Slashdot Mirror


Superbowling

An assortment of Super Bowl tidbits: Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money - also a Reuters story. Infinitus writes "The NFL's legal firm has a PDF up that outlines the NFL's intellectual property rights to words like 'Super Bowl' and 'NFL'. Including a neat little chart that tells you what you can and can't say..." VeggiePossum23 writes "Panthers Upset Patriots, 29 to 21... at least in the Sony Sponsored '989 Sports Game Before the Game' played on NFL Gameday 2004 on the PS2 Console. This annual event, held Wednesday night in Houston, has a perfect 8-year track record of picking the winner of the Super Bowl. Carolina Panthers Wide Receiver Steve Smith controlled the Panthers, winning an upset victory against New England Patriots' Wide Out Troy Brown, also controlling his own team." lordbyron writes "CBS is doing a SuperBowl of commercials that will include a vote for the best commercial in history. You can watch the top 10 now and make sure that you vote at 9pm on Sunday 1/31. It includes some classics like the Apple commercial and the exploding mosquitos from Tabasco."Wing Bowl.--->

428 comments

  1. Being English, I have to ask... by James+A.+E.+Joyce · · Score: 0

    ...what exactly do you get out of the Superbowl other than the adverts?

    (Now that I think about it, that would make it a pretty good Ask Slashdot.)

    --

    FloodMT: crapflood Movab
    1. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by eln · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Surprisingly enough, some of us actually enjoy the game. And please don't go on about how it's just big men hitting each other in pads. If you put any sport into similar words you can make it look silly, especially Cricket.

      Beyond those who watch it because they love the game, like me, there are the people that watch it because it's an EVENT. It's an excuse to throw a party. Every culture on Earth has numerous holidays that are fairly meaningless except for as excuses to throw parties. This is one of those days for the US.

    2. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by ect5150 · · Score: 1

      Probably the same thing anyone from anywhere gets from watching sports. Do not other countries go overboard with football/soccer? Why should this be any different? Also, it is after all a single game championship match (unlike other sports that have a series of games to determine the winner). Although, since I'm from Charlotte (hometown of the Panthers), I'm a bit biased on the situation.

      --
      I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
    3. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by The+I+Shing · · Score: 5, Funny

      American Football is big, big business in the USA. It represents what Americans love best, which is war. It has nearly all the elements of a war, fought during a time frame of about four hours, with sixty minutes of actual game time. It has offense, defense, gaining ground, losing ground, battle after battle, strategies, tactics, hierarchical command structures, casualties, statistics, a winner, and a loser.

      The Superbowl represents the pinnacle of all this, the wheat having been separated from the chaff throughout the regular season and post-season.

      It's a chance for American Football aficianados to gather over pizza, chicken wings, potato chips, shrimp cocktail, and copious beer, and cheer on one team or the other.

      For the fans in the home city of a Superbowl contender, there is a level of excitement that would probably embarrass a British person to death. Scottish people, on the other hand, would quite understand.

      --
      You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    4. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by mj2k · · Score: 1

      I usually watch the superbowl for the cheerleaders... Well that and the hot chicks on the bud-light commericals. It has come to the point that I pray for more scores so I can see more of the cheerleaders and at least one bud-light commercial.

    5. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Cricket is silly. Any game where you dress like that and spend a week throwing a ball at some sticks in the ground can't be that great ;-)

      I am English, BTW. I never really saw the attraction of football (soccer) as a spectator sport either to be honest. Ice hockey, on the other hand, rocks - shame we only get it at obscure times of the night.

    6. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by TwistedSquare · · Score: 1
      If you put any sport into similar words you can make it look silly, especially Cricket.

      Cricket doesn't need any words to make it look silly! Though possibly cricket is similar to american football in that both games seem impossibly long and dull to those not interested in them whereas I presume fans view it differently.

    7. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by levell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Scottish people are British! (The word you were looking for was English - I think). Although I'm not quite sure why you think English people would be embarrased by excitement.

      --
      Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
    8. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by boelthorn · · Score: 1
      Not that I like either sport, but replace football with soccer and American with European and tell me if anything changes.
      I have never seen a bank or a shop or anything similar closed because of an important soccer game. Never.
    9. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      It represents what Americans love best, which is war.

      That's strange, I don't remember too many Americans jumping up and cheering when they see footage of Vietnam or Iraq.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    10. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by errxn · · Score: 1

      ...but replace football with soccer and American with European and tell me if anything changes.

      Ok, I'll bite. When's the last time you heard the words "hooligan" and "riot" associated with American football?

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    11. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      Go panthers!

      --
      ymmv
    12. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by dbc001 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't use those exact words, but there's plenty of debauchery and rioting that happens around football. When I was in college we used to storm the field and tear the goal posts down and drag them through the streets of the town. It was usually done by 50-100 people, maybe more. I would bet that violent crime surges around football time, especially the big events. I would also bet that there have been a few full-fledged riots at American football games (or at least shortly thereafter).

    13. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      It's really because it is Sunday - mail generally doesn't run on sunday and banks [the branches] are not normally open on Sunday either -

      --
      ymmv
    14. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by smokin_juan · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't work for a large auto manufacturer full of lazy union tit suckers. Yes, they do get excited over the stupid bullshit and if war coverage was dressed up like professional sports i'm sure some parties would be thrown. Fortunately we're not quite to that point yet, but you can bet your ass that if the media (aka government) has it's way you'll be sure to see b/million dollar commercials wedged between the slaughter of oceana residents. Oh shit I forgot again... is Oceana our ally or enemy?

    15. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by zulux · · Score: 2, Funny

      It represents what Americans love best, which is war.

      Oh come on...

      As an American, I demand you get it right.

      War is way down on the list:

      10) Replacing small towns with Wal*Mart's
      9) Killing Babies
      8) War
      7) Traveling to Europe while wearing sneakers.
      6) Starving little children.
      5) Pissing off liberals
      4) Driving SUV's
      3) Eating MEAT MEAT MEAT
      2) Living in huge, but cheap, houses.
      1) Being right.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    16. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by boelthorn · · Score: 1

      There are enough games during the week. I can tell. I live next to a soccer stadium.

    17. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by errxn · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure, I wouldn't dare say that there's *never* been rioting associated with American football; it's just doesn't happen on a regular basis like it does with soccer.

      Also, IMHO, using the tearing down of goalposts as an example is kind of a bad analogy. I say this because, while it is quite rambunctious and frenzied, it's not really fan violence in the sense that a riot is. It is stupid and dangerous as hell, though. I'll give you that. IIRC, a girl was injured badly and was nearly killed by a falling goalpost after a Georgia-Tennessee game a few years back.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    18. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by glpierce · · Score: 1

      He's obviously never been to a real football game. Brits put American fans to shame (for the record, I'm American myself).

      --
      G
    19. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by karit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A cricket test (the 5 day version of the sport) is one of the greatest sporting events there is. There are great amounts of stratergy etc involved. And with what other sports can you sit on a grassy embankment drinking beer wacthing the best sport in the world in the middle of summer?

      --
      http://blog.karit.geek.nz/
    20. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by ellem · · Score: 1

      NASCAR at Watkins Glen

      --
      This .sig is fake but accurate.
    21. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by La+Fortezza · · Score: 1

      Or when was the last time you heard of people being *trampled* to death at an American football game?

    22. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by The+I+Shing · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oceana is our ally and always has been.

      Go back to watching your TV, citizens.

      --
      You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    23. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually,
      full metal jacket
      rambo
      platoon
      apocalypse now
      hamburger hill

      war is big entertainment as well

    24. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot..

      porn
      football
      chuch
      nascar
      baby deer hunting ( of course this is in the meat category)

    25. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but yet with all your hatred of America you spend enough time to frequent and comment on a site created in America. Be a rebel, leave slashdot.

    26. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

      Time to cut the mullet friend, and join civilization.

    27. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hatred of America?

    28. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You've got to be shitting me.

      Shops have been closed over here (Netherlands) during important football games.

    29. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by boelthorn · · Score: 1

      I live in Germany. I cannot remember any such thing.

    30. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't work for a large auto manufacturer full of lazy union tit suckers.

      You know what? Take your fucking bullshit stereotypes, and go blow them out your ass, will you?

      You're not quite as bright as you think you are, judging from the pure shit that comes out of that hole in your face.

    31. Re:Being English, I have to ask... by errxn · · Score: 1

      Well, thank you very little, Boston, for making a liar out of me.

      Leave it to the Chowds....

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
  2. Superbowl? by grub · · Score: 1


    That's tommorrow? Shows how much interest I have ;)

    Anyhow, I still love Apple's "1984" ad. Other then the mention of "1984" that ad could play today and still be considered timely.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Superbowl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll eh? Drooling jocks couldn't make it past the first line.

    2. Re:Superbowl? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      There is the little fact that IBM produces Apple's G5 chips that makes that ad kinda redundant in today's terms.

    3. Re:Superbowl? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Actually, Apple has the 1984 ad on their site with a small modification (no, not even the "On January 24th, Apple will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984"" changed.) She's got an iPod now.

    4. Re:Superbowl? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      By the way, I noticed something:
      make sure that you vote at 9pm on Sunday 1/31

      That's tommorrow? Shows how much interest I have ;)

      Actually, I've got Saturday 1/31/2004 here.

    5. Re:Superbowl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i cant wait till the game is over.

      just because i dont want to hear about a stupid game anymore.

      im glad my home team lost in the playoffs so we wouldnt have constant news coverage at the stadium

      i hate the hype and marketing of the superbowl.
      because its only a game

    6. Re:Superbowl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sorry, but when you start a comment with a statement like that, you are trolling. Let's try the same with a (5, Interesting) post from the latest GNOME article:



      KDE BLOWS, GNOME IS ON TEH SPOKE!!!!11one

      Anyways, how is GNOME becoming popular in developing countries when it's geared towards newer machines? I mean, you need at least 128M of RAM to run GNOME smoothly, and many systems in developing countries have 16, 32 and (just possibly) 64M of RAM. I would've thought they'd use IceWM or perhaps XFce.

      This is the only problem I see for GNOME and KDE. Powerful and flexible as they are, they're so bulky and huge that they don't feel much faster than Windows XP. If we want to give people an incentive to switch, we want them to FEEL that their machines are faster under Linux. Instead, you can see on message boards around the Net first-timers stating that Linux is "slow" and "bloated" because of this.

      I hope at some point KDE and GNOME developers really make headway into the bloat and performance, because otherwise it's not only unusable for any machine built earlier than 2001, but also doesn't give a good impression. Linux was always known as the speedy, svelte and lighweight OS - this image is being eroded.


      Wow, suddenly what would be an interesting post is a troll. See how it works? Except in your case, you made a trivial observation/opinion which added nothing to the discussion.
    7. Re:Superbowl? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Hey, let's watch the SuperBowl!

      The what Bowl?
      The Super Bowl!
      The Super what?
      SUPERBOWL!!
      What-What?

  3. Streaks by Mukaikubo · · Score: 0

    Either the 989 streak of 8 Super Bowls will come to an end or the Patriots streak of 14 wins will. You'll forgive me if I placed my hard-earned betting money on the Flying Elvii to win.

    1. Re:Streaks by eln · · Score: 1

      I couldn't immediately find a link, but ESPN's fake game came out with a Panthers win too, so you may want to rethink that bet. After all, a couple of guys playing a video game are never wrong.

    2. Re:Streaks by Ooter · · Score: 1

      We all know that these superbowl predictions made by 989 sports' game and espn's game won't accurately pick this years football game. I'm going to have to simulate it in Madden 2003 to get some real results. Either that, or I'm a very stubborn patriots fan refusing to believe even the POSSIBILITY of a panthers win :)

  4. Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by OS24Ever · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pretty potent/A. non-sex non-beer ad with only one statement in it.

    Pretty effective ad no matter what you US Political viewpoint is.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      For the record, CBS's reason for not accepting that ad is because they don't accept any debatable political issue issue ads. They would have accepted ads from candidates because they have to, but none came forward with the money to do so.

    2. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by kermyt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quoted from moveon.org

      The CBS networks still refuses to run our winning ad in the Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest during the Super Bowl. The
      MoveOn.org non-partisan campaign to get CBS to air issue ads continues, but we're not going to let CBS's censorship stop us
      in the mean time. That's why we're spending over $1 million to air the ad in our swing states and nation-wide on other
      channels -- starting with two spots on CNN that will air during the Super Bowl half time.

      This Sunday, during the Super Bowl half time show, join us in changing channels on CBS. At 8:10pm and 8:35pm EST, switch
      over to CNN to watch "Child's Pay" on a channel which doesn't censor its ads. We'd like to keep a tally of the number of
      people who participate -- you can sign up here:
      http://www.moveonvoterfund.org/boycott/?id= 2293-33 48214-6QjmVnR6_TwkZW4t8xOELQ

      The number of groups, individuals, and newspapers that have called on CBS to run our ad is remarkable. The National
      Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union have asked their own members to call CBS. Senator Dick Durbin
      (D-IL) gave a powerful speech about CBS on the floor of the Senate, saying, "Maybe network executives at CBS are so afraid
      of political pressure from the right wing and their business advertisers who are in league with the right wing politics of
      America that they are afraid to put anything on the air that might in fact make things uncomfortable. If that is the case,
      it is time for CBS to announce the name of their network is the 'Conservative Broadcasting System' and come clean with
      American viewers."

      28 members of the House of Representatives wrote a letter to CBS which stated, "The choice not to run this paid
      advertisement appears to be part of a disturbing pattern on CBS's part to bow to the wishes of the Republican National
      Committee. We remember well CBS's remarkable decision this fall to self-censor at the direction of GOP pressure. The network
      shamefully cancelled a broadcast about former President Ronald Reagan which Republican partisans considered insufficiently
      flattering." Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote a separate letter to CBS urging them to reconsider their decision.

      Today, the L.A. Times printed an Op-Ed piece of ours which lays out the case against CBS's censorship. That's attached
      below. But the editorial pages of the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, and many other papers came out in our favor as
      well. As the Globe wrote, "MoveOn.org's 30-second ad, which has aired on CNN, is a gentle yet powerful depiction of how hard
      today's children will have to work to pay off the country's mounting deficit. That's a vital message that might get lost in
      a year of campaign rhetoric, and it deserves a response from the White House in its own 30 seconds of imagery. America,
      sitting on the couch, junk food in hand, just might sit up and want to know more."

      Luckily, there are still some networks that do allow the free exchange of ideas. Please join the one-minute boycott: at
      Super Bowl halftime, switch to CNN and watch "Child's Pay," and let us know at:
      http://www.moveonvoterfund.org/boycott/?id=22 93-33 48214-6QjmVnR6_TwkZW4t8xOELQ

    3. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm damn glad they're not. This is entertainment not a venue for political prosyletizing.

    4. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by kermyt · · Score: 5, Insightful
      For the record, CBS's reason for not accepting that ad is because they don't accept any debatable political issue issue ads. They would have accepted ads from candidates because they have to, but none came forward with the money to do so.


      If that was true then CBS certainly would not run the white house ad that connects marijuana users to terrorism. but that is exactly that they are doing.
    5. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by finkployd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is amazing how many people do not understand what censorship actually means.

      Sad really

      I guess it is now censorship when a corporation decided not to play an ad that would piss off the majority of the country

      Just like it is censorship when the public decides to not boycott a movie/tv show because the ignorant actor/actress made some boneheaded statements about their assinine political views.

      Oh, and we cannot forget book publishers not publishing books that contain views they don't like. Obviously this is censorship, and not a business decision.

      Finkployd

    6. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Heisenbug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A few notes on this ... if you haven't seen the MoveOn Child's Pay ad, it's not exactly incendiary rhetoric. Even Bill O'Reilly said he was surprised they refused to play it.

      CBS defends the policy by saying that if they allowed issue ads, large corporations could buy time to push their favorite issues and it would disenfranchise us folks with smaller ad budgets. Eli Pariser of MoveOn responded by pointing out that this creates an awfully friendly environment for the status quo, and those same corporations. We have oil company ads but no anti-oil ads, shoe company ads but no sweatshop ads, drug war ads but no decriminalization ads.

      What we're really getting here is a one-sided agenda, and, yes, censorship, in the guise of fairness.

    7. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the third year running, the White House is placing an anti-drug ad. If that's not a "political issue ad", I don't know what is.

    8. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it is now censorship when a corporation decided not to play an ad that would piss off the majority of the country

      Actually, and more importantly, piss off a majority of its viewers, who are the reason the other advertisers are paying so much to advertise. I'm agreeing with you: this is not censorship. Nobody from the government is forcing them to do this, and the conspiracy theories about tit for tat are pure bull-puckey.

    9. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, given that the war on drugs has been a mainstay of both political parties, it's not partisan. You may disagree with it, but you can't blame a single political party for it.

    10. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most pot (in these parts) is locally grown. The whole "pot==terrorism" line is tired and disingenuous. It's an excuse to keep the jail busy. Many jails now use private management which support the Republicans.

    11. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Troll

      "...connects marijuana users to terrorism."

      Replace "users" with "prohibition" and that statement would be true.

      --
      What?
    12. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by damiam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A corporation not playing an ad because of its political viewpoints is censorship. It's their right, and it's perfectly legal (unless you want to get into some argument about the "public" airwaves), but it's still censorship. Besides nothing in that ad is at all controversial - the deficit estimate is even a bit low, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If they're gonna air ads from the White House (containing some very shaky statements about drugs and terrorism), they should air this ad (which doesn't even promote a candidate).

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    13. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by nytmare · · Score: 1

      It's not censorship. The ad is running, is it not?

    14. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, given that the war on drugs has been a mainstay of both political parties, it's not partisan. You may disagree with it, but you can't blame a single political party for it.

      The WOSD is one of the points at which the beliefs of standard control freaks and those of the cultural conservatives intersect.

      If the demogogues are ever going to be anything other than the youth auxillary of the repubes, then they should remove anyone who agrees with the WOSD from the party.

    15. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what are you proposing, that government should force CBS to air whatever the heck you say it should?

    16. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have oil company ads but no anti-oil ads, shoe company ads but no sweatshop ads...

      ... Come on down to the Sweatshop Direct Emporium! We have sweatshops available for all your mass assembly needs, almost all of which are located overseas out of the prying eyes of Human Rights activists! Need 100,000 shoes assembled in time for the playoffs? NO PROBLEM! ...

      I think you meant anti-sweatshop ads...

    17. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Nice point.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    18. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by minus_273 · · Score: 1, Troll

      "MoveOn.org non-partisan campaign"

      you're kidding right? move on is almost a wing of the democratic party. go look at their site. There is no need to inject politics into something people just want to enjoy. I think CBS made the right decision. give it a rest.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    19. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was implied...

    20. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Kid+Brother+of+St.+A · · Score: 1

      How is CBS' decision not to air the MoveOn ad "censorship" and not just a simple business decision? Doesn't CBS retain the right to choose which advertisements it uses to bring in revenue? If MoveOn offered me $100 if I put their movie on my website, don't I have the right to say "no thanks" for whatever reason I want? And if that's censorship, is that really wrong? It sounds more like MoveOn is just playing the censorship card because somebody disagrees with them and they don't like it. I'd like to see the increase in the number of hits on their website since CBS refused to air the ad.

    21. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does promote a candidate. The anyone-but-Bush candidate.

      The public waves whining is not an issue at all. Fine? Want the FCC to force the airing of the ad? The SuperBowl could just take its business elsewhere. Perhaps the public has the right to demand certain things of its airwaves, but if the public also wants the new hit shows and sporting events, it has to let the corporations do it on their terms.

      How is this censorship? If I refuse to put an ad on my website, am I censoring that ad? Of course not. To censor something, you must BAN the public distribution of it. You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to make people listen.

    22. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by alienhazard · · Score: 1

      doesnt the government realize that by prohibiting pot, peoples money go to shady and possibly "terroristic" people, but if they legalized it (and possibly taxed it) the money would go to help the economy and help pay for bushs trillion dollar debt? this is why i dont bother with politics; they are retarded!

      --
      > "I allege that SCO is full of it" -Linus
    23. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From this article

      Lange said CBS' policy is inconsistent, because she's seen ads condemning smoking and drunken driving on past Super Bowl telecasts.

      "If you can find a respectable group that is for drug abuse or kids starting to smoke, then I would find that to be an intellectually rigorous argument," Franks said.

    24. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by 11223 · · Score: 1

      Do I need to remind you that despite whatever local enforcement policies are in effect, drug usage is illegal in the US? That's not a political issue ad, it's an ad designed to discourage lawbreaking. If you don't like the fact that the government tries to do such things, lobby against the law.

    25. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Coryoth · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It is amazing how many people do not understand what censorship actually means.

      Yes, apparently even you. I was under the impression that censoring simply meant to screen and edit out any material found to be objectionable.

      This ad, was, apparently, objectionable as far as CBS was concerned in terms of their goals: To keep and maintain as many viewers as possible to maximise their advertising revenue.

      A book publisher not publishing a book that he finds objectionable is censorship too.

      Of course, most people these days presume that censorship is only evil government dictates, but that is not at all true. If a parent decides they don't want their child to watch a TV program, they are censoring the child's TV watching habits. For some reason people seem to think censorship==evil, which is just not true (certainly not by the definition of the word). By all means, be wary of state mandated censorship, but don't go misusing a perfectly good word.

      Jedidiah

    26. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by crabpeople · · Score: 1
      "I guess it is now censorship when a corporation decided not to play an ad that would piss off the majority of the country"

      i actually thought that the majority of americans were smarter than some of the pro bush trolls on slashdot. if there not, then why should i have any sympathy at all for your country? You really think most americans dont care that their govt is running a 1 TRILLION+ dollar deficit?

      are americans stupid (by your own admission) or um what?

      you can only really be ignorant, which i think is much more likely than stupidity if you are prevented from learning.

      this is what CBS is doing.

      this is why it is bad.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    27. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by dbc001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The right decision would have been not to allow policital ads at all. By airing an ad from the whitehouse, which I paid for (and I would much prefer that the money be used for education instead of fucking superbowl ads), they have basically dumped politics into the superbowl. They should either remove all the politics (arguably the wise choice) or allow everyone to advertise. Again, I agree that the superbowl should be an all-fun event. Politics and fun don't mix well. But they have clearly chosen sides, and that has already taken some of the fun out of it.

    28. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by op00to · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, thank god the ads about terrorism and drugs will still air. I was deathly afraid I wouldn't recieve my share of unbalanced propaganda!

    29. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they should air this ad (which doesn't even promote a candidate).

      Actually, if any of the democratic candidates were willing to pay for the ad from campaign funds (and as required, appear in the ad and indicate their approval) then CBS would be required to either accept the ad or reject all campaign ads for that election cycle. The lack of a candidate or ballot issue actually does this ad in...

    30. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by minus_273 · · Score: 0, Troll

      if you read on the "whitehouse ad" is an anti-drug ad. That is hardly a controversial topic, nor is it political. The whitehouse will score no points for it. Im sure there are people who will be offended by an anti-drug ad becasue you can't please everyone. It is the same as leftists being angry at corporate ads during the suprebowl.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    31. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 1

      While I disagree with that ad, it is a PSA. Networks air PSA's for free. It has to do with FCC rules about doing things in the public interest yada yada yada. Some networks air them during daylight and primetime hours, but most just air them at 1 in the morning (at least thats how my local stations seem to do most of theirs.)

    32. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Zebidiah · · Score: 1
      Wish I still had mod points.

      Good comment!

    33. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Heisenbug · · Score: 1

      Well, first of all, it's the public airwaves and all that ... so long as the government tells me that I am *not* allowed to broadcast a signal that can be picked up by a TV, I don't think it's out of the question for the government to require certain kinds of speech to be broadcast -- as, for example, CBS would be forced to broadcast a commercial by a Presidential candidate during the superbowl if requested.

      Second of all, no, I don't think we should call for the government to step in here. Neither does MoveOn -- what they're calling for is individuals to demand better from CBS. Tens of thousands of people, and dozens of Congressfolk, have done just that. If you want to help -- and I take from the tone of your comment that you support self-regulation as opposed to government regulation -- support the MoveOn one-minute boycott by switching to CNN at 8:10 and 8:35 to watch the ad CBS doesn't want to show you.

      Thanks for your anonymous question. I found it thought-provoking. Mmm, thoughts.

    34. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Bobman1235 · · Score: 1

      A corporation not playing an ad because of its political viewpoints is censorship

      Wrong. Wrong wrong. It's a good business model, not censorship. It may be censorship in the exact definition of the word, but not in the big brother way you're all thinking of it. CBS is in the business of making money, that's all. If half of the people watching CBS, or even some reasonable percentage, are going to be turned off in any way by the ad, it is their responsibility to the company they represent to not show it to protect their business interests. THey're not censoring ANYONE. I'm sure there are PLENTY of ads that get rejected for the same reason, you don't all get up in arms over that. It's a private fucking business, they make decisions to help their business.

      Oh, and somewhere up in the parent heirarchy here there was a mention of a "non-partisan" group promoting this ad. If it were non-partisan, I'm sure the ad woudln't specifically target BUSH. Bush's deficit? There's a lot more people in Washington making budget decisions than Bush. I'd agree that this administration has made a BUNCH of BAD budget decisions, don't get me wrong... I'm just pointing out the fallacy in pretending to be non-partisan.

    35. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Heisenbug · · Score: 1

      Presentation can be a form of censorship. Covering a topic on the 1 AM news instead of the 5 o'clock news -- because you don't want people paying attention to that topic -- is a way of censoring it. Summarizing one side's ideas while extensively quoting the other can be censorship. If your message is actively prevented from reaching an audience because of its content, you've been censored.

      In this case, CBS is censoring this ad from its Superbowl audience. It's not as bad as censoring it from all of their audiences, but that doesn't change what it is.

    36. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Chainsaw+Messiah · · Score: 1
      but it's still censorship

      blahblahblahblahblah .... why is it that everyone seems to think that the freedom of speech somehow includes the freedom to select the forum for that speech??

    37. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Heisenbug · · Score: 1

      Mmm, I thought of that angle, but decided to leave the wording as it was. Just my way of giving back to you, the AC community.

    38. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Zebidiah · · Score: 1

      I'm not from the USA; but what other ads do they run to discourage lawbreaking?

    39. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      That issue isn't considered debatable. There's no credible organization claiming that marijuana is not connected to terrorism, and anti-marijana messages are generally acceptable in society.

      Anti-budget-deficit messages aren't quite as in as clear of a territory...

    40. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by dumllama · · Score: 1

      There are ads against drunk driving.

      --
      "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" Wendell
    41. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by haystor · · Score: 1

      Censorship is something the government does. When it is done by company or individual it is editorial control.

      Sure, CBS may have an agenda behind playing/not playing something. Taking money for one ad like that may cost them a lot of money for other ads somewhere else. Or maybe they just like Bush. Whatever, if you want a free country, you have to allow people to be free to choose which ads not to show. After all, they paid a buttload of money to air the superbowl, er, the big game in Houston.

      I for one don't want my entertainment filled up with depressing issues. Sure those issues may be important but they don't belong *in* my entertainment.

      I'm currently a bit pissed off by the ads that are running before the movies. I don't mind them selling stuff before the slated movie time. And there is a certain tradition to trailers. But when they get into lecturing me about drug use and movie theft at every movie I go to, they've crossed the line.

      I don't pay $7 to be lectured. Personally, I don't do drugs nor do I steal movies. But after being lectured for it I'm about driven to the point of stealing movies. I'm torn between three options: 1. boycott the theatre. 2. Steal movies so the ads become appropriate 3. Raise hell with the management of the theatre until they stop playing that crap.

      Where was I? Oh, the anti-bush-spending ad. Yea, I'm against most government spending. Stop spending so much money and stop taking mine. Does this group making this ad have a proposed budget? Let's see it and the reasoning behind it. It's easy to hate the people in charge and say they spend too much without saying what needs to go.

      Oh, and as far as decriminalization ads go, I thought the whole superbowl was a show celebrating regular users of drugs.

      --
      t
    42. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by haystor · · Score: 1

      When someone points to the exclusion of that ad and calls it censorship, they are not claiming that CBS is exercising editorial control over their program. They also "censor" the "objectionable" ads that don't come with $2 million each as well.

      Definitions in English are contextual. Deliberately relying on a definition that the common person is obviously not using is...well...slashdot I guess.

      --
      t
    43. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 1

      Censorship is a loaded word used to incriminate someone as some 'rights-infringer'. Why is it censorship against some ads but not against others (I can't imagine a similar outcry for a Hustler or Call girl ad during the Superbowl)

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    44. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by 11223 · · Score: 1

      Hm. Anti drunk-driving, pro safe driving and seatbelt usage spring to mind immediately. Anti youth smoking too.

      When you're as big as the US, sometimes a little advertisement works wonders compared to the equivalent budget spent on enforcement.

    45. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by tepples · · Score: 1

      There's no credible organization claiming that marijuana is not connected to terrorism

      "Marijuana is connected to terrorism only because the U.S. Government wants marijuana connected to terrorism. Join NORML and help keep terrorists away from one of the most effective treatments for pain associated with terminal illness. Paid for by NORML Foundation." Would CBS consider this message too controversial to air?

    46. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by damiam · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about freedom of speech. MoveOn does not have the right to speek freely on CBS, because CBS is a private company not bound by the first amendment. Still, when CBS refuses to air the ad, they are censoring it, because that's what the definition of censorship is - "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". CBS consideres the ad objectionable (although apparently less so than drugs->terrorism ads), and so they are censoring it. It's their right, but it's still stupid of them.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    47. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by tepples · · Score: 1

      If there exists no appropriate forum, the usual response is "make your own." But have you considered that FCC rules prohibit citizens from creating their own such forums?

    48. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by WGR · · Score: 2, Interesting
      One of the conditions that allows CBS to have a monopoly of its particular broadcast frequencies in a city(no one else can use them in that city) is that they are non-discrimatory in accepting advertising as long as the ads do not violate any laws.

      Would it be alright if CBS accepted ads from the Ku Kux Klan but not the NAACP (or vice versa)? Since they have accepted advertising from partisan organizations in the past (such as election advertising this year), they are being hypocrites by refusing this one.

    49. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1
      You really think most americans dont care that their govt is running a 1 TRILLION+ dollar deficit?


      It's not about caring, it's about not wanting to have that sort of issue shoved in their face when they're trying to enjoy a game.

      The simple fact is, care about the deficit or not, the average American is NOT going to appreciate that kind of ad during the Superbowl. CBS recognizes this, and is acting appropriately.

      Now, myself, I could care less about pro sports anyhow. I won't be watching the Superbowl, just like I haven't watched any other sporting event apart from fishing for many years. I don't see any reason to taint someone's mindless entertainment with what is quite franky an uneccessary message at that particular time, though.

      Incidentally, the idea that this message is "non-partisan" is complete bullshit. It's designed to sway public opinion regarding the current President.

      If CBS DID air the ad, they'd be obligated to provide equal time for refutation.

      Nothing any advocacy group can do can lose them my support faster than them WHINING about entitlement and fairness when it comes to someone else's printing press.
      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    50. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Zebidiah · · Score: 1

      We have them in the UK as well, at least when I used to watch TV, which is rarely these days. I'm think there were drugs ads as well though I'm not 100% sure.

    51. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Zebidiah · · Score: 1
      Something like rings a bell here in the UK. I was wondering if the ran ads such as "Don't murder' or 'Theft is wrong' (Joking).

      I think what I was trying to get across with the question I asked was 'Who gives a toss!' People who break the law wouldn't care too much I guess.

      I'm not sure that I care (I'm not referring to the murder or theft comment here).

    52. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Paladin144 · · Score: 1
      Censorship is something the government does. When it is done by company or individual it is editorial control.

      Oh, hello. You must be from 1904. Here in 2004 the corporations control almost everything, with aid from their friends in the government. In fact, whole government agencies such as the FCC and FDA are in the business of protecting business. Ostensibly they are supposed to protect the public from unethical corporations, but that's now thought of as a really funny joke. Boy, we really fell for that one!

      Censorship happens all the time, especially when corporations and the government both agree that something is "controversial" (translation: damaging to their public image). I don't know much about 1904, but I'm pretty sure the corporations were starting to run amok during that time, peaking during the roaring 20's (you'll love that decade, but the following one is like one really bad hangover. Don't even ask me about the 40's).

      I suggest you pay more attention to the way corporate interests are protected by the government and vice versa. They are in a symbiotic relationship, which means that they scratch each other's back when necessary. That's very kind of them, but unfortunately, when giants frolick in the forest it's the trees and the grass that suffer.

      As far as "editorial control" goes, that's a code word for "printing/playing what we like" with the obvious implication that what they don't like doesn't get any air time. Who knows why the government does the things it does, but we all feel the effects of it. During the 30's they will move to make cannabis sativa (a.k.a. "marijuana") illegal because a rich newspaper baron bought a bunch of tree-filled land. His competitors were starting to use hemp, which is a kind of cannabis. So the baron, William Randolph Hearst, paid his friends in the government to see things his way and used his many newspapers to scare the public by saying marijuana is a demon-drug used by those filthy Mexicans who like to get high and rape our daughters. Of course, cannabis was soon illegal to buy or sell (except for during WW2, when they needed all the hemp they could get - hemp is an amazingly useful plant) and everybody just assumed that it was a horrible drug that made people go insane, a la Reefer Madness, but in the 60's this turned out not to be the case. Still, the drug remains illegal.

      Why do I bring this up? Well, because the White House will air an ad during the SuperBowl claiming that pot-users are in fact terrorists, or supporting terrorists, just like they were previously communists, nazis and Mexicans. Surely this is a somewhat "controversial" idea? Surely accusing the 40%+ part of the population who've used pot of supporting terrorism is a controversial claim? Surely CBS could exercise their editorial control and refuse to run that ad?

      Funny how that works. Tell me, how do things work in 1904?

    53. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by russotto · · Score: 1

      They do (or used to) run ads against statutory rape. Actual line from one ad: "You're not a man if you have sex with a 14-year-old"

    54. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Chainsaw+Messiah · · Score: 1
      If there exists no appropriate forum,

      Who determines what is "appropriate"? If noone will take your ad on TV, go to radio, if not radio, newspapers, books, pamplets, direct mail, shouting on street corners, or how about that new fangled innernet thingy. There is *always* a forum.

      the usual response is "make your own."

      Why would they need to make their own? They were rejected by one network and pretty much immediately found another one to broadcast it for them.

      But have you considered that FCC rules prohibit citizens from creating their own such forums?

      Prohibit? Really? They make it overly complicated and expensive, but noone is prohibited from operating a TV station or network (unless they've reached the market ownership limits).

    55. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do realize that, but now there's a big infrastructure built around prohibition, like the prison industry, and all those police dept's getting gov't grants to "fight" drug use, RICO, etc. These are some of your shadiest charactors. If it were legalized all that would go down the toilet. Everything is working as intended. If all people were to stop using drugs, I would bet that a full 20-30% of the world's economy would go belly up. But who would know, since it's off the books? The old joke goes: if you want to bankrupt the CIA, boycott cocaine. Prohibition supports terrorism and other criminal activities at home and overseas. It's that simple.

      --
      What?
    56. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by tepples · · Score: 1

      They were rejected by one network and pretty much immediately found another one to broadcast it for them.

      I'll grant you that about this instance. But what about next time, when a message may prove so controversial that every broadcast or cable TV network with a broad viewer base refuses to air it except in the 0100-0700 time slots, when very few people are awake to watch TV?

      noone is prohibited from operating a TV station or network (unless they've reached the market ownership limits).

      I'll grant that spectrum may in fact be plentiful in TV, but this is not the case in FM radio, as is often brought up in stories about Clear Channel's lock on music promotion. A university in Fort Wayne, Indiana, did a feasibility study on starting a college radio station but could find no spectrum available in the FM band.

    57. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      CBS defends the policy by saying that if they allowed issue ads, large corporations could buy time to push their favorite issues and it would disenfranchise us folks with smaller ad budgets.

      While I disagree with MoveON on most issues (though I happen to AGREE with them on this one) I have to call Bullshit on CBS. Superbowl ads (for the network, at least) are about as making as much money as possible. It costs a few million bucks to get a 30 second ad aired, and that number increases every year. For CBS to claim that they;re trying to "keep advertising rates low" is a lie on par with "I didn't inhale."

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    58. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by haystor · · Score: 1

      I'm curious what you would think of corporate control over work conditions was like in 1904.

      That we have a whole new level of transparency that we didn't have in 1904 doesn't mean that corporate scandal is new, it only means we actually hear about it much more frequently.

      Call me back when you're not too stoned to run a business and you're actually providing jobs for people. Then let me know if it's still your opinion that the government takes a hands off approach and just frees you up to be productive.

      Are there abuses today? Yes.
      Is this something new? Hardly.

      --
      t
    59. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The act of wasting tax dollars to write, produce, and pay for airtime on an anti-drug add should offend all Americans.

      Demagogues like GW Bush want to look "tough on drugs," and they don't seem to care that denying federal funding for education for people with drug convinctions severely hampers people who are trying to move beyond drug abuse and get on with their lives.

      If alcoholism is a medical condition, then so is any form of drug abuse. These afflictions must be treated through medical procedures, not jail time.

    60. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "They make it overly complicated and expensive"

      Sounds like a de facto prohibition to me.

      These private interests profit from the public airwaves, and return little to the public interest. That is why they should answer to the people as to what is "appropriate".

      What happens when the TV station also owns the radio and the newspaper? That happens more frequently than you would like to admit. Media ownership is becoming less democratic, and the Internet is Just Not There Yet.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    61. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather see an ad for revoking the DEA's fiat to seize and hold any property or funds that might have been in the same state as a drug lord.

      The War on Drugs is controversial.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    62. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
      Actually, and more importantly, piss off a majority of its viewers

      Actually, piss off a majority of its advertisers is more accurate.Why would the majority of viewers be pissed off by a commercial complaining about the ballooning deficit and describing the burden of debt service it will create for our children? That is what this commercial is about.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    63. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Kaboom13 · · Score: 1

      Bill O'Reily is the living personification of incendiary rhetoric. I hardly consider his opinion to be non-biased. His idea of discussion and debate is to spout random claims, with no evidence, and when someone calls him on it, call them stupid. I'm sure it makes for great ratings, and that's probably the point, but he is hardly credible. When I see him willing to debate the people he attacks in a forum he does not control, I will be willing to give his opinion merit.

    64. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Zebidiah · · Score: 1
      Wierd! I thought anti-crime ads were more targetted towards normally law abiding citizens, such as 'Don't drink and drive'. The ads targetted what I would call 'borderline crime' where it's illegal but is it wrong.

      If you drink and drive and you don't kill anyone then that's ok (I imagine this is what they think). You copy or download music, but there is no real actual theft even if it is illegal. You do drugs and you don't hurt anyone else but yourself. But I find it hard to think that anyone thinks rape is OK.

    65. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Brainboy · · Score: 1

      But I find it hard to think that anyone thinks rape is OK.

      Well anyone in the right state of mind. I don't think if you're a grown man having sex with a 14 year old, you have a little thing most people have, common sense. If one is having sex with females who lack pubic hair, then one is a friggin idiot. And lots of idiots believe everything they say on TV. Hopefully there is some overlap.

      --
      Just a guy with an opinion
    66. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Brainboy · · Score: 1

      So if someone tells you to say something you don't agree with, and you don't say it, is that censorship?

      --
      Just a guy with an opinion
    67. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Brainboy · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's censorship. I think it's more something else. maybe "creatively unethical" I dunno, i just don't think that censorship is the correct label to put on that.

      --
      Just a guy with an opinion
    68. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by damiam · · Score: 1

      If you're an entity whose entire purpose is to say things in exchange for money, and someone offers you money to say something and you refuse it, then yes, that's censorship.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    69. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Brainboy · · Score: 1

      So an entity has no control over what is said over its medium? That's not censorship. Maybe if it colluded with other entities to prevent one's message from being broadcast anywhere, but that is not the case.

      --
      Just a guy with an opinion
    70. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by damiam · · Score: 1
      censor - "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable".

      CBS examined the ad, and is suppressing it, because they consider it objectionable. Therefore, they are censoring it. You can argue semantics all you want, but they are refusing to play an ad because of its message, and that's censorship. It's their right, but it's still not what many people hoped they would do.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    71. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      No.

      CBS uses public broadcast waves. It got them for free, in exchange for concessions such as educational TV and other things.

      They have an ethical and contractual right to NOT just show their own opinions. If they did not show the White House Ads, then you would have a valid argument.

      But as they show the President's ads, and are using public air-waves without paying for them, they are ethically required to show the opposition.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    72. Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air. by Heisenbug · · Score: 1

      "Bill O'Reily is the living personification of incendiary rhetoric."

      I'm not sure if this was in reply to my post, but what the hell ...

      "Even Bill O'Reilly said he was surprised they refused to play it" was a reference to O'Reilly's well-documented rightwing leanings, not his trustworthiness as a commentator. When he says that an ad criticising the Bush administration is non-inflammatory, you know it's pretty damn mild.

  5. Re:Yeah.. nerdy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How ironic that nerds would huddle around the television to watch under-evolved gorillas toss each other a ball for three hours.

    Well, we've got to do *something* in between the commercials! And if you change the channel, you might miss one!

  6. No, it does matter by Misinformed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money - also a Reuters story..

    It wasn't mentined (in the articles) that these threats demanded they buy a /. subscription, or else they would be posted to the front page!

    --
    --

    Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.
  7. Radio Contests by LordArathres · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here in Los Angeles, KROQ is doing a "Super Bowl" contest where they send someone to the "Super Bowl" game, but they cannot call it the "Super Bowl" becuase of the NFL restriction. So they are referring to it as the "Big Game". It would cost them an insane amount of money to call it the "Super Bowl Contests" and its ridiculous. This whole trademark BS is so stupid sometimes. How can we live in a age where you cant refer to something by its official name without paying money??? I read slashdot all the time and I am so disgusted by the crap going on around us, what IS this world coming to?

    Mario

    1. Re:Radio Contests by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's even further ironic is that KROQ is owned by Infinity Radio, the radio arm of Viacom whose CBS network will be airing the Super Bowl this year...

    2. Re:Radio Contests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they still can get in trouble because they cannot give the tickets away in a contest unless it is being supervised by the NFL.
      On no! I typed NFL!!!! I am going to jail.

    3. Re:Radio Contests by cuzality · · Score: 1

      Dean's Dip is running an radio ad here in Richmond offering the chance to "Win an All-Expense Paid Trip to the Big Post-Season Game in Hawaii!!"

      Their twist is to use "Hawaiian" code for just about everything in the ad, just like they have to use code for "PRO BOWL" (sue me).

      Example: "When you're in Hawaii maybe your wife will wear that 'lo lo ow ow' you bought her, and give you a 'wana wahee' before the game!"

      Cute.

    4. Re:Radio Contests by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      How can we live in a age where you cant refer to something by its official name without paying money??? I read slashdot all the time and I am so disgusted by the crap going on around us, what IS this world coming to?

      Slashdot(TM) is a registered trademark of OSDN. Use of this mark without authorization is prohibited. In the future, please refer to Slashdot(TM) as "The Big Website" or we will be forced to seek legal recourse via our attorneys of record, Schmeckel, Schwartz, and Putz (LP).

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    5. Re:Radio Contests by dododge · · Score: 1
      Here in Los Angeles, KROQ is doing a "Super Bowl" contest where they send someone to the "Super Bowl" game, but they cannot call it the "Super Bowl" becuase of the NFL restriction. So they are referring to it as the "Big Game".
      Here in MD/DC/VA, WHFS has been doing a bunch of "Upersay Owlbay" stuff for the past few weeks.
  8. Football IP? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    intellectual property rights to words like 'Super Bowl' and 'NFL'.

    Funny, I never thought I'd see "intellectual", "SuperBowl" and "NFL" in the same sentence ...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Football IP? by aiken_d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, laugh at how not intellectual football is. Heck, it's as simple as:

      Your fast OT slams him inside (This is why he's FAST) and your FB still runs "B" gap. Your QB reads the DE - the first defender outside "B"(Almost 100% guaranteed you'll get a handoff read). If QB gets a "keep" read, he options "W". The "slow" left guard takes "M" unless the NG is in playside "A". In that case both the center and the slow guard drive the NG back and the slow guard looks for a chance to zone block to "M". SE blocks F (deepest, nearest safety) and slot has corner. On backside, "slow" guard picks off anyone upfield trying to follow wing's motion while fast tackle shoeshines the DT.

      From Youth Football knowledge base

      Simple, right?

      Cheers
      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    2. Re:Football IP? by MikeXpop · · Score: 1

      Yes. It is, mostly because I know what all of those mean (I watch football on occassion). You can do the same thing with technical terms (IP, TCP/IP, GNU, SCO, PS/2, USB, 802.11b, etc) and it will be just as confusing if the person doesn't know what they mean.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    3. Re:Football IP? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because it has its own jargon doesn't make it intellectual. Car salesmen and McDonald's burger-flippers too have their own jargon you'd be hard-pressed to understand if you're not in the know.

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

      I played football in high school, the only thing that was difficult about it was all of the goddamn running we had to do. We ran more than the track team.

    5. Re:Football IP? by aiken_d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you didn't see any need for the (remember, youth) players to make relatively complex split-second decisions in that? Nevermind the jargon, look at the decision making and then tell me it's just a bunch of dumb guys knocking each other down.

      You can think what you want, you're just wrong in this case. There *are* dumb football players, but they're in the minority and are never the stars. It's an amazingly complex game, though it certainly is easy to miss that, especially if you base opinions on stereotypes rather than an actual understanding of the game. Might as well say that chess is just a couple of morons pushing plastic things around a board.

      Cheers
      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    6. Re:Football IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what any of those terms/acronyms mean. Still, I'd take an IQ test against any of those college-milk-fed jocks any day. Many of them have the literacy level of a pre-teen. How on earth do they know where to sign their paychecks?

    7. Re:Football IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There *are* dumb football players, but they're in the minority and are never the stars.
      Minority? Ha. They're brain-dead, muscle-heads with no talent helpful to society. Unless you consider throwing a ball while the sheep watch helpful.

      It's nice that you stand up for what you believe in, but trying to tell us it's intelligent makes you sound like you're grasping at straws. Just say you like it because it's mindless entertainment and save some face.

    8. Re:Football IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this "Super Bowl"?

      At first glance it appears to be some variant of Rugby, but played by men who require larges amounts of padding and oxygen to get through a game -- and yet, it is referred to by the name "Football", despite the non-use of feet, and in direct conflict with the largest and most popular sport in the world (or Soccer as you Colonials know it).

      Might I suggest a change of name to "Rugby-lite" or perhaps "Poofball". It would lessen the confusion, and perhaps even lead to increased take up of the "sport" among the more fragile males, unable to play Rugby, around the world.

    9. Re:Football IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a bunch of dumb guys knocking each other down.
      And it's not football. Football is played with a ball and your feet.

    10. Re:Football IP? by damiam · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big football player, but I can say that, while most sports do involve amazingly complex strategy, it's not something you really think about. I play soccer, which as a complicated a game as any, and I don't really think about what I'm going to do - I just instinctively do it. While I'm sure there are many smart football players, it's not an intellectual game on the same level as something like chess.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    11. Re:Football IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Poofball"

      That implies the use of a ball, which is not the case here.

    12. Re:Football IP? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      "...McDonald's burger-flippers too have their own jargon..."

      I wonder... what do they call the bugar they just blew onto your burger.

      --
      What?
    13. Re:Football IP? by aiken_d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I partly agree. Football is unique in the sports world, though, because of it's play-by-play dynamic (you could argue the point for baseball, but the "plays" in baseball are much, much simpler). Coaches have an amazingly complex job of deciding, for each play, which players to put on the field and what play to call. Players, too, need to read the opposition and adjust not just athletically but also who to cover and whatnot.

      There's certainly a run-time (har!) atheltic component, but there is also a very cerebral component that many players have to participate in (seeing, for instance, that the pre-snap motion on offense has overloaded one side of zone coverage and will leave a receiver uncovered... and then calling a timeout to prevent the play from starting).

      I'm not saying it's chess-level, at least for the players, just that people who characterize it as devoid of intellectual participation are 1) wrong, and 2) engaging in stereotyping. It's like someone saying that top-notch programming doesn't involve intelligence because "you just tell the computer what to do and it does it." Only someone with a complete lack of understanding of the process would make such an assertion, and the same goes for football.

      Show me someone who actually understands the game and who says that players are generally not smart and the game isn't intellectual, and I'll concede the point. You won't find someone like that, though. (No fair going back to the 1930's when that was closer to being true).

      So it's a pet peeve. Deal with it.

      Cheers
      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    14. Re:Football IP? by aiken_d · · Score: 1

      Ok, I've started a mini-debate with that post. A quick Google turns up some evidence in my favor.

      According to the article, in an abbreviated IQ test (50 questions) the average for football player's score is the same as the average for other professions. Of course, you'll note that the average for programmers is higher than the average for any particular position on the football field. But I wasn't asserting that football players are geniuses, just that the game requires a reasonable level of intelligence.

      Cheers
      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    15. Re:Football IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To play Devil's Advocate, your link goes to "espn.go.com". It wouldn't be in their best interests to portray jocks as dummies.

    16. Re:Football IP? by Kid+Brother+of+St.+A · · Score: 1

      I used to believe that football was just for dumb jocks. But say what you will -- the more I follow football the more I realize that to play football well at the college or pro level you have to be very smart and quick-thinking. Some of the offensive playbooks for pro teams (like the Indianapolis Colts, for instance) are as dense and complex as a circa-1975 calculus book. Just ask people who know pro football how smart Peyton Manning has to be, to be able to walk up to the line, look over the defense, change the play 1-2 times on the spot and then deliver the ball in a rapidly-changing defense, all in under 30 seconds. You can't be slow-witted and do stuff like that.

      I also remember one of my best Calculus students was a guy named Todd Yoder, who is now a tight end for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and was an all-SEC wide receiver when I had him in college. Changed my mind about the whole "student-athlete is an oxymoron" joke.

    17. Re:Football IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sheer amount of plays that a football team has available is mind boggling. Carolina alone has 50+ different blitzing packages. (that's 50 different ways to send one guy to hit the quarterback before he gets rid of the ball.) Jake Delhomme (Panthers QB) has an armband with 150 different plays taped to it. That means that when he calls out a play, "Clown X" for example, his offensive line knows to block a certain way to open up a hole that is just big enough for Panthers Wide REceiver Steve Smith to run just outside and cut back up the middle. The receiver's timing has to be precise, to the split second, because Jake is throwing the ball at a certain speed at a certain time. If Steve is off by a half second hell miss the ball. If they're lucky the ball will go incomplete. If they're not, a defender will intercept it and run it back. Fortunately, Steve's timing is dead on and he pulls it in. He gets about seven yards downfield with the ball when he starts to see the other team's safeties. (guys on the defense who are the "last line of defense".) Steve knew they would be there because they spent thre days studying film of the other team's defense. (Yup, sitting in a room for eight, maybe 10 hours, watching, studying, taking notes on just the other team's defense) Steve, remembering how the play evolves, knows that none of his teammates are in the area to block for him. (they all ran in oppisite directions to try to confuse the other team.) Steve also knows he is faster then the two guys left. Jake, of course, knows this because he saw who was lined up in what position before he even started the play. Meanwhile, Steve just puts the proverbial petal to the metal and races at full speed for the endzone. He blows by the last two safeties, and scores the game-winning touchdown.

      All that took place in the span of about five seconds. Now tell me again Football is not a thinking man's game.

      (for those who are wondering, "Clown X" was the play Carolina ran to score the game winning touchdown against the Rams in double overtime; ending the fifth longest game in NFL history.)

    18. Re:Football IP? by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big chess player, but I can say that, while most sports do involve amazingly complex strategy, it's not something you really think about. I play checkers, which as a complicated a game as any, and I don't really think about what I'm going to do - I just instinctively do it. While I'm sure there are many smart chess players, it's not an intellectual game on the same level as something like Go.

      ;)

    19. Re:Football IP? by damiam · · Score: 1
      Checkers::Chess != Soccer::Football

      And no one plays checkers instinctively, instantaneously. They do sit and think about what they're doing, as do chess and go players.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    20. Re:Football IP? by thedillybar · · Score: 1
      players to make relatively complex split-second decisions

      You said if this happens than do this. If something else happens, then do something else.

      I can tell a computer to do that. That's not intellect, and it's not complex split-second decisions. It's a matter of recognizing what's happening, and doing what you've been told to do.

      I'm not saying football players aren't intellectual; I'm saying that your argument is not valid.

    21. Re:Football IP? by haystor · · Score: 1

      Football and Volleyball come out closely. Given equal talent (physical) levels, it all becomes:
      1. Execution
      2. Looking like something else

      Ideally you can run or pass from the same formation. If you had one formation for run and one for pass you'd be eaten alive.

      Sometimes you run unsuccessful plays just to see how the other side reacts and set up a future play that has the same look but different move later in the game.

      For instance, watch the tight end as he switches from one side to the other, he'll run behind the quarterback, get to the other end and 9/10 he'll end up block the defensive guy at his end for a running play. A team might run that 5 times for 1 yard each. But just once they'll let the tight end release and his man will rush the quarterback thinking he's beaten his block, instead of staying with the tight end who gets a quick pass, a little yardage and a first down or even touchdown (this play is common on the goal line).

      It is physical in the sense that having a better runner makes your run game better.

      It is mental in the sense that being *perceived* as having a better runner makes your *passing* game better.

      Oh, and I don't even like football. I just started noticing this while watching. Once I noticed it, it was observable all over the field.

      Volleyball is the same thing. If you have just one good hitter on your front row, he'll get blocked 90% of the time. If you have two good hitters and the opposing middle blocker reads the setter, you're in for a lot of blocks still. It's not until you can hold that middle blocker in the middle and get the ball out to either side for 1v1 that you're going to do anything useful.

      Those two games are so dependent on showing one thing and executing another because they are so episodic in nature. Baseball isn't nearly the same since there is the huge random factor of a pitcher trying to get a ball past the batter.

      Oh, one last thing about football. You have to be able to stay cool and not give away your plan even while someone is trying to take your head off.

      --
      t
    22. Re:Football IP? by (void*) · · Score: 1

      And you can think whatever you want, but the decisions are hardly thoughtful decisions. They are based upon the honing of a skill. For example, English soccer is just the same. And English soccer is full of people who aren't that bright. They aren't stupid dummies, just your average bloke with a good skill.

    23. Re:Football IP? by (void*) · · Score: 1

      I am anxiously awaiting for your great insight into Machine Learning.

    24. Re:Football IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the piece or just look at the link? It's an article about a standardized test, not an opinion piece.

    25. Re:Football IP? by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      ... it was a joke, jeez.

    26. Re:Football IP? by fname · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I find it interesting that no one is fighting this. It seems a bit absurd that you can't call an event by its actual name without committing copyright infringement; has this type of thing been challenged before? Has the NFL enforced its "rights" to prevent the use of terms like AFC, NFC, Super Bowl and NFL over the past 35 years, which would enable them to continue to do?

      I don't think the NFL can prohibit anyone from displaying the game and charging admission to the event, as long as the broadcast is not altered. After all, this is being publicly broadcast on our airwaves, and the NFL has no right to tell us where, why or how we can watch the game.

      On the other hand, the casinos could just go ahead with their party, cease referring to them as Super Bowl events, broadcast the game and charge whatever they want. I don't think the NFL would have a case if they ceased using these copyrighted terms from the date of notice onward.

      On the third hand, this is Vegas reaping what it sows after aggressively running ads encouraging people to come to Vegas for the Super Bowl. This is the sound of the other shoe dropping.

    27. Re:Football IP? by goatasaur · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the technology at the BP station is beyond my grasp, but that doesn't mean a high school football player can't pump my gas.

      --
      ~D:
    28. Re:Football IP? by Debillitatus · · Score: 1
      I think your analogy might be a little off.

      First of all, I don't think it's appropriate to compare the two sports. Soccer is infinitely less complicated than football. (I guess it's more appropriate to say football and american football, but whatever.) I played both through high school seriously, and I still play soccer a lot now, of course being too old to continue to play american football...:-)

      Soccer is really a game of position and one-on-one matchups. It is very similar to basketball, and I guess ice hockey. Because of this, it's not so complex. All you do is try to get the ball to a guy in a good place to take a shot. And, yes, one can play soccer without knowing too much, just keep the ball in your possession and attack the goal. You don't have to keep a lot of stuff in your head when you play.

      American football, on the other hand, is crazy complicated. Part of it is that the action comes in discrete plays, and the offense gets to plan an arbitrarily complicated attack. The defense has to read what is going to happen in a very short time, and of course this also gives a large psychological facet to the game.

      Now, I'm not going to say that the level of intellectualism compares to that required of a philosopher, or even a chess player. But it's really complicated, and honestly if you had played it a lot I think you might appreciate that fact.

      Second, I think your analogy fails, unless I am mistaken in my presumption and you are a professional soccer player. If you are, my argument is null, but otherwise the point is this: at a low level, the game is played with much less strategy. I'm sure you'll concede that although you don't have to think about your soccer game that much, people who make millions of dollars a year to play it put a lot more thought into it.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    29. Re:Football IP? by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      I'm watching the intro now, and it would seem to be a bunch of hulking millionaires (how many games/year do NFLers play vs. team players in other sports? 10 to 1 ratio?) glaring at each other menacingly, bonking teammates' heads and generally overacting for the cameras.

      Is this type of hype, silliness and posing prominent in hockey, baseball or basketball? Crap, I think wrestling is on tonight on another channel - probably more interesting and just as staged for the cameras.

  9. Sunday 1/31? by LordoftheFrings · · Score: 1

    Isn't Super Bowl sunday (tomorrow) "Sunday 2/01"?

    1. Re:Sunday 1/31? by A+Bugg · · Score: 1

      Lordbyron either got the dates mixed up or is pissed off that they are holding it in February which is think I personally think is ridiculous(well that's more me probably than him). They don't need 2 weeks, just give them one.
      A Bugg

  10. 2 teams of 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Kick a ball around for 2* 45 minute sessions. That ball is called a football (the ball has a structure similar to C-64 in terms of pentagons and hexagons). The game of 'football' is played all around the world.

    1. Re:2 teams of 11 by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For those who don't know, American football is a sissy version of rugby (rugby players don't wear helmets and armored plates). European football, on the other hand, is played mostly with the feet, and sometime the head, but in most player's case, there isn't any difference, which is why it's called "foot"ball.

      There are 2*11 players in a football game. It's called "team spirit" : 11 players, only one spirit, so they learn to share.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:2 teams of 11 by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Ive seen you flaming football on this whole thread. You should know that american football is really nothing like rugby (I have played both organized football and rugby union, here in america). Your statements are pure FUD.

    3. Re:2 teams of 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rugby players don't wear helmets and armored plates

      Which simply proves that, as dumb as most American football players are, they at least have common sense, unlike their rugby-playing counterparts. Pure Darwinian arguments alone put American football over the top. (Well, maybe not, do rugby players at least wear cups?)

      Seriously, though, have you ever tried to get Americans who are used to playing American football to play rugby? There is far more roughness and injury than a properly played game of rugby (not that there isn't plenty still).

    4. Re:2 teams of 11 by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 1
      American football is a sissy version of rugby (rugby players don't wear helmets and armored plates

      That's because rugby players don't hit each very hard, hence they don't need armor. Hey, golfers don't wear armor either. I'd love to see a 400lb lineman (without his armor) up against an Aussie rugby player and let's see what happens.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    5. Re:2 teams of 11 by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Yes, a 400lb lineman up against 380lb prop forward. I can see that would be a walk over. Or possibly not.

      Jedidiah.

    6. Re:2 teams of 11 by timeOday · · Score: 1
      American football is a sissy version of rugby (rugby players don't wear helmets and armored plates).
      I'm with you brother. Why go to all the effort of ramming into things and getting kicked in the nuts only to spoil it with a helmet and cup?
    7. Re:2 teams of 11 by jonman_d · · Score: 1

      I've never understood the "football is a sissy version of rugby" line. American football is a lot more violent than rugby. For example:

      Rugby: Play gets tackled, they must let go of the ball.

      Football: Player gets tackled, uses his body to maintain control of the ball. Result: ten 300 pound men jumping on top of him.

      If American Football is so much of a sissy sport, why are people constantly being taken off the field with broken legs, head injuries, and crushed limbs, even WITH the protective armor?

    8. Re:2 teams of 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn. American football players are bigger, stronger, and faster than rugby players. They collide at a much greater rate of speed, since they're generally running free over a greater distance. The pads a football player wears are greatly exaggerated by people who don't know what they're talking about; the padding, while extant, is not as significant as many people think. These are simply very big guys. And none of that's a knock on rugby -- it's a different sport and requires players of a different sort.

      The endurance of rugby players, who take sustained punishment, is easily just as impressive as the average NFL player's ability to repeatedly sustain sudden, explosive hits. One can appreciate both in different ways, the European/Australian tendency to bloviate about pads in American football notwithstanding. (For the record, American football was not created with pads. They were added out of necessity. At the college level, players were dying or being gravely injured. Since then, players have become much bigger, much stronger, and much faster. If the NFL got rid of helmets or pads, today, the death rate would astonish. No joke.)

    9. Re:2 teams of 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Rugby: Play gets tackled, they must let go of the ball.

      ...which is instantly followed by a mad fucking scramble by both sides to get hold of said ball, resulting in a large pile of bodies much like the one you describe in American football. Maybe you're thinking of Rubgy League, not Rugby Union, where once a player is tackled, the game stops, and the player with the ball gets up and resumes play again. The team is allowed 5 consecutive tackles in this manner before they need to hand the ball over to the opposition, or kick it.

      Rugby League is the most popular code of football in New South Wales (and possibly Queensland, but I'm not from there so I won't comment), but it isn't as popular as Rugby Union at an international level, and Australian Rules Football dominates in most of the other states (especially Victoria).

      Ok, just to get this back to the pointless pursuit of 'my football code is tougher than yours'...

      If American Football is so much of a sissy sport, why are people constantly being taken off the field with broken legs, head injuries, and crushed limbs, even WITH the protective armor?

      That's because they're all faggots.

      OK, let the next round commence!

    10. Re:2 teams of 11 by goldfndr · · Score: 1
      European football, on the other hand, is played mostly with the feet, and sometime the head, but in most player's case, there isn't any difference, which is why it's called "foot"ball.

      Really? Do you have photos of these "players" in which you can't tell the difference between their head and their feet? Were they mutants at birth or just later engineered that way?

      --
      Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
    11. Re:2 teams of 11 by Rich+Klein · · Score: 1

      Yes, we all know that there are two different games in the world that are called football. Get over it.

      --
      -Rich
  11. Re:Batman touched my junk liberally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should have hired Superman's lawyer to sue Batman and his referee with the $150K and collect most of his Bat-fortune ...

  12. Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by corebreech · · Score: 0, Redundant
    1. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      It was a pretty safe bet that no matter what ad won the "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest, CBS would reject it. CBS has a long standing policy of rejecting ads "for the advocacy of viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance."

    2. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 2, Informative

      That had nothing to do with the ad, it has to do with the fact that TV networks don't air "issue ads," or political ads not endorsing a certain political candidate. Basically, they're too controversial and the networks don't want to show anything that might make people want to change the channel. Yup, sucks, but that's the way things work. And this has nothing to do with the first amendment, CBS is a corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government. It would only be illegal if the FCC or Congress passed a law prohibiting issue ads on TV.

    3. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by corebreech · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That had nothing to do with the ad, it has to do with the fact that TV networks don't air "issue ads," or political ads not endorsing a certain political candidate.

      Not true, they air such ads all the time when they come from the Democrats and/or the Republicans.

      Basically, they're too controversial and the networks don't want to show anything that might make people want to change the channel.

      And ads for three different drugs that induce erections aren't?

      Yup, sucks...

      Yes, it does. Hence my pointing it out.

      but that's the way things work.

      Or to put it another way, we live in a totalitarian state.

      And this has nothing to do with the first amendment, CBS is a corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government.

      A very simplistic reading of the situation. Those our are airwaves. The very fact that the networks can be given exclusive access to those airwaves on the one hand and then be allowed to suppress speech is de facto government censorship.

    4. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's CBS's decision that's protected by the First Amendment. Only in very rare cases can anybody force CBS to broadcast something in doesn't want to, the freedom of the press goes to the owner of the press.

    5. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by damiam · · Score: 1

      What about that ad is controversial?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    6. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we live in a totalitarian state"

      What?

      No, really. What?

      You damn hippies always wish we were back in the McCarthy era or the Vietnam era or Industrialization or the Great Depression just so you'd have something to whine about. Get over it.

    7. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      "It would only be illegal if the FCC or Congress passed a law prohibiting issue ads on TV."

      If they don't "tow the line", their license might not be renewed. Censorship comes in many forms.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Those our are airwaves. The very fact that the networks can be given exclusive access to those airwaves on the one hand and then be allowed to suppress speech is de facto government censorship."

      That's a poorly thought out point of view. There are many other stations on the air that WILL show those viewpoints. The government doesn't decide which channels are allowed to be popular. And they have nothing to do with CBS's decision to not run issue ads. This is not government censorship. CBS is just trying to maintain a high viewership. Which they are free to do.

      "Or to put it another way, we live in a totalitarian state."

      How about we show the full quote here? "Basically, they're too controversial and the networks don't want to show anything that might make people want to change the channel. Yup, sucks, but that's the way things work."

      This has nothing to do with the government. This has to do with CBS maximizing its viewership. They are free to do that by not showing things people don't want to watch. They can choose that. CBS isn't the government.

    9. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by corebreech · · Score: 1

      CBS has a long standing policy of rejecting ads "for the advocacy of viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance."

      Bullshit. They're running another one of these goddamned "drug-use equals terrorism" ads from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy again this year.

      They always run this kind of crap. But only when it suits their political point-of-view.

    10. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Not true, they air such ads all the time when they come from the Democrats and/or the Republicans.

      Be more specific, they air issue ads when they come from a Republican or Democrat running for an elected office. In those cases, the networks are faced with an all-or-nothing situation, they must take all ads pertaining to that election at the same "lowest" rate for the timeslot, or turn all ads for that election away.

    11. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by corebreech · · Score: 1
    12. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      There's no credible organization stepping forward to say that there is no link between illegal drugs and terrorism... and anti-illegal-drugs messages aren't that socially unacceptable.

      The contraversial issue that the MoveOn.org ad basically brings forward is "Running a budget deficit is bad for the future." That's a point that can be debated, there's plenty of people out there willing to argue that having a deficit today is actually a good thing for our future. And that's a fight CBS would rather not get itself in the middle of. They fear that some anti-MoveOn.org group might come forward and suggest a boycott of CBS programs... and suddenly taking MoveOn.org's ad is a bigger loss to the network than not taking it. Nobody's ever going to boycott the network most Pepsi ads, and the network will turn Pepsi away if they're ever dumb enough to hand in a politically incorrect one.

    13. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      The ad itself isn't contraversial, but the issue that it brings forward, are deficits bad for the future, is. CBS doesn't want their football coverage to become a political forum, because then people will get upset and might not be inclined to watch the program, which devalues all of the ad space. By comparision, more people are likely to be attracted than repelled by Britney, Pink, and Beyonce wearing small outfits...

    14. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by damiam · · Score: 1
      The ad itself isn't contraversial, but the issue that it brings forward, are deficits bad for the future, is.

      That's controversial? You're spending more than you're making. Someone, eventually, is going to have to pay all of that money back, along with billions in interest. It will either be us or our children (or their children, etc.). How can you argue against that?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    15. Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS... by corebreech · · Score: 1

      There's no credible organization stepping forward to say that there is no link between illegal drugs and terrorism...

      So what? I see no such requirement in the policy CBS puts forward in defense of this onerous decision.

      You're grasping at straws.

      And who says that the ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance aren't credible?

      And even if that were the case, why do you suppose that would be? Because so many in the media refuse to run advocacy ads disputing the connection between drugs and terrorism?

      Just because your OK with goosestepping into a future of shit doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.

  13. Internet Access at the Superbowl by Ro0tSiEgE · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The company I work for, CityNet, is providing free internet access during the superbowl, and it has been going on for the past week. Hopefully this will provide us with some (plug)exposure to the public(/plug), since we need all the publicity that we can get :)

  14. protection money... by Cedric+C.+Girouard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does it just strike me as very stupid from the extorter ?

    I will not say that most gambling site are operated by/for criminals, but say that a good percentage of it are the operations of some legitimate business mans ?

    My experience in this domain is that they will be able to get their hands on some money, but that said money will be delivered by Vito and Guido, and they'll be made an offer that they cannot refuse.

    Maybe spammers should start spamming the mob too. Kill two birds with the same stone ?

    --

    Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...

    1. Re:protection money... by interiot · · Score: 2, Informative

      The gambling sites are in a legal grey area, in that often what they're doing would be illegal in the countries of the participants, but the organization is outside the jurisdiction of the united states/europe/whatever. So in that sense, the extorters may also be working in a legal grey area where they won't see much investigation or pressure from the western world to stop their extortion.

    2. Re:protection money... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      The extorters *are* the mob. One set of criminals ripping off other ones.

    3. Re:protection money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, also consider the possibility that this could be a mafia doing the extortion. There are plenty of powerful mafia in eastern europe, and the Russian mafia pretty much runs the country. The Russians play the extortion game better than anyone; Putin is thinking about not signing the Kyoto treaty because global warming would possibly benefit his country.

    4. Re:protection money... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      You watch WAY too much TV.

    5. Re:protection money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Kyoto would hurt his country when it's still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    6. Re:protection money... by pizzaman100 · · Score: 1
      Speaking of gambling, this would be an interesting wager:

      Total points scored -vs- Number of ads with women in their underwear.

      My guess is that the women will win that matchup. Sex sells, doesn't it?

    7. Re:protection money... by Cedric+C.+Girouard · · Score: 1
      You watch WAY too much TV.


      Actually I dont.
      And I _DID_ work for an online casino that was 100% legal, but who's owner, I would not frequent outside business hours.

      While they ran a tightly legal ship, I would not dare to blackmail them or try to doublecross them.

      One thing you learn is that you do NOT fuck with the casino. Any one of them.

      --

      Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...

  15. Top Ten? by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

    Those are the top ten commercials?

    Apple? Coke? Of course.

    But what about the monkey ad? What about the Bud Bowl? (The commercial with about eight sequels) Who voted for these?

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    1. Re:Top Ten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm completely stumped by the inclusion of that Noxzema commercial. I don't see what's so good about it. You get to see a guy shave while some woman who can't sing sings about Noxzema. Uh...wow?

      The ad is eight years older than I am though. Maybe there's some historical significance, but shouldn't the greatest of all time be something that's still obviously great today?

    2. Re:Top Ten? by FenwayFrank · · Score: 1
      The EDS herding cats ad from MM is my favorite.

      The Noxema ad? Coke? Were these really aired for the first time during a Super Bowl?

    3. Re:Top Ten? by edeloso · · Score: 1

      Um, this may be redundant as it is listed above. The Noxzema add features "Broadway" Joe Namath of New York Jets and Superbowl III fame and Farrah Fawcett of poster and Charlie's Angels fame. Not a great ad in of itself, but for star power in its time it ranked very high. Probably the two biggest sexual icons in the early 70's. I think the last Bud Bowl, the one where the truck turns into the fullback should definitely be in there.

  16. What plugin? by Unregistered · · Score: 1

    What plugin do i need to watch those ads? Firebird and IE don't sem to know what do do with the video.

    1. Re:What plugin? by EvilLiberalGuy · · Score: 1
      What plugin do i need to watch those ads? Firebird and IE don't sem to know what do do with the video.

      Install Quicktime 6.5

      --
      Sorry. I know nothing.
    2. Re:What plugin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?! No linux/mozilla/firebird plugin? Screw quicktime.

  17. OT,but someone has to make the [NO CARRIER] joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks.

    Denial of service?? Don't make me laug=20 ]} } } }&..}=3Dr}'}"}[NO CARRIER]

  18. pregame by Wiggin · · Score: 2, Funny

    i remember when the pregame show was just an hour before the game started. then it grew to two. and soon it had reached six. that was starting to seem a little excessive. but this year, i think the pregame show started on wednesday. when is enough, enough?

    --

    "I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines." - Mr. Furious, Mystery Men
  19. 1024 of your closest friends by bstadil · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Sure there is events that "predicts" superbowl with amazing accuracy. If you don't believe me just send a message to your 1024 closest friends and tell half that the A team will win and other B team.

    Do this for 8 years and four of your friends thinks you are a genius and the remaining 1020 have forgotten the whole thing.

    This works with stock tips and is a scam that has been used for ages.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
    1. Re:1024 of your closest friends by rov4416444 · · Score: 1

      And the extra 4 friends you gained wonder about your math skills.

    2. Re:1024 of your closest friends by bstadil · · Score: 1
      2^8=256

      1024/256 =4

      And the extra 4 friends you gained wonder about your math skills.

      ?

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
  20. CBS Censors MoveOn.org Ad by MaximumBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a little surprised the story didn't mention CBS's censorship of an ad by MoveOn.org. The ad reflects a negative view of the Bush administration. CBS, which has donated massive amounts of money to Bush, as well as received favors from the administration and Congress, has decided they won't show "controversial" ads. Which is to say, political speech is apparently unacceptable. Odd, given that they're showing an ad from the White House.

    1. Re:CBS Censors MoveOn.org Ad by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Ooooh you are right, it is total censorship that CBS wouldn't run an add during the superbowl that would piss off the majority of their viewers. They should be forced too.

      How would you feel about them not running a KKK ad on principal? Would that also be censorship?

      Finkployd

    2. Re:CBS Censors MoveOn.org Ad by xao+gypsie · · Score: 1

      dude, it's their network, they can do whatever they want. if they don't want to show something, they don't have to. you are not required to watch their programming, regardless of what it is, and it is not really a public domain. If you had a network and you hated GW Bush, im guessing you wouldn't be showing pro-GWBush commecials or the like....

      --


      xao
      http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
    3. Re:CBS Censors MoveOn.org Ad by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I thought CBS NBC and ABC were pawns of a liberal run conglomerate?

  21. just luck by dh003i · · Score: 1

    (0.5)^8 = 0.0039 = 0.39%.

    In other words, there's a 0.9961 that if you flip a coint 8 times, you're not going to predict the superbowl right all 8 times. However, that means that you only have to repeat your 8-coin flip experiment 1000 times to make it 98% likely that in one of those 1000 8-coin-flips, you're going to predict the winner correctly each time.

    1. Re:just luck by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Lies, damn lies, and statistics....

      A prediction mechanism that succeeds despite a 99.61% chance of failure is usually considered a reliable in most scientific fields. Calling 8 consecutive coin flips correctly usually indicates some better-than-flat-chance prediction going on.

      Of course, this could be the one year that the video game prediction indicator goes bust. Video games tend to accent star players, and that clearly happened in this year's "Game before the game" when the same player for the Panthers scored 4 touchdowns and rushed for a total of 317 yards on only 10 plays. Those individual numbers are simply unheard of in real play. The Patriots offense is based on unpredictablity, with many potential ball carriers so that the defense does not know which players to double team, which therefore doesn't translate to any super-hot players in the video games...

  22. Re:Yeah.. nerdy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to my friends list :)

  23. CORRECTION by EvilLiberalGuy · · Score: 1

    For the ads listed in the article, you need RealOne Player. I thought you might have meant the MoveOn ad. I didn't RTFA before I made my earlier post.

    --
    Sorry. I know nothing.
    1. Re:CORRECTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His nickname must be true. Its just like a liberal to run his mouth without checking the facts first.

    2. Re:CORRECTION by EvilLiberalGuy · · Score: 1
      Its just like a liberal to run his mouth without checking the facts first.

      its

      \Its\ Possessive form of the pronoun it. See It.

      it's ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ts)

      1. Contraction of it is.
      2. Contraction of it has. See Usage Note at its.

      It's just like a conservative to not know the difference between "its" and "it's".

      --
      Sorry. I know nothing.
    3. Re:CORRECTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Its just like a liberal to run his mouth without checking the facts first.

      It's just like a conservative to open his mouth (or spread her legs if applicable) and let Bush slide his cock inside.

  24. Incorrect date by Cutriss · · Score: 0

    CBS is doing a SuperBowl of commercials that will include a vote for the best commercial in history. You can watch the top 10 now and make sure that you vote at 9pm on Sunday 1/31. Today, Saturday, is 2/1, in case there's any confusion. The special airs tonight, not tomorrow.

    --
    "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
    1. Re:Incorrect date by Cutriss · · Score: 2, Informative

      Argh...I love it. I post a corrective post, and end up screwing up what I was correcting in it...

      The CBS special airs tonight, Saturday, 1/31, at 9 PM EST.

      --
      "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
    2. Re:Incorrect date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, tonight is not the 1st day of the 31st month.

      It's 31/1. 31/1, 2004. Or 2004-01-31. Or 31-01-2004.

      Use either little endian or big endian. You can't have both at the same time.

      Along the same lines, to play football, you need to play with a ball, using your feet.

    3. Re:Incorrect date by The_Pey · · Score: 1

      And cricket is played with...?

      --
      Hmmm...
    4. Re:Incorrect date by ari_j · · Score: 1

      So our date system is PDP endian. Deal with it.

    5. Re:Incorrect date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know he doesn't use 2004-01-31? It is much more convenient than the alternatives.

    6. Re:Incorrect date by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      especially for sorting!

  25. Read the policy, it's sensible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CBS Television Network (CTN) sells advertising time for the promotion of goods and services and for institutional advertising. CTN does not sell time for the advocacy of viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance.

    For the purposes of this policy, a controversial issue of public importance is defined as one that has a significant impact on society or its institutions, and is the subject of vigorous debate with substantial elements of the community in opposition to one another. A commercial announcement will be considered unacceptable if it: (1) explicitly takes a position on such an issue, or (2) without taking an explicit position, presents arguments parallel to those being made by one side or the other in the debate concerning the issue, so as to constitute implicit advocacy.

    Advertisers shall be afforded maximum latitude to touch on matters of public concern, either in institutional advertising or in promoting their goods and services, so long as messages do not rise to the level of explicit or implicit advocacy, as defined above, on a controversial issue of public importance. CTN reserves the right to restrict scheduling where such messages may be incompatible with program content.

    Notwithstanding the foregoing, CTN will sell time to political candidates, to those authorized by candidates to purchase time on their behalf and to political parties. CTN also sells time to groups supporting or opposing significant ballot propositions.

    A statement of CBS policy and practices covering the sale of political announcements is set forth in the current edition of the CBS Statement of Policy on Political Broadcasting.

    1. Re:Read the policy, it's sensible by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      The CBS Television Network (CTN) sells advertising time for the promotion of goods and services and for institutional advertising

      Bullshit. CBA sells ads TO MAKE MONEY. Its not that hard of a concept. SO in order to keep making money as a company, they must keep selling future ads. CBS isn't running this commercial because of the "policies of the company." Its not running the ad because

      A. Moveon.org will never buy another ad again, yet its message MIGHT piss of the "consumer base" of a Superbowl (the good ol boys of america -in which Bush is one also).

      B. If they piss of "future customers" of they network, then their ad space is less valuable because the value is based on ratings and fewer people would be watching (especially with CBS considering that as a network they pander to old people - a usually conservative group). C. Plently of other regular ad buyers also want the space (pepsi) with less contriversial messages.

  26. yadunS repuS by David+Byers · · Score: 1

    I'm going bowling with our super sunday morning. I'm going to watch our super bowl. And on monday I'm going to get sued for trademark violation :-)

  27. la times op ed piece from moveon.org by stmintz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One Thing That Won't Be Tackled on Sunday: Issues
    By Eli Pariser
    Campaigns Director, MoveOn.org Voter Fund
    http://www.moveon.org/r?484

    When the Super Bowl is beamed into living rooms around the world Sunday, you can expect to see TV spots hyping cars, beer, razor blades, three different erectile dysfunction cures, toilet paper and snack foods.

    The ads will be slick and clever, lavishly produced, brilliant in their marketing. Some, no doubt, will be sexually suggestive or violent. Most will cost $2 million to $3 million to produce and broadcast.

    But here's what you won't see: a single ad about the big issues that face our country today.

    Outrageous as it may sound, CBS has decided that ads selling erectile dysfunction medicines and toilet paper are appropriate for Americans, but serious discussion should be banned. An ad about our country, our war, our president, the state of our schools or the size of our budget deficit? That, in the eyes of CBS officialdom, would be too controversial.

    We know, because we tried. We thought that the Super Bowl, with 130 million viewers, would be a great place to get our message out. So we held a contest on the Internet to select the best ad we could possibly run. The ad we selected -- from 1,500 submissions -- shows children cleaning offices, washing dishes and hauling trash. It ends with the question: "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1-trillion deficit?" (It's viewable at http://www.MoveOn.org ).

    But even though we were willing to pony up the $1.6 million to pay for it, CBS refused to sell us the time, citing what it says is a 50-year-old policy prohibiting ads that take stands on controversial public policy issues.

    CBS claims its policy is designed to keep the Citibanks and Microsofts of the world from buying time to tell Americans how to think. "It is designed to prevent those with means to produce and purchase network advertising from having undue influence on 'controversial issues of public importance,' " the network said this week.

    Sounds fair, doesn't it? But what it really means is that if McDonald's buys an ad promoting its tasty Big Mac, no one can run an ad that says Big Macs are full of fat and unhealthful. Pfizer can run a spot saying it's "helping people in need" get medicine, but we can't air an ad saying that Pfizer lobbied to weaken the new Medicare bill to prop up drug prices. Halliburton has slick ads that stress its role supporting the troops in Iraq. But CBS would reject an ad that pointed to Halliburton's profiteering.

    The fewer issue ads run, the more time there is for ads with mud-wrestling women selling beer and leggy models peddling fast cars. CBS execs think Americans love mindless consumerism more than anything else and that it's their duty to pander to this.

    But with "fairness" doctrines no longer governing the airwaves and the media more concentrated each day, it's getting harder and harder to engage regular people in political discourse. Even the town square has been replaced, in most communities, by private malls, where politics is not encouraged.

    Instead of taking every opportunity to promote civic discussion, commercial broadcasters like CBS shrink away. The airwaves are, more than ever, private enterprises. And for that we pay a price: As public political speech becomes more difficult and infrequent, the public becomes less engaged in the policies, processes and laws that govern us.

    "Controversy" isn't the real problem. Network front offices love it when one group or another protests sexy babes in bikinis peddling beer brands, or violent video games in which the highest body count wins. That builds buzz.

    The CBS policy represents the triumph of corporate self-interest over the public interest. This is the same CBS, after all, that yanked the Ronald Reagan miniseries recently when Republican bigwigs complained. As Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) noted this week, "These are the same executives at CBS who successfully lobbied this Cong

    1. Re:la times op ed piece from moveon.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry me a friggin' river. I'm watching the Superbowl not a presidential debate.

    2. Re:la times op ed piece from moveon.org by crayiii · · Score: 1

      Boo Hoo Hoo! CBS is being mean to me! Their not being fair! Waa, waa, waa... What a bunch of hypocritical whiners. They are mad because CBS doesn't want to allow them to push their political agenda. If I were in charge of a major corporation (CBS) I don't think I would want to risk offending "powerful people" either. Especially for Moveon.org (who are /they/ any how?)

    3. Re:la times op ed piece from moveon.org by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      "The fewer issue ads run, the more time there is for ads with mud-wrestling women selling beer and leggy models peddling fast cars. CBS execs think Americans love mindless consumerism more than anything else and that it's their duty to pander to this."

      Which is exactly the point the ad in question likely will cause people to change channels... so why should CBS be obligated to play it. Blame the viewers for this if you want.

      CBS's goal is viewership, which do you think the viewers want to see, half-naked models or political ads. Keep in mind this is a group of viewers that are watching the superbowl, which is also famed for it's amusing commercials.

      There's no obligation for CBS to play an ad that can be potentially harmful for their business. There's also no reason the viewers should be obligated to see an ad.

      MoveOn: We know whats best for this country. You have to let us teach your unwashed masses
      CBS: We know what our unwashed masses want to see and they don't want to be taught.
      Unwashed Masses: Me want see big men bash into eachother! oooh model got big boobs, I drink budweiser I get woman with big boobs!

      There's lot of people out there that WANT to cause unhappiness in the viewers, why should the viewers be forced to that. On a station that was obligated to play whatever was paid for, it'd be chaos. Would you like to see ad spots where the pro-life shows aborted fetuses during dinnertime? Where violence is encouraged against minorities? Where PETA shows the slaughterhouses?

      No thanks, when I watch TV I watch it for the programming ... when I want to learn about issues, I read.

    4. Re:la times op ed piece from moveon.org by (void*) · · Score: 1

      There's also no reason the viewers should be obligated to see an ad.


      I don't know about you, but I watch the SuperBowl for the ads. I do not watch the NFL game.


      So for me, the entertainment value of seeing MoveOn.org's advertising is important. If CBS would play the whitehouse's political advertising, CBS should play MoveOn's ad. Both should pay the money of course.

  28. Copyright and Trademark Laws by sabNetwork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd love to see this stuff hold up in court. Has it before? I doubt it.

    It is perfectly legal (and EXPLICITLY legal) to use trademarks in news and mention as long as they don't cause brand confusion.

    Also, the use of copyrights to protect news is not legal. No one is allowed to rebroadcast the the coverage of the game verbatim, but nothing prevents someone from relaying the general events from the game. This is in the First Amendment, and there are no exceptions.

    --
    1. Re:Copyright and Trademark Laws by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Trademarks can be used in news coverage, but it cannot be used to market news coverage, or anything else for that matter. That's why newspapers can write about the events of the Super Bowl, but they can't publish a "Super Bowl section" unless they buy the rights to the name.

    2. Re:Copyright and Trademark Laws by Smudgy · · Score: 1

      RTFPDF. The relevant paragraph in the law firm's document is specifically referring to the use of the trademarks in "marketing or promotions", that is, ADVERTISING or things like radio promotions. The use of the terminology in news reporting or research is, of course, protected, and isn't even addressed in the PDF.

    3. Re:Copyright and Trademark Laws by sabNetwork · · Score: 1

      I did read the fscking PDF; maybe you should. It isn't just talking about marketing, it's talking about coverage in general.
      --

    4. Re:Copyright and Trademark Laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why was the document titled Broadcasts and Promotions Related to Super Bowl XXXVIII?

    5. Re:Copyright and Trademark Laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But apparently you can make fun of your inability to market the word Super Bowl... that's explicitly stated in the PDF. Who decided to put that in there?

  29. Why? by hazzey · · Score: 1

    Will someone remind me why about half of those comercials were there in the list? Ones like the "Let me cream your face" and the Xerox one weren't all that great.

  30. Re:Yeah.. nerdy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How ironic that nerds would huddle around the television to watch under-evolved gorillas toss each other a ball for three hours.

    Yeah, why would you need a special occasion to spend that amount of time stuffing your fat greasy snackhole with hot wings, chips and other assorted junk food?

  31. The reason: this is marketing and not reporting. by tempshill · · Score: 1

    If you were to report on the Super Bowl, you could say "Super Bowl" 500 times in a row without breathing and not get sued for anything. What the NFL is alleging is that they'll perhaps sue you if you have a marketing campaign that causes confusion in consumers whether the product is affiliated with the Super Bowl.

    It would sound to me like a radio station giving away tickets could probably take the risk of saying Super Bowl all the time, as they're not saying they're the official radio station of the Super Bowl or anything like that, and it's unlikely that any jury would find that this would cause confusion in the consumer, but the decision of whether to take that risk lies with the station owners and their lawyers.

  32. That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Back home, only infants and coma patients play rugby. Everyone else straps on crotchless chain-mail covered with huge (6 -> 12 inches) spikes to play. The 'ball' is a sack of dynamite that explodes every 5 minutes. When that happens, they toss in more players and a new sack. It is actually legal to pick up expired body parts and either A) use them as weapons or B) impale them upon your spikes for reasons of intimidation. The ref is a three-eyed black-masked executioner with an uzi. Instead of buying soda at the concession stands, you buy acid.

    1. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's a man's sport!

  33. Switch to CNN? Are you mad? by vjlen · · Score: 1

    Screw that, we got more football to watch!

  34. At least... by Bagels · · Score: 4, Funny
    At least their legal team seems to realize how ridiculous some of this IP stuff is. From the chart of dos and don'ts mentioned in the post:

    - You *can* make fun of the fact that you cannot say the phrase "Super Bowl" (e.g. by beeping it out).
    --
    --- Bwah?
    1. Re:At least... by 11223 · · Score: 1

      Chances are they've confronted this issue before, that's all.

  35. They won't run PETA's ad either by Schlemphfer · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The real hypocrisy is in how the network is handling an ad PETA wanted to run. They won't accept anti-meat ads, even though they will accept ads from fast food companies. So much for their excuse of not wanting to air only one side of a controversial issue. Here's a great article on the subject.

    Now watch this post get marked down as a troll because somebody with mod points eats meat, and thinks information like this shouldn't receive attention.

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
    1. Re:They won't run PETA's ad either by lauterm · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can explain to me how eating meat causes impotence? Without knowing if this is even somewhat based in fact, I have to go with CBS on this. Would you want CBS to run an add stating that a vegetarian diet can cause a reduced lifespan? No, probably not, because there is little scientific fact to base that on either. This is why I don't like PETA. Not because of their views (everyone is entitled to their opinion), but the questionable methods they use to promote their views.

    2. Re:They won't run PETA's ad either by minus_273 · · Score: 0, Troll

      "side of a controversial issue"

      haha maybe to you not to most people inthe world

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    3. Re:They won't run PETA's ad either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If God didn't intend for us to eat cows, He wouldn't have made them slow, stupid, and ugly. (Oh, and tasty.)

    4. Re:They won't run PETA's ad either by ndpatel · · Score: 1

      um, this is true in the same universe where hot girls actually drink miller lite and shoes with springs in them make you a better basketball player.

      --
      london is drowning and i live by river
    5. Re:They won't run PETA's ad either by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mod you as a troll for posting that, but I would mod you as 'miguided' or 'goofy' ;)

      Seriously though. How can you consider PETA's statement about impotency accurate? They come up with all sorts of crazy things trying to stop people from eating meat, or using animals for some byproduct like milk that people drink, etc.

      I for one could not make it on eating stuff grown in the back yard. I'm allergic to most soy products and to most artificial sweetners. It's not that I don't like them, it's that I break in hives all over the place.

      as far as the impotency thing goes I must be immune because I'm doing the atkins thing and eating steaks every night and then screwing the wife later that evening.

      Plus, if god didn't want me to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    6. Re:They won't run PETA's ad either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Plus, if god didn't want me to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat."

      Oh yeah? Well what about Tofudabeasts? I rest my case.

    7. Re:They won't run PETA's ad either by Jerf · · Score: 1

      An issue is not made "controversial" because a loud, but very, very small, group of people declares some position contrary to the majority wisdom. The non-existance of UFOs is not controversial. The morality of eating meat is not controversial. The immorality of molesting young boys is not controversial. (And if you're lucky enough to not know who advocates that and thus think I might be making that up, google on NAMBLA. No link for hopefully obvious reasons.)

      An issue is controversial when there are large groups of people who feel very strongly about differing sides of the issue. Who will be President is controversial. Abortion is controversial. Gay marriage rights are controversial. The most controversial issues are the ones that split the country nearly fifty-fifty, and everybody feels strongly about.

      PETA is not controversial, they are clearly a fringe group. (This does not prove anything about how right or wrong they may be, but it is self-deception to pretend that they are anything but a fringe group. I too sympathize with my own set of fringe groups, most thinking people do (though which ones varies widely and is not intrinsically useful as a truth determinant either), but they are still fringe.)

      Your post should not be "modded down" per se, but I'd go with "Interesting" more then "Informative".

    8. Re:They won't run PETA's ad either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (And if you're lucky enough to not know who advocates that and thus think I might be making that up, google on NAMBLA. No link for hopefully obvious reasons.)

      Even better: google for ACLU and NAMBLA... especially if you've ever considered giving money to the ACLU.

  36. A sneaky dupe! by TwistedSquare · · Score: 1

    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/30/ 0441238&mode=thread&tid=127&tid=186&tid=21 2 I guess one two out of three originals ain't bad for slashdot!

  37. Super... bowl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is some kind of "sport", right? At least I think I know it's something they occupy themselves with in the transatlantic colonies. Can't we ship some more chessboards or something to the colonies?
    I saw something they called "football" once, where they tossed around something that was not a ball with their hands.

  38. 3 words: by MikeXpop · · Score: 1

    Bud. Weis. Where?

    --
    Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
  39. Policy in place for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't just suddenly stop accepting these kinds of ads.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040128/nyw155_1.html

  40. Don't forget CBS is helping MoveOn by toupsie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Actually having CBS not air the commercial has allowed more people to see the ad. MoveOn should be jumping for joy that CBS denied the ad buy. It has brought more attention to their message and allowed them to air the ad for free on various news shows. You are even helping out MoveOn by publicizing the ad here on Slashdot.

    CBS is making a smart business decision not to air this ad. Why should CBS want to bring in unneeded controversy into the Super Bowl that would distract from the game? Since it has a product that is in high demand for advertisers, CBS can pick and choose which advertisers it wants to fill in those 30 second gaps between plays. Also, if you are spending $2 million an ad as advertiser would you want your commercial message to be drowned out by adjacent partisan political message? Heck no! This would make it hard for CBS to sell the ad space next to the MoveOn ad.

    This isn't political censorship, its smart business on the part of CBS.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:Don't forget CBS is helping MoveOn by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Let's also note that MoveOn.org is making a big deal about their $1 million ad buy on CNN, despite the fact that it takes $2 million+ to buy a Super Bowl ad this year...

    2. Re:Don't forget CBS is helping MoveOn by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >Why should CBS want to bring in unneeded controversy into the Super Bowl that would distract from the game?

      Like last years:

      1. Drugs support terrorism.

      2. Drugs will get you pregnant. (hilarious ad, I couldnt stop laughing).

      3. Drugs will magically make armed pistols appear in desks and make you shoot your friend.

      And all paid by my tax dollars when my local school district is hurting and I'm paying more for college than ever. This is the same DEA that wants to make anything cooked in hemp seed oil illegal. What are THEY smoking?

  41. PETA is a terrorist organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now pardon me, I have to go buy some more beef.

    1. Re:PETA is a terrorist organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they just fund terrorist organizations, and euthanize thousands of animals a year.

  42. Huh? by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

    Super what?

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  43. That's not all... by MisanthropicProggram · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Outside of Atlanta, in Gwinett County, the Falcons have a proactice camp. This is an important detail - with no fence around their compound. Nearby, there's a hill with a McDonald's on top wih a view of the Falcon's practice field. There's big sign on the border of their properties border with the Falcon's field that says, "No Looking!"
    The Falcon's compound is also used for coporate meeting and classes. I was their for one. During my lunch break I went outside to get some fresh air and eat. I happend to be looking at the Falcons standing around talking - it was about fifty yards away, no fences or anything else to obstruct my view - when a police cruiser pulls up. The cop then told me that there's no looking. I responded with something along the lines of, if it's that important to be secret, why don't they put a fence up? The cop told me that it's "NFL RULES." and I have to move along. He says he has to tell people who are on McDonald's property the same thing.

    So, I guess NFL's rules supercede our civil rights.

    --

    There is no spoon or sig.

    1. Re:That's not all... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you had politely said "I don't think you can control where I'm looking from a public parking lot." what could the cop actually do? Write you a ticket for "looking?"

    2. Re:That's not all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      failure to follow the lawful orders of a police officer. Actually falls under the obstruction of justice statute in the law. Also within obstruction of justice: depriving a police officer of his radio/gun/baton, attempting to incite people into disobeying an officer, interfering with an officer's investigation of a crime scene -- basically anything that hinders the officer from keeping the peace and performing his duties.

      If the order the officer has given you is a lawful one, failure to follow the order is obstruction. This applies especially if the order is given to maintain the peace; for example, if an officer orders you to leave the premises after an altercation. Yes, you'd normally have the right to be on public property, but if, in the officer's opinion, your continued presence there would disturb the peace, he can order you to leave.

      Likely a 2nd degree misdemeanor (the various obstructions normally range from 2nd deg. misdemeanor to 1st degree felony [taking his weapon]).

    3. Re:That's not all... by Zirnike · · Score: 1
      "failure to follow the lawful orders of a police officer"

      Ummm, if you change the bold in your comment as so, you arrive at why the police can't give you a ticket, etc. He cannot lawfully force you to leave, or even ask, as you are not disturbing the peace by looking.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
  44. Thought there was an IP play going on... by PongStroid · · Score: 1


    When going through the electronic-oriented Sunday ads last weekend I noticed that televisions will now be delivered before the "big game". Or the "big event". And the players were all "generic". (Granted - that aspect isn't new.) First thing I thought was the NFL was playing the IP protection game.

    If it was a fight worth fighting - I'd say that the NFL gave up many (but not all) of their rights to dictate the use of "Super Bowl" after many decades of neglect.

    1. Re:Thought there was an IP play going on... by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

      Players depicted in store ads, from what I've seen over the years, are always generic. That way they don't have to pay any licensing fees for logos, etc.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
  45. direct links and synopses by Teach · · Score: 4, Informative

    Any of you folks running linux may not have the best RealPlayer integration in your browsers, so here are the direct links to each of the RealMedia files, with a brief synopsis of each commercial (but no "spoilers").

    Slashcode will probably embed spaces in these URLs, so you may have to manually remove them.

    I quit watching television about seven or eight years ago. However, I try to catch the Super Bowl every year, if only for the commercials. In fact, I've always told folks that if there was a channel that just played commercials all day, I'd probably tune in to it.

    I imagine it could be like VH-1 Classic, with an hour for commercials from the 50s, another from the 60s, etc. Maybe a "groundbreaking" commercials hour. Maybe one with ads from various countries.

    I'd tune in, anyway.

    --
    Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    1. Re:direct links and synopses by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 1
      Slashdot doesn't embed space in href links or any markup text.
      It embeds space in any sequence of charaters that doesn't contain enough white space.

      And thanks for the links.

    2. Re:direct links and synopses by Teach · · Score: 1

      Slashdot doesn't embed space in href links or any markup text.

      Good to know.

      And thanks for the links.

      You're quite welcome.

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    3. Re:direct links and synopses by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Oh cool, the agency I work for did two of those spots. That justifies the late nights. Unfortunately, I was down in the server room when we showed our two superbowl spots for this year, fortunately I'd be watching the game anyway.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    4. Re:direct links and synopses by Comsn · · Score: 1

      a direct link would be the final url...

      rtsp://a783.v84881.c8488.g.vr.akamaistream.net/o nd emand/7/783/8488/v311504/cbscomstor.download.akama i.com/8605/g2demand/entertainment/specials/superbo wl_commercials_2004/pepsi.rm
      now theres some extra spaces!@

      which does work in mplayer :)

    5. Re:direct links and synopses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% of commercials are absolutely horrible crap by every measure. Wanna bet it would show only them?

  46. I love zealots by aiken_d · · Score: 1

    ...CNN to watch "Child's Pay" on a channel which doesn't censor its ads

    Try running an add on CNN featuring full frontal nudity and see if they don't "censor" it. I think what the zealots mean is "...a channel that didn't decline to run *our* ad."

    Every media outlet practices this kind of "censorship" (the quotes because actual censorship requires government involvement). Moveon is right to vote with their wallet and even to encourage a CBS boycott. They are wrong, however, to characterize CBS's refusal to run their ad as "censorship" or to state that CNN does not exercise the same kind of editorial control over the ads they run.

    Cheers
    -b

    --
    If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    1. Re:I love zealots by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      You would have more of a valid arguement, except:

      1. CBS aired the opposition's add in favor of the White House.

      2. They are using Public Air-waves, given them by the government without paying for them in exchange for certain concessions such as education and public expression. They are NOT any media, and as they have accepted the airwaves free of charge, they are contractually tied to the government which has a right to yank those air waves if they misuse them.

      The combination of these two things means that it IS censorship.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  47. WTF? by jcsehak · · Score: 1

    What are they smoking? One of the best superbowl commercials ever is "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker." I even like it better than the Apple one. I don't know where the original one is, but you can watch some sequels (also really funny) here. You'll probably have to log in:

    username: azsxdc@azsxdc.com
    password: password

    I have the original commercial on my drive, but I don't think my server can handle a slashdotting - if anyone wants to host it, I'll send it to them.

    --

    c-hack.com |
    1. Re:WTF? by anonicon · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. Terrible Terry Tate, "Triple T," and "The Pain Train" all rolled into one fantastic ad. When I first saw it, it really surprised me and my friends, and is easily a better ad than some of the others on the Top 10 list.

      Too bad Reebok is every bit the corporate sweatshop scum that Nike is.

      Peace,
      Chuck

  48. Script Kiddie Hitmen by farnerup · · Score: 2, Funny
    Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money

    I visualize Joe Pesci sitting in the kitchen of an Italian restaurant, hacking in VBScript.

  49. Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by Scoria · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Many Houstonians are already becoming adverse to the Super Bowl. The advertisements are extremely ubiquitous, littering even the communities that possess no affiliation with the municipality of Houston. Enormous billboards and banners attached to streetlamps emphasize the "importance" of the incipient Super Bowl.

    As you're probably aware, the local government has also installed a multi-million dollar light rail system that many speculate is intended specifically to transport passengers from downtown to Reliant Stadium. Metro has removed one lane from streets traversed by the light rail system; commuters are "warned" of oncoming traffic by a single light encouraging them not to cross the track. Ten serious traffic accidents have already been attributed to this implementation, which is reportedly being scrutinized by citizens and Metro engineers alike.

    This event is an exhibition of corporately funded "sports," pop stars endorsed by the RIAA, and the "best" television commercials. It astonishes me that the Slashdot community is so ravenously infatuated. With the possible exception of SCO, this encompasses everything that you are supposedly adverse to.

    --
    Do you like German cars?
    1. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RIAA has nothing to do with this. Nobody watches the half-time show, man. Get a grip.

      Corporately funded "sports?" So they derive profit from people enjoying the game. Is that wrong?

      As far as the light rail disaster, that's not the SuperBowl's fault, it's the fault of the people YOU elected. So quit whining here and do something about it.

    2. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I fact checked and read those stories. Almost all were caused by driver error.Here's a rundown:

      10. Person made an illegal left turn and hit a train head on.
      9. (Couldn't find article referencing the 9th accident.. it goes from 8th to 10th)
      8. Union Pacific (railroad!) workers manually lift a warning gate and drive under. However, the warning gate was functioning properly and a train was coming, which struck the vehicle.
      7. (same as 9)
      6. Same circumstances as #10, different intersection.
      5. No article
      4. No article
      3. Driver made left turn into path of train (unsure if it was a legal turn, article implies it was illegal).

      No other articles on specific incidents, but there is this quote from a summary article: "the four collisions thus far have involved vehicles making sudden turns into them. No horn or warning device can prevent that kind of driver error, she said, pointing to a fatal crash in Dallas on Sunday, when a woman drove her Chevrolet Blazer through a flashing crossing gate and smashed into a Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail train."

      Stop blaming the trains, designers, and engineers. Start blaming the people who are causing these accidents: The drivers.

    3. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 1

      Yes, hate on all things corporate. Since when was /. about juvenile raging against the machine? Wait, forget I asked that question.

      P.S. I especially liked your dig at football with those quotation marks. Did you stay up all night thinking of that?

    4. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by LucidityZero · · Score: 1
      With the possible exception of SCO, this encompasses everything that you are supposedly adverse to.
      How do you know what I'm adverse to? Have you been reading my diary again?

      Way to over generalize, buddy. I may have given your statement some thought until I got to that last line.
      --
      Sig.i>
    5. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. HTH.

    6. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by throughthewire · · Score: 1
      Stop blaming the trains, designers, and engineers. Start blaming the people who are causing these accidents: The drivers.

      I blame bad design when it's bad design. I can't speak for other cities (besides New York and San Francisco, which have public transit that Houstonians can only wish for) but have you been to Houston? Having spent quite a bit of time in the Medical Center area last September, as the light rail track was being completed but before it went "online," I was convinced that the way the track was designed, there would be many accidents involving drivers making left turns into trains.

      Now that the trains are running, it is unfortunately very clear that I was correct.

      Yes, the drivers were making "illegal left turns," but that same turn might not have been illegal seconds earlier. The driver is being expected to look at a new signal, unlike anything else s/he would encounter on the road in Houston or indeed all of Texas, in addition to the usual traffic signal and observation of other vehicles. Add this to the fact that many drivers in the Downtown or especially the Medical Center area are looking around for an unfamiliar building (such as a specific hospital among dozens) and you have a problem - one that was easily predictable by a reasonably observant person as the track was being built.

      Yes, the drivers are still in the wrong, but the designers/engineers are also very much in the wrong by assuming that drivers won't get confused by the unfamiliar lane configuration, signs and signals. Which, by the way, are also not bilingual - thus assuring that the trains will have a better opportunity to take out some of our Spanish or Vietnamese-speaking citizens.

      Come on down to Houston. I'll buy you lunch. Then you and I can take a nice drive down Main street, dodging the trains, and once we get to the Medical Center, you can tell me whether you still think it's all the drivers' fault, or whether we Houstonians screwed ourselves with an expensive, useless, shiny new business-destroying death machine.

    7. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by fermion · · Score: 1
      The biggest problem with the superbowl is the influx of the unwashed masses. Driving after a sporting event is dangerous enough with the drunken fans. Can you imagine what the impact of these uber fans are going to have.

      As far as the light rail is concerned, people will just have to learn, and some people are just too stupid to learn these simple skills. Trains have been intersecting traffic for a very long time. Those of us with sense know how to avoid accidents. Those of us without sense die. Driving is dangerous. People Die.

      All the accidents so far are caused because of driver error. The signs have been up for months. I have been practicing and learning how to deal with the tracks for months. I have seen others ignoring the signs and tracks. For example, on the second day the train was running I saw a police car stop on the tracks. Stupid behavior and stupid modeling for fellow citizens. And you know those white lines across the road? Those that tell the drivers where to stop and when pedestrian can walk? Drivers ignore them because the pedestrians aren't big enough to do any damage to the car. Ignore the lines now and you probably will die. No sympathy from anyone. Another rude person gone.

      There is one place of serious danger to cars, a few stops that are dangerous to pedestrian, and few places of some confusion. In additions, some stations do not sufficiently protect the waiting passengers from passing trains. However, all in all, we are expected a significant increase in the intelligence of the remaining drivers in the next year.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, the drivers are still in the wrong, but the designers/engineers are also very much in the wrong by assuming that drivers won't get confused by the unfamiliar lane configuration, signs and signals. Which, by the way, are also not bilingual - thus assuring that the trains will have a better opportunity to take out some of our Spanish or Vietnamese-speaking citizens.

      Last time I checked, Houston is in the great state of Texas not Mexico or Vietnam. There is no fscking reason why street signs or ATMs need to be in anything other than english. When my ancestors came to this country, they had to learn the language. They did not expect (or demand!) that people learn italian, they chose to adapt to the new locale. Nowadays, when I call the bank I have to push '1' to continue in english! WTF are the spics doing to this place?

    9. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      by your thinking, one could never change the roads! nope! too confusing! and yes, as the articles and another posted indicated, those left turns were illegal way before the trains were there.

    10. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by Debillitatus · · Score: 1
      With the possible exception of SCO, this encompasses everything that you are supposedly adverse to.

      Way to stay away from close-minded overgeneralizations. Good work.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    11. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by throughthewire · · Score: 1
      by your thinking, one could never change the roads! nope! too confusing!

      Given that you actually bothered to look up and "fact check" the original post, I find your sarcastic and incorrect interpretation of "my thinking" disappointing.

      Continuing this thread would be a waste of my time.

    12. Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      the only emphasised point in your post was this:

      unlike anything else s/he would encounter on the road in Houston or indeed all of Texas

      If that was not your main argument, why was it the phrase that was emphasized?

      Your next paragraph starts with this:

      Yes, the drivers are still in the wrong, but the designers/engineers are also very much in the wrong by assuming that drivers won't get confused by the unfamiliar lane configuration, signs and signals.

      Your main argument is that the configuration is new and unfamiliar. That's a ridiculous argument and, yes, I responded in a ridiculous way.

  50. Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That PETA is anti human and funds domestic terrorists like the ALF and ELF and convicted criminals. Oh, and the fact that PETA doesn't really give a flying rats ass about the welfare of animals, they just want attention.

  51. Heres a summary by t_allardyce · · Score: 3, Funny

    from the PDF:

    The first rule of Super Bowl: You do not talk about 'Super Bowl'

    The second rule of Super Bowl: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT SUPER BOWL

    The third rule of Super Bowl: The words: Super Bowl, Super Sunday, NFL, AFC and NFC are all trade marks of the National Football League. If you utter or taint them we WILL kick your fucking head in! OK?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  52. Yup... by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The super bowl is definitly a national holiday, no mail, banks are closed...

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Yup... by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      it is.. a national holiday. go look at you calendar

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    2. Re:Yup... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      Wow, your right, looking closley at my big fedex wall calander its got the rose bowl, fiesta bowl, sugar bowl, super bowl, the pro bowl, the kroger st jude tennis championship, the st jude classic(golf) and the memphis southern heritage classic. Its missing some other major sporting events, so i assume these are all sponsored by fedex.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    3. Re:Yup... by minus_273 · · Score: 0, Troll

      its amazing how dumb people on slashdot have become. Either that or too dull to get it

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    4. Re:Yup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pls apply comment to SELF

  53. w00t Go defense. by Wooji · · Score: 0, Troll

    Panthers win 20 to 17

  54. oops by jcsehak · · Score: 1

    Oops, it's right on their home page. Duh.

    Heh, Felcher...

    --

    c-hack.com |
  55. SUPERPUSSY!!! by Eezy+Bordone · · Score: 1
    I'll have the soup.

    I remember a year or two ago The End's morning DJ got reprimanded by the station for abusing the NFL's superbowl trademarks. Stupid jerks.

    --

    -EB

    Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?

    1. Re:SUPERPUSSY!!! by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

      Campbell's Soups should produce a Souper Bowl, similar to the Bud Bowl. That would be gooooood watchin.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
  56. A consumer letter by whovian · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Dear National Football League,

    I am writing to you today to express my joy over a recent shopping experience at your online warehouse. It was indeed a Super Sunday because I found natural fleece coats (NFC) with angora-free cuffs (AFC) in my size. I also finally found the natural floor lighting (NFL) I have long wanted but couldn't find anywhere else.

    Call us a bunch of Cowboys, but now my family and I can enjoy watching the Super Bowl while we're out in the forest waiting to shoot some Bucs and maybe some Bears.

    Sincerely yours,
    An NFL fan

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  57. BOB DOLE!!! by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    C'mon, either one...

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  58. The Question PETA can't answer: by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?

    Jaysyn

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  59. canada sucks by sewagemaster · · Score: 2

    and once again, like every year, canadian viewers will be blocked out of the the american ads and will be force-fed canadian ads. it'll most probably be the same ad talking about canadian heros and canadian stars making it down in the US.. the same ads they've been brainwashing people with daily.

    with ad critic charging for money, hopefully there'll be a place to download (or bittorrent) the ads after the game - like we did last year!

    1. Re:canada sucks by duckpoopy · · Score: 1

      Just enjoy the game and forget about the stupid GD MF ads. Why are people brainwashed into loving advertisements one day per year? These are the same stupid ads they will be replaying for the next 12 months. You aren't missing anything. Nobody said "Let's make some good ads now, because the Superbowl is coming up."

      --
      word.
  60. IP rights? by evilviper · · Score: 0
    "The NFL's legal firm has a PDF up that outlines the NFL's intellectual property rights to words like 'Super Bowl'


    "No matter how much you abuse it, that bowl will just not break. Step on it, throw it in the oven, anything... This certainly is one super bowl."

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  61. fake like pro wrestling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pro football (NFL) is fake.

  62. NFL = No Fun League by doormat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First the NFL says NO to ads for Las Vegas during the superbowl. Then CBS says NO to ads against Bush during the game. The NFL says NO WAY to Casinos in las vegas showing the game on anything bigger than a 55" TV. They say its copyright law, but last I checked copyright law didnt say anything about TV Size. Its just the NFL's arbitrary size. The Palms was planning to show it on their huge movie theater screens. Oh well, I guess the NFL doesnt like its superbowl party being upstaged by Vegas. Now they're just taking their ball and going back to Houston. Paul Tagliabue caused lots of casinos to lose lots of money because of the NFL's childlike behavior. Hello, only so many people can go to the game! What are the rest supposed to do, wait outside and be happy they're near the game?? Paul also threatened the players with fines or possibly suspensions for "excessive celebration" during the Superbowl.

    The NFL is definately the No Fun League.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    1. Re:NFL = No Fun League by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      What did the Palms plan in was also the fact that they planned on charging admission to see the game on their big movie screen... and that's an illegal commercial use of the broadcast.

    2. Re:NFL = No Fun League by ktakki · · Score: 4, Informative
      The NFL says NO WAY to Casinos in las vegas showing the game on anything bigger than a 55" TV. They say its copyright law, but last I checked copyright law didnt say anything about TV Size.

      Perhaps you should check again. From 17 USC 110:
      (II) if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space;

      I've been involved with copyright issues for over 25 years and I've seen the Copyright Act go from a fairly straightforward document to one that's filled with exemptions and intentional loopholes, some that actually benefit the consumer at the expense of corporate interests. Those are the minority, to be sure, but they're in there.

      k.

      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    3. Re:NFL = No Fun League by jackbird · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Oh well, I guess the NFL doesnt like its superbowl party being upstaged by Vegas. Now they're just taking their ball and going back to Houston. Paul Tagliabue caused lots of casinos to lose lots of money because of the NFL's childlike behavior. Hello, only so many people can go to the game! What are the rest supposed to do, wait outside and be happy they're near the game?? Paul also threatened the players with fines or possibly suspensions for "excessive celebration" during the Superbowl.

      The really interesting part of this is going to be when they flex their muscles enough that news outlets notice and get annoyed. The whole "accounts of the game" thing in their copyright notice ignores the fact that the sports industry currently gets a giant advertising section in every newspaper and TV news show in the country called "The Sports Section."

      If that goes away due to legal squabbling, they're in a world of hurt. Of course, a single paper cancelling the sports section is going to lose out, but a world where the Tribune has Football and Hockey and the Gazette has Basketball and Baseball is going to have to deal with enraged fans the likes of which you haven't begun to see.

    4. Re:NFL = No Fun League by doormat · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks for smacking me with the cluestick. Although according to this part of the USC, most/all the casinos are still in violation, as most of them have started to buying tons of 42" plasma screens and hanging them up everywhere (ie more than 1 per room, and more than 4 total). See this article.

      Honestly, I wonder what would happen if the Casinos said "F-U NFL" and showed the games on huge screens, what are the fines/other penalties for displaying the game on a 100' screen? A $10,000 fine might be trivial compared to the revenue it brings in.

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    5. Re:NFL = No Fun League by ktakki · · Score: 1
      Honestly, I wonder what would happen if the Casinos said "F-U NFL" and showed the games on huge screens, what are the fines/other penalties for displaying the game on a 100' screen? A $10,000 fine might be trivial compared to the revenue it brings in.

      The penalties for infringement are set out in 18 USC 113, sec. 2319(a): a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, plus the forfeiture of assets (all those plasma screens, etc.) and civil penalties (equivalent to loss of profits times 3) as per 17 USC 110.

      The real hit would be with the Nevada Gaming Commission, which doesn't look kindly on its licensees getting convicted of a felony offense. That's the big enchilada; the casinos could absorb the civil penalties without breaking a sweat. It's the loss of a license to operate that's the dealbreaker.

      Now, I am not a lawyer, but I don't see what would stop an Indian casino like Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun from setting up a S*per B*wl simulcast. They're built on what's essentially sovereign land and I'm not entirely sure that the Pequot Nation is a signatory to the Berne Convention.

      At the very least, it would be a nice payback for having an NFL team with the name "Redskins".

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
  63. FUCKING REDUDANT POSTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give it up already, we know about your liberal crybaby ad.

  64. Equal Time Rule by triclipse · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And this has nothing to do with the first amendment, CBS is a corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government.

    This is an overly simplistic statement. The electromagnetic spectrum is a public resource. It is thus subject to less First Amendment protection than other mediums and subject to more government regulation.

    There are First Amendment considerations at issue, such as the Equal Time Rule, which in essence, "a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office."

    Thus, if CBS runs an ad for one candidate, they must offer the same time to other candidates. I don't know how this would affect running a purely "anti-candidate" ad which positively endorses no specific candidate. But it might give rise to the right of the "anti-candidate" to give a rebuttal.

    --
    No Inflation Taxation without Representation
  65. threatened with denial of service attacks by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Funny
    Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money - also a Reuters story.

    Finally, a viable business model for Slashdot.

  66. MOD DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nasty link in sig

    1. Re:MOD DOWN by evilviper · · Score: 1

      No matter how much you warn people, they just don't listen.

      Yes, the link is nasty, that's why I said so... It's there to demonstrate one of the major problems that javascript poses.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  67. Anyone but me notice the them of this year's ads? by ShockerFan · · Score: 0

    During the Superbowl(TM), CBS will run ads for not one, not two, but three drugs used to treat erectile dysfunction! Do all you football fans have some sort of, uh, problem?

    --

    Ask me about The Shocker!

  68. Actually... by 68k+geek · · Score: 1

    With Cricket, you don't have to. Looking silly is a built-in feature.

  69. Revenge is so sweet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like many slashdotters my high school years meant suffering at the hands of dumb jocks. Nice to know none of them can get it up any more. First the higher paying tech job, now this. ROR!!!

  70. Re:Anyone but me notice the them of this year's ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least football fans get to use their penises.

  71. CBS does NOT use the public airwaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CBS is the network. The Network itself does not broadcast. They send their feeds to affiliate stations. The affiliates are the ones who need the license, etc... CBS the network does not. (Just like Comedy Central doesn't need a license. That's how they can say "shit" 163 times in a Southpark episode.) CBS may own a few stations, but it's still the stations that have the licenses/are regulated/have to abide by that equal time crap, etc...

  72. How many IP infringements in the /. article? by djeaux · · Score: 1
    I counted 12.

    I'm assuming that the ever-diligent /. staff didn't clear this with the lawyers...

    But if we can't say these words, how the heck can we talk football at the coffeepot at work & if we don't talk football at the coffeepot at work, how many fewer of us will watch the game?

    --
    "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
    1. Re:How many IP infringements in the /. article? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      There are zero. You can use the trademarks in news coverage of the event, or in this case /. seems to be doing metacoverage of the coverage... you just can't use trademarks to market anything, including news coverage.

    2. Re:How many IP infringements in the /. article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can say those words, you just can't use them for 'marketing purposes'.

    3. Re:How many IP infringements in the /. article? by djeaux · · Score: 1
      And what are those banners running at the top of every /. page?

      Well, I guess that marks me as not having a paid membership to /. <sheepish grin>

      --
      "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
  73. seriously ? by sir_cello · · Score: 1


    Can anyone cite cases where referring to "Super Bowl" has landed anyone in legal trouble ? It seems absurd that you're not able to "fair use" the trademark by using the term "Super Bowl". I think the recommendation of the law firm is stepping over the mark and it's advice is overly restrictive.

    1. Re:seriously ? by djeaux · · Score: 1
      The legalese applies chiefly to the media & prohibits unlicensed use of the trademarks, say, as part of a radio show or whatever.

      I thought it was cool that they said one could make fun of the fact that they couldn't say S**** B***. Some DJs will have a blast with that.

      --
      "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
    2. Re:seriously ? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Most cases involving the "Super Bowl" trademark never make it to court because the NFL sends out a letter, and the other company takes it to their lawyers who say "The NFL's right, we can't fight them." The NFL's PDF file pretty clearly lays out where the line is in the law, and the lack of any high-profile cases proves that they're pretty much right on.

      The trademark can be used in news coverage, but it can't be used in the marketing of news coverage. For example, a newspaper can't call a special section of the newspaper "The Super Bowl Section"... but they can call that section "The Pro Football Championship Game Section" and then use the phrase "Super Bowl" within the articles in that section.

  74. This is just a good example not to use RM files. by Graemee · · Score: 1

    Check out the Levi's Ad. Can you see the guys weird walk? How can you see it at like 12FPS? If you've never seen this ad how could anyone see what the ad is about without seeing all the frames, not 50% or less.

    Infinite Crap to the power of CRAP

  75. Re:Don't forget the torrent ! by keyshawn632 · · Score: 1

    The torrent for the bushin30secs.org 'ad'vertisement, along with the semifinalists as well:
    http://66.79.177.160/~suprnova//torrents/1066/Bush In30Seconds.com.Ad.Contest.Videos.%5BMOV%5D-rar(2) .torrent

  76. How is child labor by KalvinB · · Score: 0, Troll

    not offensive?

    What's the ad saying? That little children are going to be forced to slave away to pay off this debt that's been inherited and growing since decades ago?

    The "ad" is garbage. It's pretty telling that the "best" MoveOn could come up with is that the national debt is bad and no president has managed to do anything about it for a very long time.

    I rate the ad -1 Troll

    You'd think MoveOn.org would have the sense to use an ad about something GW is actually responsible for that isn't presented in such a troll like fashion.

    The best Clark can do is that rich people aren't paying their fair share. Anyone interested can verify that the top 1% income earners pay 34% of the total taxes. I wonder what Clark's definition of "fair" is. And the other democrates also have this bizarro world view. Sharpton when interviewed claimed that the top 1% paid less than 5% and that fair was "more than 15%"

    The top 5% pay well over 50% of the total taxes. And the government actually pays the poor.

    And then Democrates whine that tax breaks favor the rich. No kidding sherlock. The Democratic policy of Robinhood Economics needs to be corrected and that's what the Bush tax cuts are doing.

    I didn't vote for Bush the first time around because he's an idiot. Since we're comming up on another Dumb and Dumber election, I will be voting for him since he's demonstrated his ability to surround himself with intelligent people which makes up for his lacking in that area. I'd rather put up with Bush for four more years and wait for something better to come along than vote for a democrate who's either oblivious to the taxing situation, a liar or just simply failed basic economics.

    Ben

    1. Re:How is child labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Totally offtopic, but I am on a fact-correcting mission. Sorry.

      KalvinB sez: It's pretty telling that the "best" MoveOn could come up with is that the national debt is bad and no president has managed to do anything about it for a very long time.

      Please take a look a this graph. Notice the caption at the bottom which says that data from the Congressional Budget Office was used to make it. (There is more detailed info about the whole last century here.

      Now take a good look at the 1990's, the part of the graph where the budget goes starts going up and up and then, in 1999, goes into surplus for the first time since 1972. Clearly someone managed to fix the deficit problem.

      Now let's look a few years later, starting in 2000, when the younger Bush became president; the budget took a nosedive. The deficit is greater than it has been in 30 years.

      No political arguments here; just please check facts before you start spouting off.

    2. Re:How is child labor by Simulant · · Score: 1

      It's sort of like, oh I dunno... say 'hyperbole'? hyperbole ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-purb-l)
      n.
      A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

      Get it now?

      It's used to sell you stuff all the time.

    3. Re:How is child labor by damiam · · Score: 1
      that the national debt is bad and no president has managed to do anything about it for a very long time.

      Debt != Deficit. The ad refers to the deficit. Reagan, the Bushes, and to some extent Clinton may have dramatically enlarged the national debt, but Clinton was showing a budget surplus by the end of his second term (which Gore proposed to use to pay off part of the debt). Meanwhile, Bush has led us into a (projected) trillion dollar deficit over the next couple years. This is not accumulated debt. This is money that Bush has personally spent.

      The Democratic policy of Robinhood Economics needs to be corrected

      That's the philosophical issue here. Some people do hard physical labor all day and earn peanuts for it. Some people do amazingly skilled work (teachers, social work, non-popular musicians, engineers, etc.) and get barely enough to provide for their families. Some others (professional athletes and musicians, CEOs, actors, investors, brokers, etc.) earn millions or billions for doing work often less difficult or skilled than that done by those earning many times less. Even the most skilled brain surgeons earn less than the average NBA bench-warmer.

      Yes, some people (like Bill Gates) start from nothing and work their way up to incredible riches. However, does Gates work 100,000 times harder than the average American? Is he 100,000 times better? If your answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask yourself: does he deserve 100,000 times the wealth of the average American?

      The position of many Democrats is that no one can possibly actually earn the enormous fortunes that many people have. That's why they generally support massive taxation of the incredibly rich, and the use of that money to go towards improving conditions for the poor (especially education). When, in the face of a massive deficit, Bush takes money that the government badly needs, and gives it to the people who need it least, people have a reason to be angry.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    4. Re:How is child labor by ShadowDrake · · Score: 1

      No matter what your salary is, there is much less flexibility on the *required* amount of money to have a reasonable standard of life. It may be somewhat higher due to family size, area, or incidentals, but not by much more than 2 or 3 times.

      If you're making $30,000 a year, you're probably just over family expenses. If you're making $300,000 and have less than 20 kids, you're can probably afford to lose a few thousand dollars and still not worry about food, shelter, and health care.

      That's why it's fair to soak the rich. They can tolerate it.

      --
      It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
  77. Cat Herding... by Some+Clown · · Score: 1

    I can't remember what the product was... and maybe that's why it's not in the top ten... but the fairly recent commercial called "Cat Herding" should be in the top ten, IMO. The Yahoo commercial with the dolphin was pretty funny too. Though, like they say on the site, with some 60 commercials per game and 37 Superbowls... that's a lot of ads. Maybe they need to do an MTV style countdown, like the Top 100 or something. Then again... I use my DVR to rewind particularly funny commercials, even though I almost never buy the particular products advertised.

    --
    "...The mice will see you now..."
    1. Re:Cat Herding... by Graemee · · Score: 1

      That was I beleive EDS's AD http://www.eds.com/superbowl/sb_cats.shtml

    2. Re:Cat Herding... by Rich+Klein · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've seen that one before. Thanks for the link!

      --
      -Rich
  78. Humor by (eternal_software) · · Score: 1

    At least they have a sense of humor about it.

    From the PDF:

    "You can make fun of the fact that you cannot
    say the phrase "Super Bowl" (e.g., by beeping
    it out)"

  79. how appropriate... by crabpeople · · Score: 1
    "Why should CBS want to bring in unneeded controversy into the Super Bowl that would distract from the game?"

    yeah, i mean its not like the only reason that sports exsists is to distract the general population from politics or important social issues.

    "Lets take sports. Thats another crucial example of the indoctronation system in my view. For one thing because it offers people somethign to pay attention to, thats of no importance. It keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea about doing something about.

    And infact its striking to see the intelligence used by ordinary people in sports. I mean you listen to radio stations and people call in. They have the most exotic information, understanding about all kinds of arcane issues. ... I remember in highschool, i suddenly asked myself, why do I care if my team wins the football game? I mean, I dont know anybody on the team, nothing to do with me, i mean why am i cheering for my team?, it doesnt make sense.

    But the point is it does make sense. Its a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to athority. And you know, group cohesion behind leadership elements. Infact its training in irrational jingoism.

    I think if you look closely at these things, they do have functions. Thats why money is speant supporting them, creating a base for them, advertising them and so on."
    -- Noam Chomsky -- Manufacturing Consent, The video Transcribed by me


    this is what made me understand why people like watching sports, as I never have.

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  80. WFNX in Boston by shadowxtc · · Score: 1

    I tried to submit a similar story yesterday. My favorite radio station, WFNX in Boston, has had numerous DJs say that they've been sent with Cease-and-Desist orders by the NFL's lawyers, for having used the term "Super Bowl" and other related "trademarks".

    Funny thing is, it was not in any way related to a contest, promotion, or anything else. It was simply in the context of speaking freely about their opinions on the teams, their predicted outcome, and the like. In other words, fair use in the course of reporting the news.

    So, since when is it illegal for me to refer to "Kleenex" or "Band-Aid", simply because it's trademarked? Would I have to say "a medical bandage produced by the company sounding like Ronson & Ronson"? That's ridiculous.

  81. You have no idea what censorship is. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    A corporation not playing an ad because of its political viewpoints is censorship.

    Then you wouldn't mind me giving you 10 bucks to put a pro-bush ad up in your yard, right? What's that - you won't? How odd!! You cowardly censor you, deciding to control what speech I can practice while on your own property!

    Censorship is CBS sending over a squad to take out all of the people at moveon.org with high powered rifles, or throwing them in a prison for a few years and letting everyone else know what happened. Being picky about what they will broadcast over a network that THEY (not you) pay for is hardly censorship.

    Only the government or groups using brute force can truly be censors. All other cases are simply choices that you may or may not agree with, but are hardly censorship. Is CBS refusing to run the ad ever? No! Just not during the superbowl.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You have no idea what censorship is. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      CBS seems to have forgotten to send me my check this month for the airwaves that they broadcast over. Remember? That finite, public resource that was ceded to them in exchange for their promise to support community-interest broadcasting?

      You don't remember that promise? You didn't get your check either? Hmm. I guess we ARE paying for their network.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  82. Trademarks! by payndz · · Score: 2, Funny
    Super Bowl! Super Sunday! NFL! AFC! NFC! Buccaneers! Bucs!

    Well, I said all these things without permission from the National Football League (oops, there's another one). Come on then, lawyers! Come after me for using these trademarked words without permission!

    This is legal bullshit taken to the extreme. So if there's a Black Sunday scenario tomorrow, the news networks aren't allowed to say "There was a terrorist attack at the Super Bowl" but have to say "There was a terrorist attack at the Big Game in Houston"? Madness.

    Super Bowl! Super Bowl! Super Bowl!

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  83. I lived in Houston for five or six years. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Frankly, as to the driving accidents I would propose using Occam's Razor - the simplest answer in quite frankly that Houston drivers continue to be a pool of some of the craziest drivers around. I saw a truck literally drive right up the side of a tall concrete median in the loop on an almost empty road. I saw a large truck tire pass me, sans truck, while driving down a frontage road. I saw crazy stuff anytime I drove anywhere and the number of people hitting trains there tells be they must have some amazingly good traffic engineering to keep MORE idiots from slamming into them.

    I was just there last May and was wondering what was up with all the construction, I didn't realize the Superbowl was bound there... to me some of the road improvments seemed pretty good, but I was only a passenger at the time. I'm not sure if I saw the intersection you speak of or not, though we were dirivng around the light rail line.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  84. It's a game! by toupsie · · Score: 1
    If you are scared that watching a football game turns Americans into right-wing, talk radio loving, blood thursty robots completely ignorant of their surroundings, you can imagine how it scares me that you take your lesuire time to transcribed left-wing political screeds. It's only a game. It doesn't cost you dime to watch it either. How much did that Chomsky video set you back?

    There isn't a conspiracy of CBS, Budweiser, Apple, Xerox, GM, Ford, Dorritos, Pepsi, Miller Lite and the Partnership for a Drug Free America (Well, ok, maybe there) trying to distract you while the Government kills kitty cats, push grannies down stairs and tell poor people they can't have any money. It can do that quite well on its own right in front of us. No distractions needed. We just pick and choose which ones we most want to be pissed about.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:It's a game! by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      "How much did that Chomsky video set you back?"

      free. bittorent. you too can own this video. How much do you pay for cable? if that even mattered at all or had ANYTHING to do with what I said.

      "There isn't a conspiracy of CBS, Budweiser, Apple, Xerox, GM, Ford, Dorritos, Pepsi, Miller Lite and the Partnership for a Drug Free America (Well, ok, maybe there) trying to distract you while the Government kills kitty cats, push grannies down stairs and tell poor people they can't have any money. It can do that quite well on its own right in front of us. No distractions needed. We just pick and choose which ones we most want to be pissed about."

      Or invades countries without any reason? Or tries to make the public support bush because hes a patriotic flag waving american, and if you don't your not. You really dont understand how much 1 trillion dollars is? Or why you should be concerend about the future instead of an event that has absolutely no poisitve meanings? Why are you so complacent with your government when it wastes your money and declares war in your name?
      how can you afford not to care? If someone took 3 trillion dollars from me i'd be fucking pissed. unless i didnt know about it.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    2. Re:It's a game! by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Ah a pro-Chomsky fruitcake. My moron file has had an empty spot. Welcome to it.

      Honestly, you have to know better than expect people to forgoe all entertainment becuse something isn't quite right.

      It's not like this ad proposes any kind of solution.

      *PLONK*

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  85. Make Fun of the Su*BLEEP*wl! by TiMike · · Score: 1

    According to the PDF: "* You can make fun of the fact that you cannot say the phrase "Super Bowl" (e.g., by beeping it out)"

  86. Leave politics out of fun. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Here's a thought. Perhaps it is OK to have some entertainment that's devoid of issues. There is a time and a place for people to consider issues, but there also is a time and place for relaxing. When I go to a movie theater I don't want to see the animated popcorn bad running around after some animated candy boxes replaced by any political ad (no matter how I hate the animated ppcorn guy).

    Similarily, I am watching the superbowl for enterainment value alone (the commercials) and don't want to see the moveon ad, or an ad for Bush, or an ad for any "cause" (even ones that I spoort). it's not that I don't care but I like to keep some thing seperate. Don't get your political gravy in the cranberry sauce of my entertainment.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  87. Re:The reason: this is marketing and not reporting by Carbonite · · Score: 1

    ...you could say "Super Bowl" 500 times in a row without breathing and not get sued for anything.

    Yeah, if I do that I don't think my biggest concern will be getting sued. Getting oxygen, perhaps...

    --
    ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
  88. the left turns were always illegal by rebelcool · · Score: 1
    thats not new, nor are they legal when the train isn't coming.

    However, having lived in houston for 18 years and returning there at least once a month, I can say that houston drivers are the most incompetent, impatient and downright insane drivers ive ever encountered. They would rather make illegal turns than circle around a couple of blocks with legal right turns as downtown requires to save themselves 30 seconds (which will probably be eaten up waiting at light anyway)

    It doesnt help that HPD didn't really enforce the no left turns laws downtown before the rail was built.

    --

    -

    1. Re:the left turns were always illegal by throughthewire · · Score: 1
      thats not new, nor are they legal when the train isn't coming.

      That's not what I'm talking about. Have you seen the left turn lanes on Fannin? Sometimes they're a left turn lane. Sometimes they're the track! It's not designed with real drivers in mind. Certainly not real Houston drivers.

      But in answer to your assertion - come on, this is a town where people make their own freeway exits if they don't like where the official ones are. If Houstonians perceive that there is no convenient way to get to where they want to go, they generally feel free to make an illegal turn or two. It's not like this behavior is anything new.

      So reducing the number of lanes on two of the main Downtown - Med Center arteries, implementing new, unfamiliar signalling and lane configurations, ignoring the established behavior of the existing drivers, and expecting everything to work just fine is foolish and unrealistic. Especially for something we didn't really need in the first place.

      ...I can say that houston drivers are the most incompetent, impatient and downright insane drivers ive ever encountered.

      I've been to a few places that can compete. But yeah, as a group, we don't drive friendly.

      They would rather make illegal turns than circle around a couple of blocks with legal right turns as downtown requires to save themselves 30 seconds (which will probably be eaten up waiting at light anyway)

      Or risk causing themselves or others flaming death by cutting over two lanes of traffic because they didn't read the signs indicating which lanes must exit for the last two @#$%& miles. Yeah, agreed, we drive like crap - but that's NOT what I'm talking about. The track is badly designed. The fact that Houston is filled with inconsiderate, scofflaw drivers simply makes it worse.

      It doesnt help that HPD didn't really enforce the no left turns laws downtown before the rail was built.

      Agreed. Of course the only place they enforce it now is near the trains.

  89. No, you are "Wrong. Wrong wrong." by stewby18 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It may be censorship in the exact definition of the word, but not in the big brother way you're all thinking of it.

    Come again? It's not censorship except in the sense of fulfilling the definition of censorship? What makes you think that no-one but you understands the distinction between censorship and government censorship? Where do you get off saying that the parent poster is "Wrong. Wrong wrong." based solely on the fact that you don't think others are capable of understanding the words they use?

    censoring: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

    Thus, this is censorship exactly as the parent said. It seems perfectly reasonable that many people find it distasteful that a large corporation is choosing to censor ads based on their own political views (rather than on the basis of public mores, which is a much more common way ads are censored).

    The fact that they have the legal right to do it doesn't mean we can't object, nor does that fact that it is (in your opinion, at least) a good business model. Take a quick slashdot survey of the number of people who like Microsoft's business tactics... yet it's hard to argue that they do not form (in most cases) a good business model for Microsoft.

    1. Re:No, you are "Wrong. Wrong wrong." by Bobman1235 · · Score: 1

      Come again? It's not censorship except in the sense of fulfilling the definition of censorship? What makes you think that no-one but you understands the distinction between censorship and government censorship? Where do you get off saying that the parent poster is "Wrong. Wrong wrong." based solely on the fact that you don't think others are capable of understanding the words they use?

      censoring: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable


      Touche. You're right, most people do know what they're talking about here. However, it's not news unless the censorship is considered objectionable. For someone to be complaining about it, it means to me that they think it's excessive censorship.

      My point was trying to be that censorship isn't always a negative thing, and it can be strongly argued that CBS is not censoring the ad to prevent people from seeing an opposing viewpoint, but rather to not lose viewers. The former is what most would consider bad and unethical censorship, or Big Brother-eque, while the latter is protecting the interest of the company by not showing something which may cause people to bring their business elsewhere.

    2. Re:No, you are "Wrong. Wrong wrong." by Debillitatus · · Score: 1
      "It's not censorship except in the sense of fulfilling the definition of censorship?"

      Brilliant.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

  90. what words? by fermion · · Score: 4, Funny
    The Super Bowl is happening on Super Sunday. The National Football League(NFL), American Football Conference(AFC) and National Football Conference (NFC) will hold this contrived event to determine who is the best Football team in the world. Of course the rest of the world in not invited.

    In this contest, between Carolina Panthers and New England Patriots, extremely wealthy men will forgo their normal environment and put on many pounds of gear to play whimped down version of Rugby. The winner of the game will be the champion.

    Of course, this is entertainment so the true relevance is the demographic that it delivers to the advertisers. In this sense, the Super Bowl will once again fulfill it's primary mission.

    One also suspects that many Americans, for the first time, will know the existence and location of Carolina.

    Questionable Industries welcomes all Super Bowl guests to Houston. We will be scalping tickets on the corner of Fannin and Holly Hall. We will also be offering certified disease free hookers along Holly Hall and Murworth, conveniently grouped by age. The 18 year olds will be in the Excalades, the 19-21 year olds will be in the Explorers, and 21-25 will be in the Durangos. Hookers over this age will be conveniently located in their normal environment of the Holly Hall apartments. The males will be in the blue cars and females in the pink cars. Please do not be racist and expect certain ethnic types. We are a class operation!

    A limited number of 12-18 year olds will be available in the customized vans. Younger hookers are available with 24 hours request, as they must be brought in from Mexico.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  91. SB Picks by shubert1966 · · Score: 1

    Patriots 24 Panthers 10

    --
    Stuff that matters.
  92. budget != deficit by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    Balancing the budget means everything is accounted for. It doesn't mean the surplus is being applied to lower the debt or that the lack of funds is adding to the debt.

    The fact is the deficit has been an american icon for decades. The last time we didn't have a debt was in the early 1900's.

    http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/tax es /fed-debt.html

    What's very telling is that from 1992 to 1996 the national debt rose 1.3 TRILLION dollars. From 1996 to 2004 is rose that same amount.

    So Clinton raises the debt 1.3 trillion in 4 years and another 500 billion in his second term. From 2000 to present the debt was raised another 500 billion dollars.

    So where is the 1 Trillion that Bush is responsible for?

    The ad is not only a big giant troll but is also accuses Bush of doing something CLINTON pulled off in his first term and yet he got reelected.

    So is it an ad to point out how well Bush managed the debt?

    Apparently, if you look at the facts.

    "just please check facts before you start spouting off."

    The very definition of irony.

    Ben

    1. Re:budget != deficit by IVotedIn2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes /fed-debt.html

      What's very telling is that from 1992 to 1996 the national debt rose 1.3 TRILLION dollars. From 1996 to 2004 is rose that same amount.

      So Clinton raises the debt 1.3 trillion in 4 years and another 500 billion in his second term. From 2000 to present the debt was raised another 500 billion dollars.

      So where is the 1 Trillion that Bush is responsible for?


      That site shows estimates, not facts, for years after 1999. That's considerably out of date and doesn't include sweeping changes in tax lawas since then.

      http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#y ears shows that the total public debt increased from 5,674,178,209,886.86 on 09/29/2000 to 6,783,231,062,743.62 on 09/30/2003.

  93. Child's play by Microsofts+slave · · Score: 0, Redundant

    What about the amazing commercial that CBS turned down for the superbowl because it was too political.

    From BushIn30Seconds.com >>
    The child's play commercial (large)(small)

    Check out the site for more commercials, and think.

    --

    Tragek

    1. Re:Child's play by Microsofts+slave · · Score: 1

      Here are some more... http://bushin30seconds.com/view/1024_large.shtml http://bushin30seconds.com/view/2472_large.shtml http://bushin30seconds.com/view/2232_large.shtml http://bushin30seconds.com/view/06_large.shtml

      --

      Tragek

  94. Does it even mention IBM? by tepples · · Score: 1

    But does the famous Mac commercial even mention IBM? If so, I missed when. The pictured "big brother" organization could well have always been Microsoft Corporation.

    1. Re:Does it even mention IBM? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Dammit, I could've sworn it was on the screen somewhere.

    2. Re:Does it even mention IBM? by eln · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but at the time, it was perfectly obvious they meant IBM. Microsoft was not the big power in computing at that time, not by a longshot. IBM was.

    3. Re:Does it even mention IBM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but I think his point was, if you ran it today it would be "perfectly obvious" that they meant Microsoft.

  95. FCC has a monopoly on broadcasting by tepples · · Score: 1

    Censorship is CBS sending over a squad to take out all of the people at moveon.org with high powered rifles, or throwing them in a prison for a few years and letting everyone else know what happened.

    Except that's exactly what will happen if you try to broadcast a message in the United States without a license from the FCC. The airwaves in many towns are so crowded that nobody could get a license even with a billion dollar investment.

  96. Federal Communications Commission by tepples · · Score: 1

    Censorship is something the government does.

    There exist a finite and small number of frequency bands that mass-market receivers can receive. The FCC grants monopolies on the use of such frequency bands in the United States to private entities, and in some towns, the FCC has granted so many monopolies that there exist literally no free frequencies to assign to new firms. When all the monopoly holders exercise "editorial control", and the FCC uses the FBI to enforce those monopolies, how is this not censorship?

    1. Re:Federal Communications Commission by haystor · · Score: 1

      I've seen the ad. Nobody stopped me from viewing it.

      They didn't get to play it anywhere they want, that hardly means it has been censored.

      Even if I granted that there is a monopoly on airtime. These companies are publicly traded. You are free to buy one and air that commercial if you so choose.

      Look at the difference between airing that commercial and airing porn. CBS chooses not to air the commercial. They can't air the porn. One is censored, the other is perhaps too depressing for what should be a fun event.

      --
      t
  97. What the heck by Heem · · Score: 2, Funny

    What the heck is this Superb Owl I keep hearing about. Whats so great about it? Does it know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
  98. If you can call 1.3 Trillion by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    "some extent" Only GB senior managed to raise it more. And since 1940 only 6 years exist that the debt went down any amount. And Clinton had the dotcom boom to work with. GW has raised the national debt 265 Billion in a bad economy. Clinton raised it 317 Billion in a good economy in the dotcom era and over 800 Billion his first term.

    Deficit goes to the Debt. Clinton tanked the National Debt to a level only George Bush senior managed to do. Who cares if you have "money left over" if the money left over pales in comparison to the amount you tanked the debt. And the facts are the National Debt hasn't be increased more than 100 Billion per year since Bush got into office.

    So what if Bush spends 1 Trillion dollars? If it were a bad thing it would fall into the debt. It hasn't. Yes he's spending money, but obviously he has it covered. And as Clinton so wonderfully demonstrated and you've lapdogged at, having the illusion of a surplus is more important than paying off the debt. No president since 1940 has made a consistant effort to get it paid down. That should tell you something about government spending and the importance of avoiding deficits. The fact is, balancing the budget comes second to getting things done. And paying off the debt comes last. At the current trend the debt will stabalize in not too long.

    "If your answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask yourself: does he deserve 100,000 times the wealth of the average American?"

    No I don't. It's not a matter of deserving. Robinhood economics are for fairy tales. Which apparently the Democrates are fond of.

    There's no getting around the fact that Bush is good for the economy no matter how many Democrates want to hide behind lies. Clinton was handed a good economy on a silver plater when the net went mainstream in a way never seen before in history and he SUCKED. For what Bush has had to work with he's been doing a spectacular job.

    Ben

    1. Re:If you can call 1.3 Trillion by damiam · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Your numbers are rather strange. According to the US Treasury, the debt has gone up 1.3 trillion in the three years since Bush took office. That's a bunch more than 100 billion a year (in fact, it's $433 billion). In his entire 8 years, Clinton raised it 2 trillion - $250 billion a year.

      Obviously, Clinton wasn't a perfect president (such a thing has never existed). I disagree with him on plenty of issues (blowjobs, for one). But against a president to whom "getting things done" means giving away money to the wealthy, when we're already spending it faster than we're making it, I'd take Clinton any day.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    2. Re:If you can call 1.3 Trillion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Your numbers are wrong, your excuses are wrong, and your characterization of the other side of the debate is wrong. "Robinhood economics" is a fairy tale, but it's your own. Social programs do not rob from the rich and give to the poor. First, that's false since taxation isn't robbery, no matter how much you've been told by anti-tax zealots it is. Second, social programs are not give aways to particular people, while corporate bailouts and Bush's tax cuts irrefutably are. Third, the biggest benefactors of Democratic policy are in the upper-middle to lower classes (i.e., the vast majority), while the sole benefactors of Bush's policies are in the upper class (i.e., the tiny minority). Fourth, since social programs are overwhelmingly paid for by the people who receive them, your entire account of things is pure fiction.

      Another thing you get wrong is the matter of the economy under Bush and under Clinton. Bush is not good for the economy, no matter how many times you want to say it and call Democrats liars. The simple facts are impossible to ignore, try as you might. The deficit is huge. The number of jobs lost is astounding and the job creation pace is pitiful. The dollar is getting weaker as we borrow more and more. Bumping up the economy by spending money we don't really have is easy; anyone can do that, and it's entirely unspectacular. The problem is that when such artificial increases do not stimulate the economy and you keep doing it, the market and the dollar get on shakier and shakier ground.

      Clinton was not handed a good economy. George Herbert Walker Bush would've won in 1992 if the economy was good or, even, decent. He had the highest approval ratings ever recorded after Gulf War I. The piss poor state of the economy hurt his popularity across a broad segment of people; his "read my lips" BS hurt him with right-leaning centrists and the right. He didn't appeal to the hard right, he didn't appeal to the hard left, and he didn't appeal to the inbetween. And the economy was the big reason why. Period. A President is responsible for the economy under his control. Under Clinton, the economy went from bad to great to above average. Under Dubya, the economy went from above average to terrible to poor/average. The surplus went from enormous to a huge deficit. And this was being predicted by anyone who took a serious look at his proposed spending in Campaign 2000. It has nothing to do with things that are beyond Dubya's control.

      "Borrow and spend" Republicanism of the sort Dubya embodies is much worse than the "tax and spend" Democrats that people like you conjure without ample evidence. Even the right is criticizing Bush's economy policies and spending. Even Rush Limbaugh is! What's the tell you?

    3. Re:If you can call 1.3 Trillion by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Under Clinton, the economy went from bad to great to above average. Under Dubya, the economy went from above average to terrible to poor/average.

      This part is incorrect, about how Bush inherited a good economy. The collapse began nearly a full year before Bush was sworn into office.

  99. I have to ask ...... by taniwha · · Score: 1
    because it has always bugged me .....

    Did US rules football get popular because it has all those breaks for ads so it got on TV more often and more people saw it? or did they change the game to add the the breaks for TV? I really want to know.

    BTW (for those that don't live in the US) IMHO the main difference between US football and elsewhere is that you're allowed to go tackle people who don't have the ball

    1. Re:I have to ask ...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The breaks have been added. The natural breaks, the ones that don't really bother anyone, are the ones between the quarters (in which teams switch sides on the field) and the ones during (most) team timeouts. It's not all that interesting to see players milling around and generally nothing happens during a timeout that we can't be filled in on later.

      The breaks that they've added are bothersome. These "TV timeouts" tend to come after scores and changes of possession. And, also, now during challenges (when we used to get the benefit of multiple angles and replays on the play under review). Since a score is followed by a kickoff (unless the half has ended), we sometimes are subjected to a sequence like: team A scores a touchdown, commercial break, team A kicks off, team B downs the ball in the end zone for a touchback, commercial break, team B throws an interception, commercial break, team A scores, commercial break, team A kicks off, commercial break. Ugh.

      There are a lot of problems with this that are sometimes hard to ignore. If there's a short burst of a lot of activity, it detracts from the excitement by breaking it all up. In games featuring two very ineffective offenses, it draws out what very well might be already mind-numbingly bad football. And, worst of all, every once in a while, they screw up the timing and miss part of the game coming back from the break. (This is even more annoying when the coverage is bad, anyway, with an annoying sideline reporter, camera men that routinely fall for fakes, sound problems, or something else.)

      All of that said, the coverage is usually good enough that it doesn't seriously intrude on the game. And when the game is good, it's hard to even notice the shitty coverage.

  100. New enforcement of NFL IP by p_trekkie · · Score: 1

    Sports illustrated/CNN is carrying a story about how the NFL has refused to allow Las Vegas casinos to have superbowl parties, because it violates their IP.

  101. Yeah, yeah by russotto · · Score: 1

    Just because the NFL's lawyers write some stuff doesn't mean it's true. Their claim to absolute control over the use of the term "Super Bowl" and the various team and conference names is patently ridiculous -- nominative fair use obviously comes in to play here.

    It's nice to know, though, that the NFL's (oops) lawyers don't mind anyone saying "February 1, 2004".

    (No, I'm not a lawyer. My advice is worth what you paid me for it. But so is the NFL (oops) lawyers' advice)

  102. We need more commercials like this by NoseSocks · · Score: 1

    the 2 second version: "Bush bad because of high deficit"

    I want more commercials like this. Problems with no solutions. I remember the good ole days where I'd see a commercial opening with "I am up to my ears in debt" and closing with a viable solution to getting out of personal debt. Instead, we get "BUSH BAD". What does it accomplish? Less votes for Bush? IF so, more votes for whom? We don't even know who's running against him yet. Nadir hasn't said anything officially (Though on Bill Maher he made some hints) and Democrats haven't had their champion chosen yet. What's the point of this ad? I see a food ad during the superbowl, I think "I am kind of hungry". I see a beer commercial, I think "I am kind of thirsty". It's not like this anti-bush commercial is going to make me critically rethink my voting position months before the election, especially if there's a funny commercial and/or football before and after this ad.

    Done Ranting. I just don't see the point in playing this commercial during the superbowl, as I can't see more than 2% of the world actually paying attention to it.

  103. Opportunity for free 10 grand for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the Philadelphia Eagles playbook and come back and explain some of it.

    If you can make some intelligent commentary on it, there's $10,000 in it for you.

    1. Re:Opportunity for free 10 grand for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy, most all the offensive plays end with "... throw the ball to Rickey Manning."

  104. Blackmailing bookies for protection money.... by Darth23 · · Score: 1

    someone's got serious cajones.

    --

    -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

  105. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Philadelphia Eagles playbook is as thick as the Manhattan phone book. As I posted elsewhere, if you can commit it to memory (like the players do) and come back and make some intelligent commentary on it, there's 10 grand in it for you.

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

      I CAN!!! It's easy. Most of the plays are simple, "Drop back, scan left, scan right, throw the ball to Rickey Manning..."

  106. Are these the best commercials? by claes · · Score: 1

    I don't live in the US, but I have read that people gather up in front of the TV when it is Super Bowl, partly because of the "great" commercials. I now watched all ten in this list, and I am puzzled. Are these really the best commercials in the country of consumerism and capitalism? Because frankly, I don't find them very good. There is some kind of "grand" feeling to some of them, some might have been expensive to make, and they probably appeal to many people by using some lower denominator. But they lack humour, the acting in them is bad, and I don't feel much when I see them.
    I think this is because they are aimed at a very big and diverse audience. I have seen plenty of better commercials here though (where here is Sweden). We also have the usual rubbish with shampoo, soap and pampers, but those that are good are more creative than these shown here, and often have great acting, and are more funny.

    What are your feelings about the Super Bowl commericals? Are they the best you get there, or are the local ones, or more odd ones better? My feeling is that if you aim at a smaller audience, chances are you end up with a better commercial (where I define "better" as more entertaining to watch).

  107. One more condition for the 10 grand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to demonstrate that you have committed the entire book to memory (just like the "dumb" players), even though it is as thick as the Manhattan phone book.

  108. The point is by KalvinB · · Score: 0, Troll

    the "winning" ad is attempting to attack Bush for incurring more debt when Clinton got a second term with a worse record of increasing the debt.

    So point stands.

    It's a dumb (and blatently hypocritical) ad. And it's a good thing CBS didn't show it because it would hurt the Democratic party more than anything. MoveOn.org is aptly named if that's the kind of ad it's going to promote as it needs to move on itself. Only the "Hitler" ad could be considered more trollish.

    It's right up there with Sharpton claiming the top 1% pays less than 5% of all taxes and that "fair" would be more than 15% when in fact they pay over 30%.

    Clark is throwing out the same "fair" BS claiming that the rich need to pay more. Any credibility they had is gone.

    Ben

    1. Re:The point is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's right up there with Sharpton claiming the top 1% pays less than 5% of all taxes and that "fair" would be more than 15% when in fact they pay over 30%.

      You're an idiot. The top 1% pays over 30% of income taxes. That is not "all taxes".

    2. Re:The point is by northstarlarry · · Score: 1
      I cede your point about the ad. I did not understand that you and the ad were talking about the total national debt, and not the yearly budget ('cause most people don't make the distinction). Anyways, I was a little quick off the mark; sorry.

      ( Now, before everyone goes into shock at seeing the "s" word. . . )

      However , the fact remains that the national debt increased far, far less during Clinton's terms (due to a (eventually) balanced budget) than it has for a very long time (you yourself noted that, according to your data, the debt increased in his second term by less than half of what it had in his first) , and than it is currently projected to for the next 10 years or so. This projected increase is due very directly to the projected budget deficits caused by Bush's tax cuts and his spending increases. And if we look at the information pointed to above(thanks, IVotedIn200!), we see that, starting from the end of FY2001 ( beginning the first full fiscal year Bush could conceivably have an effect ), to today, right at the top of the page, the debt has increased by 1.3 trillion dollars. But here, I'll even give you the 400 billion increase from 9/30/2001 to 2002, because, using another page from the same site (the Treasury Department's, for those who aren't paying attention, and up-to-date) we see that, in fact, the debt increased under Clinton ( 1993 - 2001 ) by about 1.2 trillion. So if we take the 400 billion from FY 2002 from Bush and tack it onto Clinton, we have: 1.6 trillion over 9 years vs. 8-900 billion over 2! And without being generous to Bush like that, Clinton and Bush have grown the national debt by about the same amout, except Bush did it 3 times faster!!

      But what do facts matter, anyways? Ideology and ranting about Al Sharpton is so much more fun.

      The national debt, by the way, has been around since the the United States assumed the debt amassed during the Revolutionary War by the Continental Congress. The 20th century made it go way, way up, what with the two World Wars, the Depression, and increased military spending in the second half of the century (FDR is your man if you want to complain about increasing the debt).

  109. Yanky Football, bleah! by Space_Soldier · · Score: 0

    If you people want to see real football, turn your TV to a football match on a channel that has the English Premiership League. That is the real FOOTBALL. Running around with a ball isn't "foot-ball". If still like this yanky crap, take a look at Rugby (named after Rugby, England where it was inveted), which is much better, even Aussie football is beter than your rubbish.

  110. WOW... ROSCO GOT HIS ASS HANDED TO HIM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    gg Rosco... better luck next time... aiken d has cleaned the floor with you.

  111. Stay anonymous by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    "The number of jobs lost is astounding and the job creation pace is pitiful."

    The dotcom boom created millions of jobs. The dotcom burst made all those frivilous jobs go away. It takes far more people to build a house than it does to maintain it.

    "blame the President" is just mindless banter.

    "Clinton was not handed a good economy."

    What do you call the dotcom boom? Do you actually believe Al Gore invented the internet? Clinton borrows 800+ billion his first term, got reelected and then the dotcom boom handed him fistfuls of tax money so it wasn't necessary to borrow.

    And now you expect us to believe that despite the piss poor economy that has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the flailing tech business sector and two wars going on which aren't cheap that Bush's contribution to the debt is just too much.

    riiiiiight. It's a dumb hypocritical ad and there's no getting around it.

    It may be a bit excessive but considering the circumstances it's hardly a selling point for the Democrates.

    Ben

  112. Sorry the groupthink isn't as thick as you'd like by doc_traig · · Score: 1


    Stop rolling your eyes and drop the ridiculous pretense. I know your heart was broken when you saw "Superbowling" on the front page... I should come to expect that every year there will be a front-page story here about the super bowl and slews of posts saying "I can't believe we are stooping to cover/discuss the super bowl! We're nerds, remember? This doesn't matter! Where's the chin-stroking, world-conscious intellectualism that I'm used to?!"

    Move to Buffalo if you don't want your city to pander to the NFL for the Super Bowl. Oh, and there are plenty of the usual stories all over this site. Stifle your moral outrage and head over to one of them.

    --
    So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
  113. In New England... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    Seriously, New England is SO DISMAL during the winter, and it stays that way until april or may. We need as many excuses to drink heavily, have social contact, and eat fatty reserves as possible.

    Hell, this winter's been vicious cold, most retailers are WAY down in sales because people just aren't leaving their houses unless they have to. Hell, today peaked over freezing for the first time in about two or three weeks, at least; there were ARMIES of people outside going to get haircuts, food shopping, and getting cars repaired and cleaned.

    If it weren't for these excuses to party we'd all go nuts sometime in February.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  114. my new book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am officially announcing my new publication, which I am incuding in its entirety below:

    the

    This work is (C) copyright me at this moment in time 2004 until 90 years after my estate's corporate entity purchases the rights a day short of 70 years after my death, or as law permits. No duplication or republication, in whole or in part or as part of another work is permitted without my express written consent. Failure to do so is a violation of my copyright, my IP, the DMCA, and other laws as congress sees fit to pass or ratify upon international tribunal. You may, however, use "***" to parody quoting my work in your text. All violators of my copyright will be persecuted^Wprosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law or more.

  115. I understand the theory by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    I just think it's pathetic when potential presidential candidates lie to our faces and tell us they aren't paying their fair share and democrates whine about tax breaks "for the wealthy"

    You pay more, you get more back. Common sense.

    "That's why it's fair to soak the rich. They can tolerate it."

    Being able to tolerate it doesn't make it fair. If the rich weren't being ripped off under the current system of taxes everyone else would feel the pain real quick. So instead of pretending they deserve it, why not thank them instead for making your life easier by picking up the slack?

    Being poor isn't an excuse to be an ungrateful prick.

    Ben

    1. Re:I understand the theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for representing the republicans."

      You definitely gave me more proof of why they are absolute fucking bastards.

  116. What date is that? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Sunday is the 1st of February.

    d make sure that you vote at 9pm on Sunday 1/31

  117. The Falcons moved the camp by kurtinatlanta · · Score: 1

    ...several miles north and west so that the view from the McDonald's is effectively blocked now. I'm sure the Gwinnett County police department is much happier.

    The indoor practice field made a cameo appearance in ESPN's "Beg, Borrow, and Deal" as one team kicked a 35-yard field goal there with Falcons kicker Jay Feely as the holder.

  118. But the governmetn is not controlling the directly by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Beyond obscenity (and nudity), which might be viewed as censorship, the government is not controlling CBS in this case. CBS wants to leave entertainment as entertainment, and who can blame them? They are finding other channels, as is shown by advertising on CNN. It's not censorship if the government is not doing anything to stop you, but you can't get one particular party to agree to broadcast something you don't like!! That's called whining.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  119. Yes I did by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I drove on the road that was paid for in part by CBS buying that portion of the spectrum. They made some agreements but I don't believe they including broadcasting anything anyone demanded them to at any time they liked.

    Has CBS said they will NEVER boradcast this? That's not what I'm hearing, it's just the superbowl, and they found another outlet CNN. HOW CAN IT BE CENSORSHIP WHEN THERE ARE ABOUT 100 OTHER MEANS OF REACHING AN AUDIENCE AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME MANNER???

    Again, calling that censorship is exaclty the same as you not letting me make crank calls from your house and calling THAT censorship. That's why I am pretty sure that you have zero understanding of what real censorship is. Ask someone in China.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yes I did by Moofie · · Score: 1

      They were given the spectrum. No monies were ever exchanged. Yay FCC.

      CBS is censoring their content. It is not illegal or immoral for them to do so, but I do think it is unethical. I (and many other people) are exercising our free-speech rights to tell CBS what we think about their business practices.

      CBS is telling the public "If you want to be heard on our network, you need to a) have a lot of money and b) be in our club of "acceptable message senders". I don't think that is an appropriate use of their bandwidth monopoly.

      What's with the ad hominem attacks? I know exactly what censorship is. I know people from mainland China. I think that, in order to not become like mainland China, we need to be alert for any and all instances of censorship, whether they come from government or from increasingly powerful media oligopolies.

      Did I kick your dog? What's with the venom, dude?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  120. superbowl PSA's aren't free by hitchhacker · · Score: 1

    Networks air PSA's for free

    White House buys Super Bowl anti-drug spots

    2 anti-drug ads at 1.6 million dollars a piece.

    -metric

  121. I think by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I think we need to not call out that the sky is falling, until it actually is. CBS wanting to keep a forum for entertainment entertaining is not censorship. Moveon.org is having just as many people see it anyway, in fact perhaps far more that care than would have otherwise (how well do YOU think most of the people watching the superbowl would have liked the commercial anyway?).

    I prefer to save my battles for when there is something to fight over. If this had been a pro-Bush ad I would have just as hastily defending the same choice by CBS, which would have been made the same way since it's the way they've laid down the rules. I am if nothing else a champion of fairness and I don't see why Moveon should get to air an ad here if no other candidates do, which I don't want because then the Superbowl would turning into a total suckfest instead of the moderately amusing rush to spend a gajillion dollars for 30 seconds of my attention.

    If CNN had refused to run it then I would have been like "Hey, what the hell?" but they did not so case closed. This is no X-files, it's not even a job for Encyclopedia Brown.

    The attacks are because I get PISSED OFF watching people wasting energy on this crap, instead of doing something worthwhile with their time (myself included).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  122. DDoS and criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * posting anon for obvious reasons *

    The criminals who are extorting various gaming sites all over the Internet are serious Eastern European types. But at least one is in the US. They are extraordinarily stupid, can't add up for shit, but are armed with v. v. big bot nets.

    I have a plan to get legislative change in the first world - the spoofed DDoS packets would not be possible to send if ISPs weren't criminally negligent in passing packets originating from customers that is obviously non-routeable. For example, there is absolutely no point in allowing ICMP, UDP or TCP SYN packets if you can't receive the replies. Once spoofing is off the agenda, we can quickly /dev/null the ISPs or countries who have DDoS bots, and if done correctly, will spur the ISPs to take some responsibilty for their customer's malicious traffic. Followed up with firewalls on by default, minimal services, no hiding behind EULA terms for vendors with faulty software and we might get somewhere.

    Just remember, just because they're gaming sites, this also happens *every* day to banks, financial insitutions, government web sites, bill pay websites and ticketing agencies.

    If you want the Internet to be here and useful in two year's time, the criminals must be repelled for the low scum they are.

  123. Post-Game Clean-Up by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    I want to see Swiffer vs. Competition.

    Swiffer will kick ass!

    Seriously though, has there ever been a greater waste of TV advertising money?

  124. Re: Conspiracy Theory (was: Blackmailing bookies) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they pay the NFL(r) to use the phrase "Super Bowl"(r) and the team names "Panthers"(r) and "Patriots"(r) in their sports book? Maybe the Russian Mafia(r) is not really behind the DOS attacks after all...

  125. Now an imperfect record by Snowgen · · Score: 1

    Panthers Upset Patriots, 29 to 21 ... in the ... '989 Sports Game Before the Game' ... This annual event ... has a perfect 8-year track record of picking the winner of the Super Bowl.

    Oops. So much for that record.