the religious right by showing a live titty on the tv, then you'll have the right to lecture the rest of us about freedom. Until that point though, we'll continue to view you as just another deluded sap.

    3. Re:Well by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1

      If I claimed that George Bush sucked Colin Powell's cock while Karl Rove buttbanged him, the newspapers would be free to report my claims, if there was any reason to: "Random Guy Accuses President of Rampant Homosexuality!"

      And yes, the U.S. media has the freedom to be bland and insipid, if that's their choice. That's one of the principles of our freedoms - they are still upheld even if excercised poorly. So the KKK has the right to hate speech and the media has the right to suck.

      In fact, the media can be as bland and insipid as they want, but it doesn't lessen my freedom of speech.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    4. Re:Well by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      explicitly insinuating

      That is one of the coolest oxymorons I think I've ever seen!

      Not busting on you by the way, I'm sure it was unintentional :)

    5. Re:Well by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      The allegation that was suppressed was actually surprisingly less graphic than the version you suggest. Charles, by all accounts, didn't actually care and wasn't planning to try to suppress it, it was the butler involved who pressed injunctions. The same butler had had some very serious allegations made against him in recent weeks, and key to them all was that the Palace might be covering up for him and letting him get away with anything.

      Allegedly.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:Well by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      If I claimed that George Bush sucked Colin Powell's cock while Karl Rove buttbanged him, the newspapers would be free to report my claims, if there was any reason to: "Random Guy Accuses President of Rampant Homosexuality!"

      And I'm happy to agree that the constitutional protections that the US media enjoys in this regard are far superior to those that we have here in the UK.

      In practice though, your media simply operates under a different set of constraints, where corporate power and religious moralism controls the flow of information in the public domain, rather than a fear of the law.

      While I envy you your constitutional protections, I don't envy you your media in the least.

      In fact, the media can be as bland and insipid as they want, but it doesn't lessen my freedom of speech.

      Don't go confusing your own freedom of speech with that of your media. While the National Enquirer may be able to report your allegations of George W. Bush's homosexual gang bang with impunity, you'd still be liable to a libel suit in exactly the same way that someone would be here in the UK.

      Even though you may have those additional constitutional protections, nowhere is freedom of speech absolute.

    7. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no. As I understand it, in the UK you can be guilty of slander (or libel) even if what you say is factually true, but the telling of it causes injury to someone.

      In the US that isn't possible. As long as you can show you have a reasonable reason to believe that what you're saying is true, you're covered.

  135. Saying something is wrong because of a words... by pr0ntab · · Score: 0

    definition is not exactly a good argument anymore.

    The meaning of words change. "Ironic", isn't it.

    Marriage is now equated in many peoples mind with a "license" to fuck someone, and get various financial breaks from the government, banks, and insurance companies, etc.

    You're thinking of "matrimony", which is a less commonly used word whose meaning has not changed.

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
    1. Re:Saying something is wrong because of a words... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The meaning of words change.

      In common parlance, not in legal usage. On numerous occasions the US Supreme Court has had to contemplate the "Original Intent" of many words and phrases as they make their decisions.

      Marriage is now equated in many peoples mind with a "license" to fuck someone, and get various financial breaks from the government, banks, and insurance companies, etc.

      You seem to not understand. Actuarial data shows that male-female married couples cause cause less loss for insurance companies, so guess what...They get better rates. Marriage (as it currently exists) is a stabilizing force in society, the government has to spend less money in housing and rehabilitating prisoners when society is stable. So why not give a break to the people who keep costs down? Married couples have children, they invest in the future of those children, they generate business for banks. Why not try to convince them to come to YOUR bank instead of the competition?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:Saying something is wrong because of a words... by DynamiteNeon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As with most people who try to justify their subjective opinions, your arguments have very little objective substance.

      "Actuarial data shows that male-female married couples cause cause less loss for insurance companies, so guess what...They get better rates. "

      While it's true that married couples get better rates and may even cause less loss, I'm not sure how this applies to your argument against homosexuality. I don't suppose you have evidence to suggest that male-male or female-female unions cause more loss, do you? All you've shown is that married couples cause less loss than single individuals.

      "Marriage (as it currently exists) is a stabilizing force in society"

      "stabalizing force" is a rather subjective phrase, don't you think? Stabalizing by whose standards? I mean, divorce rates have generally hung around the same amount (between 40 and 50 percent). Doesn't seem that stabalizing to me. Besides, a recent article published by the University of Washington suggests that homosexual couples have a similar rate of relationship dissolution compared to heterosexual divorce rates (
      http://web.psych.washington.edu/news/index.php? opt ion=article&news_id=75), so even if you are right about it being stabalizing, you still have not shown any evidence to suggest homosexual couples are different.

      Of course, what you really meant to say was that it was destabalizing for you since you don't like seeing men in love with other men, right?

      "the government has to spend less money in housing and rehabilitating prisoners when society is stable."

      That statement is a no brainer, but again I ask to see your evidence that homosexual couples somehow cause more instability. The most frequent instability I can think of are the crimes commited against them by bigots, but I hardly think it's fair to blame homosexuals for that.

      "Married couples have children,..."

      Homosexuals can adopt children...

    3. Re:Saying something is wrong because of a words... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      Thank you, sir, for having something insightful and well thought out to say. I appreciate your comment, and am putting you on my "friends" list, unlike the parent poster, who is already on my "foe" list (see other comment in this thread).

      I appreciate your words.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    4. Re:Saying something is wrong because of a words... by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      "Married couples have children,..."

      Homosexuals can adopt children...


      I'm married, and my wife and I have no intention of having children. We're now entering the stage of life where it's too late to have kids, so I doubt we'll ever reproduce. Sorry, LK, but "Married couples have children,..." is no argument. Try "Many married couples have children" and avoid pigeon-holing us heteros as much as you love pigeon-holing non-heteros.

      "Marriage" means a joining, as does "wedding". It's usually applied to man-woman matrimonial ceremoneis, but not exclusively.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    5. Re:Saying something is wrong because of a words... by pHDNgell · · Score: 1

      Marriage is now equated in many peoples mind with a "license" to fuck someone

      Remember, a wife isn't a special case in a rape suit. Not that that's a problem, except the definition of ``rape'' in California basically covers any sexual act a woman regrets and can prove.

      Overall, I think there's something wrong with this country...I just can't quite put my finger on it.

      --
      -- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
    6. Re:Saying something is wrong because of a words... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      While it's true that married couples get better rates and may even cause less loss, I'm not sure how this applies to your argument against homosexuality.

      I'm not arguing against homosexuality. I'm pointing out why heterosexuals get certain benefits.

      I mean, divorce rates have generally hung around the same amount (between 40 and 50 percent). Doesn't seem that stabalizing to me.

      That's a misleading figure. 70-80% of first time marriages last. The people who are married multiple times are the ones who skew the statistics. Larry King and Richard Pryor have been been divorced enough times that it would take over 20 successful marriages to make for a 50% success rate.

      Of course, what you really meant to say was that it was destabalizing for you since you don't like seeing men in love with other men, right?

      I have no problem with people loving whomever they choose. I just have a problem with one small group pressuring the rest of society into altering one of its most fundamental institutions in the name of diversity.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    7. Re:Saying something is wrong because of a words... by DynamiteNeon · · Score: 1

      Let's be honest here. I'm more interested in your implied meaning. It's called reading between the lines. You had no real reason to post that argument except to imply that homosexual couplings would cost more to insurance companies or just be more "destabalizing." So far, you have yet to show any evidence to support either of those claims. Most of what you have said has been personal opinion so far.

      "That's a misleading figure. 70-80% of first time marriages last."

      http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
      from that site:
      "The National Center for Health Statistics recently released a report which found that 43
      percent of FIRST MARRIAGES end in separation or divorce within 15 years. The study is based on
      the National Survey of Family Growth, a nationally representative sample of women age 15 to
      44 in 1995."

      Now, unless you have other evidence to support your claims, my argument still stands.

      "I just have a problem with one small group pressuring the rest of society into altering one of its most fundamental institutions in the name of diversity."

      I just have a problem with one group thinking it's ok to deny equal rights to another (even a minority) based on speculation and personal opinion with very little hard evidence.

      Again, you're using subjective opinions to make your point. "fundamental institution" to whom? Not everyone sees marriage the same way you do. In reality, most people who have this argument are talking about the religious definition vs. the basic civil union. Most people in support of homosexuals are talking about the civil union because that's the only legal version that comes with benefits. They could care less about the religious aspects.

    8. Re:Saying something is wrong because of a words... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      You had no real reason to post that argument except to imply that homosexual couplings would cost more to insurance companies or just be more "destabalizing." So far, you have yet to show any evidence to support either of those claims. Most of what you have said has been personal opinion so far.

      How about this?

      Here's a quote CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.

      I concede that this study only focuses on men from one geographic region.

      In fact, in some areas it may be worse, this documentary shows this.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    9. Re:Saying something is wrong because of a words... by DynamiteNeon · · Score: 1
      You should probably read this

      It appears you didn't read the follow up in the same journal which specifically comments on people trying to draw the same conclusions you are from their article..

      You would see a few interesting quotes:

      "Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia."

      and conveniently enough considering your previous arguments, this:

      "Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used."

  136. Cog commercial was free in the US.. by ryen · · Score: 0

    With all the downloads on the net of the popular cog commercial, i'd say honda has gotten a fair share of free advertising without even putting it on "the air".

  137. Hitler and Taiwan by That_Dan_Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I was in Taiwan there was a German company selling heaters there and the add company they hired put Hitler on the sides of busses and billboards announcing this Heater from this company would Win the War on the Cold Front!

    It didn't take long for the German company to find out and fire the add company, but that is an add you won't see in America (and sure as heck not in Germany).

    1. Re:Hitler and Taiwan by glwtta · · Score: 1

      ad

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  138. Re:Censoring ad agencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't fucking do any business with them anymore.
    What? You want a fucking goverment to set just another blah blah blah law ?

  139. Re:funny == good && good bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Its amazing to read who people think are responsible for bad ad's. Its always the ad companies fault. I would for an Ad company (global, multinational, yada yada) and while we may be responsible for some bad ads, there are always 2 facts that prevent the making of brilliant, intelligent and funny ad's. Money and Clients. If the client doesn't screw you down on cost, they appear both during the shooting (and suggest their non-creative ideas) and then at post production (and again suggest their non-creative, fucked up ideas) which you try to argue with, but of course seeing they are paying for it, you have to sit there and watch your masterpiece being turned to shit. Until the day that clients hand over the cash and shutup, bad ads are always going to exist.
    Its a fact of life. Clients want to be creative and will ignore the advice of a 15yr creative veteran with 40 different global awards and push their fucked up changes. It sucks, but thats the job. Don't like it, then quit. There's always an endless supply of 18yr old creative wannabe's with award school certs wanting to get in. (and if your a really penny punching Ad agency, their free as in beer)

  140. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by Prune · · Score: 2, Informative
    us as being sexually attracted to our moms.

    Freudian bullshit. It amazes me that people still say such nonsense, many years after Freud's pseudoscientific crap has been completely disproved.

    Here are a couple of good places to start: 1 2.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  141. Re:funny == good && good bad by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    The solution to advertising is education. Educate the consumer about how ads work, about sources of info not from a biased ad or salesman. I don't know about you, but I've had, in the past, three different (English) teachers devote time and resources to projects based on the former of my suggestions.

    Also, I think that word of mouth is more complex than you suggest. But I'm too lazy right now to think of a good example. Meh...

  142. Doesn't matter by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to another article at AdAge.com (the same periodical as the main story comes from):

    CINCINNATI (AdAge.com) -- Recent internal research by Procter & Gamble Co. indicates that consumers who fast-forward through ads with digital personal video recorders such as TiVo still recall those ads at roughly the same rates as people who see them at normal speed in real time.
    Source: March 17, 2003

    Can't link/copy the whole article, because they charge a few $$ for it.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter by VdG · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing something like that a few years ago. Some adverts are made with the expectation of being fast-forwarded through and take care that the brand name is clearly visible even at 10x.

    2. Re:Doesn't matter by fyonn · · Score: 1

      what about consumers who use a 30 second skip features available as a backdoor hack to the tivo? do they remember the brand name too? :)

      when I see an ad break I end up seeing 4-6 freeze frames of adverts before the next bit starts. occasioanlly there is a brand name in there, far more often, it's not :)

      dave

    3. Re:Doesn't matter by tommck · · Score: 1
      Maybe it's just that only smart people fast forward through stuff (and own PVRs?) and, thus can process information at a faster rate?

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    4. Re:Doesn't matter by cybermancer · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of Blipverts from Max Headroom. They found they could compress more commercials into less time by playing them at high speed and consumers still were able to process the commercial content. Then it was unfortunate that they discovered that couch potatos would explode since they were exposed to too many Blipverts.

      That was a trip down memory lane. . .

      --
      "Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)
  143. Money? For what? by privatepepper · · Score: 1

    Why pay a million dollars for 30 seconds when you could just get your ad Slashdotted for free?

  144. Radioactive coal burning by jmichaelg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Not only does coal release gobs of CO2, it releases more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant. Coal is a magnet for uranium so when you burn a lump of coal, some uranium goes up the flue along with the CO2.

    1. Re:Radioactive coal burning by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      It sounds interesting (especially the magnet-for-uranium bit). Could you perhaps recommend a source for this?

      They're thinking of opening up a coal burning plant or two for various reasons roughly where I am, so I'm interested to find out more about it.

    2. Re:Radioactive coal burning by jmichaelg · · Score: 1
      Check out
      "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants"
      in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine.

      If you want a popular source, read John McPhee's Rising From The Plains, a book about Wyoming and John Love, a USGS geologist. As McPhee and Love were touring parts of Wyoming, Love pointed out areas of discolored coal and identified them as uranium concentrations. As dry as the topic sounds, McPhee does an excellent job of making it an engrossing read.

    3. Re:Radioactive coal burning by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the pointers. I'll go and check it out.

  145. Trojan Games ads by Animats · · Score: 1

    Too risque for American TV, the Trojan Games ads have run in the UK.

  146. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by zerocool^ · · Score: 2, Informative

    Stupidity can spread like a plague. Unwed highschool-age mothers are flagrantly displaying their stupidity. I wouldn't want a teenage crack addict spending time with my kids either.


    SCORE: +3 STUPID +2 IGNORANT.
    If you smoke crack, whether you're in highschool or not, it's a bad thing. I'm not saying getting pregnant in high school is good, but I am saying that I wouldn't mind my (hypothetical) 6 year old daughter hanging around a 28 year old responsible pregnant woman. Your logic is aweful.

    People get pregnant. It happens. Pregnacny is a beautiful thing. My fiancee and I have a kid on the way (she's 4ish months pregnant). We're both 22, and it seems to be the thing to think that 22 is young to be having a kid. But, we love each other, and we love the kid (already, even before birth).

    But, to compare this to crack is... just irresponsible at best, and damaging at worst. Pregnancy is a wonderful thing that has it's place and time. Crack has neither: it destroys lives and relationships. To be facing the pregnancy question a little early, and compare it to crack... are you suggesting that there's a proper time in one's life to smoke crack? That you'd let your kids hang out with crack addicts, as long as they're 30 and married? The longer I type, the less of a point I see in your arguement, and the more pissed off at you I am.

    Telling your kids that pregnant people in high school are bad, and you shouldn't hang around them, is a terrible thing to do. Often, girls in this situation need love, appreciation, and support. To cut them off because they're diseased is just wrong on every human level I know of.

    It's not possible. You can't marry someone of the same gender anymore than you can murder a dead man. The meaning of the word prevents it from happening.

    From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.:
    MARRIAGE - NOUN: 1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

    Look, the arguement is "marriage is blah, special, a sacrement, this, that, the other thing". Fine. Whatever. Call that marriage, and call equal protection for couples under the law "civil union".
    The arguement stands like thus:
    Conservative Preacher: "Gay marriage would ruin the specialness of marriage"
    Gays: "Fine, whatever, don't call it marriage. In the mean time, we have a loving, monomogous relationship, and your laws are costing us a lot of money that we wouldn't have to otherwise pay if we were like you".
    Conservative Preacher: "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman."
    Gays: "Dude. Don't call it marriage if it makes you feel better. Whatever. But, whatever the civil, protected by US law equivilancy is, we'd like to have that".
    Conservative Preacher: "Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage."
    Gays: "How does the ability of two people to have children relate to their home loan interest rate? To their need to pay more taxes? To their need for more expensive health insurance (no children should mean less expensive health insurance)?"

    Whatever. Every arguement I've heard against gay marriage goes back to the definition of marriage, which is defined in an anti-gay religious sense. However, somehow this has been extended to the law, and it's just stupid. There are 2 parts to a union-between-two-people. One is the part that the church, god, and your parents will recognize. The other is the one that the IRS, blue cross/blue shield, and Century21 will recognize. All that most gay people want is the 2nd part, and they're even willing to not call it marriage, opting for calling it what it really is, a "civil" (or having to do with the law) "union" (partnership of two people).

    ... somewhe

    --
    sig?
  147. suggestive risque Korean ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then there's this type of korean commercial that we'd never see here...

  148. Mplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mplayer -dumpstream -dumpfile foo mms://blah

  149. Saving streaming ASF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anyway I can save the ASF files to my PC, without having to stream them?

  150. Of course we're free by slaida1 · · Score: 1
    Free to do anything we like and it helps too when we can beforehand read the rules and determine what kind of enemy we're facing after breaking them.

    Lots'o bad guys won't tell if you're out of line until afterwards and then you're hurting. Think society like a big bully which for most of time acts predictably, lays the rules for others and goes '..or else I'll smack ya'.

    You're free to do anything, just beware the bully. Stay out of it's sight, distract it and you'll be fine. Only stupid ones get bruised.

    --
    Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
  151. BBC on US Tv by maroberts · · Score: 1

    The reason is that Americans still regard the BBC as the ultimate broadcasting organisation, and if it is OK for the BBC to broadcast, it must be OK to screen it to a US audience. In fact, if it has been shown on the BBC, that means that it is of such outstandingly good quality, that all Americans should be strapped to their favourite reclining chair in front of the TV and made to watch it.

    Of course, UK audiences would rather watch "Friends".....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:BBC on US Tv by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Who wants to watch friends when there is Coupling? The BBC version of course.

  152. More ads you wont be seeing. by AmericaHater · · Score: 1, Interesting
    unbrand america

    In the land of the free press most of the free press (bar CNN) wont accept advertising thats unpatriotic or critical of corporate greed. They use bogus excuses about it being too discursive and issue orientated - crap like that.

    Fact is corporate America gets its butt kissed by the press it gives advertising money to; not surprising but certainly hypocritical.
    And the press doesnt want to piss off an unelected thug like Bush, well OK, elected by the Supreme Court if not the people.

  153. pretty ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that you talk about defending morals and such yet you are having a child out of wedlock. pathetic. i fart in your general direction.

    1. Re:pretty ironic by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      1.) we're getting married. 2.) we love each other 3.) it's society that says having a child out of wedlock is bad, not my morals.

      My morals are sound. I know where I stand, I stand beside my fiancee all the way. I would have preferred we'd been married before she got pregnant, but honestly, I'm thrilled to death now anyway.

      I have no moral qualms. All of my morals agree with each other, it's people like my parent poster's comments that make me think "this is one of those people who claim to love everyone and yet despise anyone who doesn't fit into his worldview".

      --
      sig?
  154. I am not a pom... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... but play one here in /. ....

    I have not seen the ad.

    Needless to say most of the polite audience here has no idea what we are talking about (Becks? Posh? Pom?).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  155. Say what? by Sviams · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's morning here, and as I started reading "people upset because they won't get commercials" I figured I had gotten it all wrong and so I read it again.
    And again.

    Now, I know I'm gonna get stomped down for being a communist or something, but if I were you, I'd be quite happy not to get flooded by any more mindless brainwash designed to turn us all into happy Consumers than we already are!

    We do not need commercials to tell us what we need.

    1. Re:Say what? by krahd · · Score: 1

      I can't agree more with you... but OTOH a bit of "quality commercials" won't hurt, just to show us how crappy the regular ones are.

      I mean, I want to have the right to choose if I am gonna see any commercial, but if I (for some reason) choose to see them, I want them to be cool.

      --krahd

      --
      mod me up scottie!
    2. Re:Say what? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      What people are upset about is the fact that we are not getting GOOD commercials. The Honda Cog commercial was an award winning commercial.

      Its not that people don't like advertising, its that we don't like BAD advertising. There are quite a few ads that are very well done and extremely entertaining. Hence the reason people look forward to the Superbowl ads, because they are usually very entertaining.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  156. short 'Cog' ad by Bazman · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure I've seen a short version of the 'cog' ad, probably a 30 second version. Not sure if its just the tail end of the full ad or another smart edit. This removes the 'cant afford 120s ad slot' excuse.

    Of course, maybe its not a US model car....

  157. Loser? by Mr+Reaney · · Score: 0

    It's ironic that the fattest nation on earth is first to label a successful stand-up comedian and one of the finest TV writers in a generation a loser for being fat.

    And he's good to his mum...

  158. Us Brit's have a sense of humour by mark2003 · · Score: 1

    "Only a U.K. marketer would endorse such a loser as a brand spokesman -- and let him explain sex explicitly to a 4-year-old"

    Nice comment from the journalist on the Ad site. I would prefer to see it as the British having a self deprecating sense of humour and that we don't rely on seeing perfect looking people to boost our own self worth if we buy the product.

  159. A spot of pure genius... by grahamtriggs · · Score: 1

    That 10th entry on the AdAge site... the one about American actors... and they do very specifically state American actors.

    Now, take a look at the picture chosen to illustrate the point. Mr James Bond himself, the dashingly handsome (git) Pierce Brosnan. I'm sure the last time I looked, he was Irish.

  160. Mandatory quote from the South Park movie by roynux · · Score: 1

    Sheila Broflovski: Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!

  161. Let's see why... by paragon_au · · Score: 0

    1. Ads you think are good, other may find crap and/or offensive.
    I also find that some "crap" ads are very good. They tell you where there is a sale and you buy stuff cheaper. There is no way I would have got my last car audio gear for $500 marked down from $900 without seeing the ad.

    2. If I own a small business I can't spend hundreds of thousands to make a really good ad(Yes you could do one that is a low-budget joke, but they are hard to come up with, normally people pay for others to do that). Should I not be allowed to advertise because I don't have the money to?

    3. As someone else pointed out, what they do now WORKS. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Just because some people have TiVo's doesn't mean that they need replace ads altogether. But they are already looking at alternatives, such as product placement.

    4. Being a consumer is a two-way street. You buy stuff, they sell stuff. Once you come up with a better way to get out what your product does, and how much it costs (and coax people into buying it). I'm sure everyone would love to know.

    P.S I don't agree with them suing TiVo. I just don't agree that they need to only broadcast "good" ads.

  162. plenty of US good ads unseen vs appalling ads on! by nazzer · · Score: 1

    The US dept of human services and health is currently delaying the screening of some important pro-breastfeeding ads due to sensitivities raised by the formula industry! While the US continues to contravene the World Health Organisation code by allowing formula ads in the first place! In virtually *no* other country in the world is infant formula allowed to be advertised due to the demonstrable and well documented risks associated with its promotion. The AAP was strongly in favour of the ads, but after a few private reports from some well heeled interests they seem to have changed their stance! Why bitch about missing a few items of trash when some gernuinely useful content is being canned? See bfnews.blogspot.com/ for more.

  163. Cool! by 36-bitter · · Score: 1

    How do we get more commercials banned here? AFAICT, the higher a firm is on the list of "top advertising agencies", the worse their stuff is. Can we get the Top 20's entire output on the bad list? Pleeeeze?

    (BTW my grandfather was in advertising, and I'm not against *all* ad.s, just the ludicrous / insulting / insane / repellent / inscrutable or otherwise counterproductive ones. IOW 90% of modern advertising. :-/ )

  164. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by dr_canak · · Score: 1

    "To this day we segregate girls who get pregnant in highschool"

    Ostracized, yes. Discriminated against probably. But Segregated? I'd like to see some evidence of a junior high/ high school in the US that actually segragates pregnant teens.

    There was a time historically where kids were segragated in US schools for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure that "segragation" happens anymore. The only example I can think of is people who are moderately to severely mentally retarded, and even then there are significant laws in place to protect these students.

    jeff

  165. another k car by clarkc3 · · Score: 1

    or for another funny clip about a K car - check out this reliant racing against a toyota supra - crowd reaction is funny (its zipped, so have to save 1st)

  166. Blazing saddles by Confused · · Score: 1

    If you replace all words 'nigger' in Blazing Saddles with beeps, the movie would sound like a bird concerto. On the other hand, if you replace it with 'person of african-american origin', it would probably run an hour longer.

  167. More Chix, Less Dix by hetairoi · · Score: 1

    I could likely get a new cable channel funded by just mentioning that was my slogan. Really, the male genetalia is an evolutionary afterthought ... just look at it ... or don't.

    When a woman flashes the kitty in public it's sexy. If a man tries the same thing it's disturbing and will likely be laughed at.

    This message brought to you by the Homophobic-Men-For-More-Naked-Women-on-TV Society.

    --
    you're all figments of my deranged imagination
  168. Please MOD this UP; it's *only* a 5!! by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

    It should be more like 5E+50 (that's a 5 followed by 50 zeros -- near enough to a zillion that we ought to just say "let's mod this up to a zillion"...)

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  169. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

    I have a 2 months old son. A couple of weeks ago, the little fellow got really hungry while we were at the mall. So, we sat down and she covered herself with a light blanket (she's really shy) and started breastfeeding him. Still, a bit of her breast showed (didn't want to smother the baby).
    An elderly couple walked by, looked at her and stopped, shock in their eyes. Then the woman started berating my wife for her "indecendy".
    I went ballistic. Really. I stood up and shouted at her. Her husband tried to intervene, and I started screaming profanity at him until they escaped in fear. I'd never felt such a rush in my life. It was magnificent.
    My wife was mad at me for two days for "making a scene".
    I'm not sure what my point is. I guess I just needed to share. Thanks.

  170. South Park... by ebonkyre · · Score: 1

    also used this name in the movie - look at the piano being played during Big Gay Al's USO Show number.

    --
    "Time is an abstract concept devised by carbon-based lifeforms to monitor their ongoing decay." - Thundercleese
  171. In most US states, this is illegal... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    ... and the shopping mall owners can be sued for it. Your local La Leche League - a breastfeeding information organization - can provide you with information to help combat the practice of stigmatizing breastfeeding.

    Sean

  172. I don't think homosexuality needs to be rewarded by melted · · Score: 1

    I don't think homosexuality needs to be rewarded with tax breaks. After all, homosexual marriages do not contribute to the population (and thus to the economy). So I think fags and lezzies should be able to get married, but they should still pay the same taxes and have separate medical insurance. And god forbid allowing them to adopt children. We don't need any more kids with screwed up psychology here.

  173. Re:I don't think homosexuality needs to be rewarde by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    After all, homosexual marriages do not contribute to the population (and thus to the economy)

    An interesting stance. I have a young daughter. My girlfriend (we're not married) gave up work towards the end of her pregnancy to look after her.

    Since that time, four years ago, she's been contributing less to the economy in terms of taxes, work done, etc than she would have been had she not given up work. (She has had part time jobs, but nothing like a full-time career)

    She wants to go back to work once our daughter is in full-time education, but that's not going to happen for at least another year, possibly more. meanwhile, our daughter won't be contributing to the economy for another 12 years at least.

    On the other hand, gay and lesbian couples, as you so insightfully point out, can't ahve children naturally, and have an extremely hard time adopting. That leaves both members free to work, contribute to the economy and pay lots of taxes.

    So, if your reasons are purely economic, you really ought to be in favour of same-sex marriages.

  174. Au contraire. by jhantin · · Score: 1

    ([P]rerecorded video tapes rented from Blockbuster) [don't] have an established usage pattern (fast-forwarding through commercials) that conflicts with the behavior of the DVDs.

    Really? So how many people don't fast-forward through the FBI warning and the trailers on US VHS tapes? I think the issue here is that the DVD Video restrictions are annoying, but not annoying enough to be a medium-killer the way Circuit City's DIVX license-managed DVD format was.

    --
    ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
  175. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Often, girls in this situation need love, appreciation, and support. To cut them off because they're diseased is just wrong on every human level I know of.

    Except on the level of a parent who wants to protect his children from stupidity. Sure, girls who find themselves pregnant at 16 need love and support, but not at the expense of my child.

    Call that marriage, and call equal protection for couples under the law "civil union".

    I have no problem with that, as long as no one is forced to treat it the same as a marriage. People have the right to give next of kin status to whomever they choose. Same sex partners should have the right to inherit property or make medical decisions. This is not a problem, it's only fair; But it is not a marriage.

    Whatever. Every arguement I've heard against gay marriage goes back to the definition of marriage, which is defined in an anti-gay religious sense. However, somehow this has been extended to the law, and it's just stupid.

    Most of our laws have their roots in Judeo/Christian/Islamic morality. We can't steal, we can't murder, and we can't bear false witness without facing the criminal justice. In some places your can't screw your neighbor's wife without facing civil justice.

    Have fun defining the world in your ever-so-righteous view of right and wrong, but please, do the rest of the world a favor, and don't talk to my kids.

    God forbid someone tries to expose your future children to ethics and morality. Well, I'm sure there will be all kinds of unwed teenage mothers that you can get your kids to keep company with.

    The longer I sit here and think and type and preview this comment, the more sure I am that I hope to never meet you in life, nor that you introduce yourself or your belief system to my kids.

    There are millions of people just like me. Anyone of them will be just as good.

    And Fuck You for comparing my unwed fiancee's "problem" of pregnancy to smoking crack.

    Is your fiance' out of high school? Did she drop out of high school because of her pregnancy? Is her pregnancy going to ruin her life, in the way that becoming a crack addict would?

    Quite bitching. You know what I was talking about.

    If you had said that to my face, I'd have flattened you.

    I don't doubt that you might have tried, but the question lies with whether or not you'd have been successful. I'm too old for fist fights.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  176. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by cubyrop · · Score: 1


    the only joy greater than agitating a nerd to the point where he provides you with "research" (aka links 2 and 3 from a google search), is causing him to do so when you're not even being serious :)

    --
    If I could make this sig kill you, I would.
  177. Re:Shit nuggets taste better than testicles?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take German porn, for instance. You know it's going to get ugly when they're in some fleabag motel room and they're laying plastic down on the floor.

  178. Just how stupid are you? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    Actually no. As I understand it, in the UK you can be guilty of slander (or libel) even if what you say is factually true, but the telling of it causes injury to someone.

    In the US that isn't possible. As long as you can show you have a reasonable reason to believe that what you're saying is true, you're covered.


    Don't talk rubbish. To prove slander or libel you have to prove two things: that the statement in question is both untrue and damaging to one's reputation.

    If I say that someone is a liar and a cheat, then I am not committing slander if they have been shown to be a liar and a cheat. So, I can can safely call the sprinter Ben Johnson a liar and a cheat because he did indeed lie and cheat. He could try to sue me for either slander (if the allegation is spoken) or libel (if it is written) but as it can be proven that he did lie and cheat he'd get laughed out of court.

    Next time, perhaps you should engage your brain before you suggest that accurate reporting of the facts can be considered actionable.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Just how stupid are you? by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      There is one context in which it a true statement can be libellous in the UK though, where it may not be in the USA.

      If I were to say that 'Joe Soap claims that Prince Charles regularly buggers the butler', that can be both strictly true (in that Joe Soap really did make that claim) but is simultaneously libelous, because it damages Prince Charles' reputation. The truth is not a defence in such a situation because the original statement was defamatory, and repeating the offence is similarly actionable. Even if nobody has ever sued Joe Soap (say, because he's got no money to recover damages from), you'd get the same sort of sanctions against you as you would have done if you'd committed the original libel.

      I think that the situation is slightly different in the USA because there, the media may well be able to report such a story with impunity -- which is why US celebrities always seem to bring their libel actions in the British courts.

    2. Re:Just how stupid are you? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      You've still got it wrong.

      The difference between the libel laws in the UK and US (and the reason why celebrities prefer to bring libel actions in the UK rather than the US, even though the level of damages that they could possibly be awarded is an order of magnitude lower in the UK) is subtle but easy to understand.

      In the UK, it is the person defending the libel action that has the burden of proof thrust upon them. Ie, if John Doe sued me for claiming he had fathered 20 illegitimate children then it would be up to me to prove that he had done so, not for John Doe to prove that he hadn't.

      However, in the US, the burden would be on John Doe, the person pursuing the legal action, to prove that my claim was false.

      That's the reason why people sue in the UK rather than the US. In either country, as with most places in the world, anything that can be proven can't be libellous.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    3. Re:Just how stupid are you? by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      You've still got it wrong.

      I don't think so. Your introduction of an additional reason doesn't invalidate my original reason. In fact, the most obvious reason for celebrities to sue for libel in the UK is because they don't suffer from a lesser protection as a 'public figure', and consequently comment by the media has a much lower bar to reach to be judged defamatory.

      In the UK, it is the person defending the libel action that has the burden of proof thrust upon them

      And I actually think that's the correct way to do things. You make the claim, the onus *should* be on you to prove that it's true. I shouldn't have to spend time and money defending myself from allegations that are completely invented.

      But libel isn't the only constraint on your so-called freedom of speech. The British media has consistently called the government to account over the mad cow disease question. In the USA, as soon as Oprah raises questions about the potential safety of American beef, she's hauled into court by a bunch of cattlemen, costing her millions of dollars to defend herself, with the subsequent of a complete lack of discussion of the issue in your media for fear of similar legal actions.

      I can see how somebody should be able to sue for damaging a person's reputation, but damaging the reputation of a whole industry -- an industry that employs hoardes of lobbyists and PR people -- seems to me to be a wholly ridiculous law and completely unjustifiable in any democratic society.

      If that's your idea of 'freedom', you can keep it.

  179. Re:I don't think homosexuality needs to be rewarde by melted · · Score: 1

    Paying taxes NOW is on the micro-scale of things. Making babies who will pay taxes when you become a burden for the economy (that is, when you retire and burn through most of your savings) is more significant.

  180. Re:I don't think homosexuality needs to be rewarde by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

    1. Your argument is only true for male couples. Any 2-bit lesbian can scrounge up the cash for a sperm shake from the sperm bank.

    2. When babies start being grown in labs, non-identical genetic "cloning" will allow gay males to reproduce.

    3. Allowing affluent gays to adopt would help our economy be more productive by ensuring that unwanted children got the care they needed to become productive members of society -- not the prisoners, drug addicts, and mental health patients that the poor heterosexuals keep popping out at alarming rates.

    The fact is, it's not government's job to push children on people for tax purposes. There should be no marriage penalty OR benefit. There should be no child penalty OR benefit. But then... it's crap like this that makes me favor a national sales tax and eliminating marriage as a civil matter altogether. :)

    -l
    (single, full-time father)

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  181. Actually, I found it works quite well! by vortexau · · Score: 1

    It is well acted, edited, and the acted responses come out "cool and casual"!

    When the (quite beautiful) woman realizes her error; she just raises her eyebrows!

    Remember, it is NOT set in USA!
    .

    --
    (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"