Web Rescues Un-Aired Super Bowl Ads

destinyland writes "A pirated version of Budweiser's un-aired Super Bowl ad appeared on YouTube — proving the Web is more democratic than NBC. The sexy PETA ad they refused to air also turned up on PETA's site; YouTube also had Saturday's skit from SNL, mocking the actual Pepsi ad that would air Sunday. But ironically, the Web site for Jack in the Box crashed right after they'd aired their cliffhanger about Jack's bus accident, prompting one critic to joke, 'Should we assume he's dead?'

Comments

Counter-intuitive

[SpanishInquisition0]

Watching PETA ads doesn't make me wanna become vegan. In fact, seeing those naked women just make me want to eat some meat, if you catch my drift.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[cbiltcliffe]

It doesn't make me want to become vegetarian or vegan, either.
It pisses me off at PETA, due to all the lies and misleading studies that they tout in their ads, as well as the implication that one sorry-assed psycho beating a duck to death is how they're all killed for meat.

Having grown up and lived on a mixed farm for 20+ years, I think I can safely say that beating an animal to death would pretty much ruin any meat in it. Especially something as small as a duck.

So, in conclusion:

1. PETA is a shady political group with an agenda.
2. We (or at least I) hate politics.
3. I hate PETA.
4. Eat meat.
5. ???
6. Profit!!

Re:Counter-intuitive

[ShieldW0lf]

Who cares? They fucking pay gazillions of dollars to force us to watch the things because they're a craptastic waste of attention. How about the web rescues people from the ads that did get aired?

Re:Counter-intuitive

[CastrTroy]

I think PETA has it's tactics all wrong. Instead of trying to get everybody to stop eating meat, cold turkey (bad pun), they really should be trying to get people to eat less meat. I've switched over to eating less meat in the past year or so, and I have to say, I enjoy eating a lot more than I used to. Now that I'm buying less meat, I can get better cuts, from more humane sources, and I've also lost quite a bit of extra weight. I don't think I'd ever go off meat completely, but cutting down on meat so that you only eat it 3-4 times a week is probably a viable alternative that a lot of people could live with. Instead of getting people to go completely vegan, try to get everybody to eat vegetarian at least a couple times a week. It's a much more obtainable goal.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[nicodoggie]

I think I can safely say that beating an animal to death would pretty much ruin any meat in it.

There's this delicacy in the Philippines... I forget what it's called but, basically it's chicken that's beaten to death. Didn't ruin the meat, though, as you claim, in fact, the meat becomes leaner—red meat where white meat should be.

I don't know if its different if they beat the chicken _after_ its dead, but those guys in the provinces say a chicken beaten down by a maniac tastes better, but I don't really know...

I'm not saying we all beat up livestock for meat... but still, some people do it.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[CastrTroy]

For the first time in a long time, the superbowl was worth watching. In most years, the game completely sucks, and the only interesting thing about it is the commercials.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[MooUK]

Some meat benefits from being beaten (tenderised) before cooking, too.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[dkleinsc]

PETA has so many problems with its tactics that you'd think they were sponsored by the American Beef Council.

The thing that surprises people the most about vegetarian (although not vegan) diets is that the food they can eat is relatively normal: cheese pizza instead of pepperoni, bagels rather than bacon, bean burritos rather than beef, etc. And you're absolutely right that reducing meat has significant benefits.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[DrLang21]

The commercial was disappointing as a whole. With those descriptions, I was expecting something bordering softcore. Instead I got some mediocre crap that left me convinced that these studies they refer to are completely bunk. Nerds have hotter sex than that.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Rutefoot]

Vegans will point to 'statistics' that vegetarians and vegans are healthier than the average person.

You are the example of why their 'statistics' are misleading and biased. Most people don't give a shit about what they eat. So how is comparing that group of people to vegetarians/vegans (who put at least a little thought into their diet) fair? They're not unhealthy because they eat meat, they are unhealthy because they don't give a shit.

CastrTroy is the example of the right thing to do. Studies that are more in depth than the ones trying to promote their agenda have all shown that eating some meat (as part of a balanced diet) is healthier than eating no meat.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Skrynesaver]

You grew up on a mix farm, there is a world of difference between that and a feedlot or a battery farming operation.

Now I'm fond of good meat myself, but good meat is getting harder to find :(

Re:Counter-intuitive

[socsoc]

It is impossible for poultry to have red meat. Red meat is from mammals...

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching PETA ads doesn't make me wanna become vegan. In fact, seeing those naked women just make me want to eat some meat, if you catch my drift.

Uhhh, does that mean you're gay?

Re:Counter-intuitive

[noidentity]

I'd like to eat meat, but I don't trust the industry enough (even the organic meat industry). Hell, with the growing peanut fiasco, I'm losing trust in other industries too...

Re:Counter-intuitive

[CastrTroy]

Lentil tacos are also quite good. I almost prefer them to the beef ones. It's really nice being able to eat a whole bunch of really good tacos without having worry about the fat content.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, having been fortunate enough to have dated a fair few ladies over the years, (OK, I'll turn in my geek card), I can state that the two vegetarians and one vegan in the bunch:
- had very good skin & hair
- went like rattlesnakes

Unscientific, I know...

Re:Counter-intuitive

[aesiamun]

bagles rather than bacon?

Mmmm savory, crispy...bagels.

Nope won't work for me.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[aesiamun]

I actually thought the game was more interesting than the commercials this year. But I did find some of them funny...

Re:Counter-intuitive

[operagost]

Vegetarian diets aren't acceptable to PETA because you're still "oppressing" cows and chickens. Vegetarians will be up against the wall right after the meat-eaters when the revolution comes.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[sitarah]

"PETA is a shady political group with an agenda."

They're shady alright. I am pretty bothered by how they react to people wearing fur. Throwing flour and paint and other things is simply unacceptable. It's a stretch to call it assault, but it is still invading your personal space in an effort to force you to comply with their ideas of good behavior.

I have a right to choose to wear fur. It's not illegal. You also have the right to disagree with my choice. You do not have the right to terrorize me into agreeing with you. You do not have the right to make me afraid to go somewhere in a fur coat just because we do not agree. But I guess the rights of people they dislike (evil, awful animal-killers!) don't count.

That said, I don't have a fur coat, and I do like animals, and I was a vegetarian for awhile. I just really have a problem with PETA in particular because of those tactics.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Defectuous]

So true so true, but I want my meat to exercise daily. Those haunches need to be lean.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[pavon]

Mmmm lentils. Although I have to say that shredded beef or pork tacos are much tastier than both, without the fat of pan-frying ground beef. Just cook an inexpensive cut of meat in a crockpot with your favorite chiles and spices until it easily separates with a fork.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[SpottedKuh]

Studies that are more in depth than the ones trying to promote their agenda have all shown that eating some meat (as part of a balanced diet) is healthier than eating no meat.

That was an excellent point: only compare vegetarians/vegans who put some thought into their food with carnivores who put some thought into their food. Not to mention, a vegetarian would immediately have to turn down, e.g., meat lover's pizza (mmm...heart stopping).

Do you have any links / sources for those more in-depth, non-PETA studies? I'd be curious to see better coverage of the topic, as opposed to the rantings of PETA.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[MBGMorden]

Shredded pork tacos are my absolute favorite. Particularly actual Mexican style ones (what Taco Bell calls tacos are disgusting). Soft grilled corn tortilla, some shredded pork, hot sauce, cilantro, some pickled chili peppers, and onions. No hard shell, no tomatoes, no cheese, and no lettuce. After trying some done the "proper" way taco's went from a rather bland, uninteresting food that I'd typically avoid to one of my favorite foods.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[PitaBred]

You forget that PETA is an extremist group. They're no different than, say, Iran, who have no direct terrorist ties, but they have some pretty damn questionable connections.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

I've switched over to eating less Peta-approved 'organic' produce in the past year or so, and I have to say, I enjoy eating a lot more than I used to. Now that I'm buying less 'organic' produce, I can get better quality fruits & vegetables, from cleaner sources, and I've also lost quite a bit of extra weight. I don't think I'd ever go off produce completely, but cutting down on so-called 'organic' produce so that you only eat it 3-4 times a week is probably a viable alternative that a lot of people could live with. Instead of getting people to go completely carnivorous, try to get everybody to eat meat at least a couple times a week. It's a much more obtainable goal.

At least that's how I read the post...

Re:Counter-intuitive

[MBGMorden]

If you're not in a situation where you could raise your own in whatever conditions you deem fit, then you can always take up hunting (seriously). Startup cost is relatively minor (you can find a good used hunting rifle for ~$150, or a new one for around $275, or you can find a decent bow for around $175 if you wanted to go that route, though the archery accessories market drives that cost up fast), and most states have good public hunting land. 1 or 2 deer (or any other large game) per year is a lot of meat, and they're about as organic as you can get.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Penis Entering Tight Anus

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

And some meat just needs to be beaten (Especially after seeing those girls in the link).

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then, eat meat!

Mmmm.. squirrel sammich.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[nabsltd]

I'm not familiar with "the growing peanut fiasco".

Is there a problem because peanut farmers aren't embracing free-range farming techniques?

Re:Counter-intuitive

[ShieldW0lf]

For the first time in a long time, the superbowl was worth watching. In most years, the game completely sucks, and the only interesting thing about it is the commercials.

If you say so... never actually watched it before...

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Red meat has to do with the concentration of myoglobin in the blood. "... the meat of adult mammals such as beef, mutton, and horse is invariably considered 'red', while chicken and rabbit are invariably considered 'white'. The meat of young mammals such as milk-fed veal and lamb, and that of pork is traditionally considered 'white'; while the meat of duck and goose is considered 'red'..." -wikipedia

Re:Counter-intuitive

[cbiltcliffe]

Salmonella poisoned peanuts.

They've gone into snack food across North America.

Google for it if you want more details.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, pussy is meat.... not red, but pink.... delicious pink.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[cbiltcliffe]

a) That's the Phillipines, not North America and western Europe, which is really PETA's target audience, as far as I've been able to tell.

b) Beating something after it's dead isn't really animal cruelty, is it?

And your last line is exactly my point. Not everyone beats up livestock for meat. In fact, the vast majority don't. PETA, however, would like you to believe that your hot dog was a chicken yesterday, that somebody clubbed with a baseball bat until it stopped moving, so you could have your Ball Park Franks.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[cbiltcliffe]

Tenderising meat that's already cut, frozen, thawed, and is currently sitting on a counter in your kitchen does not constitute animal cruelty, no matter how aggressive you get with the mallet.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[trevdak]

I think that someone coulda made a hell of a great comeback ad with lingerie-clad women rubbing steaks and bacon all over their bodies.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Pope]

If all you do is worry about "trusting" everything, you might as well give up living altogether.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[cbiltcliffe]

And you have pigshit for brains, but you don't hear me complaining.

But seriously...farmers pollute the environment? What kind of crap propaganda have you been reading?
Polluting the environment you're trying to live from isn't exactly productive, and if you were to do so, your productivity, and therefore your income would drop significantly.

Farmers run tractors substantially for only a few weeks out of the year. You probably drive a car to work 5 days a week, for 50 or so weeks a year.

Farmers have manure to deal with, but 200 years ago, North America was full of bison and buffalo that were shitting all over the place, and we didn't have pollution problems.

I have to pick up the crap my dog leaves when I take him for a walk, under the guise of preventing pollution, but the fact that there are at least a dozen deer in the same woodlot in my city, who crap all over it every day, doesn't seem to have entered into the minds of people like you.

And as far as them being a throwback to a age best left in the past (Nice grammar by the way), it really takes a shortsighted twit to believe that anything remotely resembling a modern society could function without farmers.
If there were no farmers, everybody would have other jobs, but there'd be no food.
So everybody would have to grow their own food, which would mean little time to do other jobs, and all of a sudden, everybody's a farmer again.

You're an idiot.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[cbiltcliffe]

If you seriously believe in what you're posting, then why do you hide behind AC?

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Slime-dogg]

Throwing flour and paint and other things is simply unacceptable. It's a stretch to call it assault, but it is still invading your personal space in an effort to force you to comply with their ideas of good behavior.

It isn't a stretch to call it assault at all. It's also vandalism, and it is illegal. You can take them to court for damages.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[CastrTroy]

And wild deer meat tastes amazing compared to any farmed meat I've ever tasted.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[moodboom]

PETA's tactics are almost always sensational. It's understandable for a minority movement that tries to gain traction to initially use this strategy. Its long-term effectiveness may be questionable. But often they are trying to convince younger folks who haven't yet become hardened to the idea, so from that perspective maybe it works?

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Korin43]

I think the fact that vegans turn down meat lovers pizza is the point..

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Rutefoot]

To clarify my earlier comment. Vegetarians and omnivoires both have the ability to be equally healthy. The difference is that it is much more difficult for a vegetarian to balance the food they eat and still get the same results. Certain compounds essential to your health are few and far between in veggies and are ineffective in supplement form.

http://www.news.com.au/

"SCIENTISTS have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain - with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage. Vegans and vegetarians â" such as Heather Mills â" are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. "

Again, I stress that these vegetarians are capable of getting enough B12, but it's more difficult for them to find adequate sources. I guess it just comes down to an effort vs. overall health ratio. It's fairly easy for an ominvoire to simply reduce their meat intake and eat more vegetables and be equally healthy as a vegan who has to constantly and carefully balance their diet in order to ensure they're getting enough protein or B12 or other essential compounds.

This is based on today's knowledge of what is good and bad for us of course. Every 10 years or so there tends to be new discoveries as to what is required to stay healthy. It was only as recent as 2004 when Omega-3 fatty acids (contained in fish) were pretty conclusively shown to be beneficial (and essential) for your health. Vegans, of course adapt and start including more flaxseed oil into their diet (which they were unlikely to be consuming so readily before the discovery). In 5 or 10 years they'll discover something else which may or may not come from an animal source. I'm sure vegans will yet again adapt and adjust their diet again accordingly. But until then they'll of course be potentially missing the 'essential' compound they didn't realize they needed.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[xant]

Quick fact check:

Number of bison in north america at peak: 60 million
Number of cattle in north america today: 96 million

So it's not really fair to use the bison as an argument that cattle aren't polluting. They can, and they do. Whether it's significant is debatable, and I fall pretty firmly on the side of "fix all the other pollution sources first before you take away my burgers", but let's get the facts right.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[cbiltcliffe]

And the cattle in North America today quite frequently have environmental management for their waste.

Bison never did.

Sure, cattle pollute. But if humans were to suddenly disappear off the planet, that type of pollution would still exist, because it's completely natural, and part of the life cycle.

Jackass AC's car, on the other hand, pollutes many times more, even if he drives an electric Smart.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[moodboom]

Err.. with all due respect, you might want to vet your sources better. The original Oxford report was on the elderly (at higher risk of B12 deficiency), and it said "people who had higher vitamin B12 levels were six times less likely to experience brain shrinkage compared with those who had lower levels of the vitamin in their blood". Nothing about vegetarians. At all.

And it's certainly not "much more difficult" for a vegetarian to balance the food they eat. Nice FUD.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[tenton]

That's because the ads were ass this year. I think the best ad might have been one of the Heroes promos (where they were playing football, funny enough).

Plus, the game was one of the better Super Bowls. I kind of miss the old days when the Super Bowl itself was a blowout.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Grizzlysmit]

Watching PETA ads doesn't make me wanna become vegan. In fact, seeing those naked women just make me want to eat some meat, if you catch my drift.

As for me all I can say is what a load of crap, the Peta adds that is typical vego's trying to stop us eating meat, and using any Lie they can think up to do it.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[scorp1us]

No, you're and idiot. (But you get points for not using 'your')

Runoff from farms has huge environmental implications. Consider the case of the spiny star fish. These buggers (upt to 3 ft across) decimate coral reefs. Their numbers are out of control. The problem is fertilizer from the fields enter the rivers, which flow down the ocean. This produces algal blooms which feed baby starfish. The super-rich environment then has a much-higher than natural maturity rate.

This isn't limited to Australia lone. In the Chesapeake bay, run off from pig and chicken farms cause red tides and are believed to have cause the Pfiesteria outbreaks - which do affect humans.

The problems are: the farmers use more potent fertilizers and higher densities than what is natural.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

In the words of Eric Cartman, "You're a fuckin' faggot, dude."

Re:Counter-intuitive

[DrLang21]

I don't understand why this is modded flaimbait. This is completely true. I refer you all to PETA's Milk Sucks webpage

Re:Counter-intuitive

[drsquare]

They may be low in fat, but they still have a shit-load of calories in them, especially with the shells.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

PETA has so many problems with its tactics that you'd think they were sponsored by the American Beef Council.

OK, so let's go through a list of their tactics (mostly listed on their website).

• The (intended) Superbowl commercial. A bit silly but there are probably some guys out there considering becoming more vegetarian who are reassured by the general idea that many women are OK with vegetarian guys.
• Encouraging people to display/wear t-shirts, bumper stickers, buttons and literature. Probably not effective on random strangers but if you find out that someone in your circle of friends is vegetarian, you may be more comfortable moving in that direction yourself.
• Distribute Information: set up a table, donate a video to the local library, etc. Probably not going to convince anyone overnight but some people aren't even aware that there are ethical issues concerning the treatment of animals - at least they can be aware that there's a debate.
• Give a talk (or a vegan dinner) or sponsor a speaker Might make some close friends more comfortable with the idea of moving away from meat and also useful from the point of view of organizing people who are already vegetarian.
• Put up ads - on websites or elsewhere Again, probably not going to convert anyone overnight but may get people to realize there's an issue. Certainly, there are some uncomfortable truths regarding the mistreatment of animals that some people are going to be unable to accept - but, from a certain point of view, that's their problem.

I'm not saying PETA is perfect but the fact that so many people on Slashdot resort to ad hominem arguments about PETA in order to justify eating meat suggest to me that many people on Slashdot haven't actually worked through the ethical issues of eating meat in a meaningful way.

As an aside, the reasoning I have for not eating meat is similar my reasoning for opposing slavery. You can argue that black/animals are "different". You can argue historical/biblical/natural precedent for slavery/eating meat. You can argue that slaves/animals are better off as slaves/raised for meat. You can argue that black people owned slaves and that animals eat meat.

When it comes down to it though, I wouldn't want to be a slave myself and I wouldn't want to be raised for meat myself (at least not in the manner that both systems are implemented in practice) so I don't subject others to such things.

That's me, though. For me, the ethical objections outweigh the pleasure I might derive from the taste. For others, though, their own pleasure is more important than avoiding the suffering of others. That's life. Most people are profoundly selfish.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[moodboom]

"...completely natural..."

Apparently you haven't seen many feedlots (where your lunch came from)...

It ain't always easy being vegan. But it has nothing to do with good food, that part's easy. I remember one red-faced guy arguing with me that "if we didn't eat meat, what would we do with all the cows?!?" rofl

Flame away...

Re:Counter-intuitive

[kwerle]

And the cattle in North America today quite frequently have environmental management for their waste.

Bison never did.

Sure they did. We like to call their "environmental management for their waste" nature.

And while we're at it, I'm guessing (because I don't know) that the bison of yore lived a lot longer than the cattle of today (on average), and that bison birth rates were lower. And I'm guessing (because I don't know) that the most environmentally expensive part of an herbivore's life cycle is the birth and first year or 2 of growth.

It is my understanding (sorry, no citation) that the grasses bison live off of are also easier on the environment.

But seriously...farmers pollute the environment? What kind of crap propaganda have you been reading?

Maybe...
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp

Claimers: Yeah, I'm a vegetarian. No, I'm not a vegan. Yes, I'm sitting on a leather couch. Yes, I'm a hypocrite. No, I'm not sorry.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[KasperMeerts]

I totally agree with you, absolutely. I'm vegetarian myself.

But watch out with that slavery analogy. As correct and sound as it may be, some people will be quite offended by it.

People are selfish indeed. And also blind for the consequences if those are negative. Eating meat destroys the planet but so little people do something about it.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're and idiot. (But you get points for not using 'your')

hahahaha, oh wow.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, don't we need a spectrum of voices calling for a better tomorrow? I'm sure there are others who lobby for reduced consumption of meat. Car analogy: PETA is like RMS. I don't know where the car went.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Arterion]

I am okay with giving up milk, but not dairy. I really love cheeses. I actually prefer soymilk to cow's milk... but I don't think I could live without cheese.

Though cows MUST be milked. It would be inhumane to NOT milk cows who were lactating.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Arterion]

If my meat exercises, does it mean I don't have to?

(Yes, I am an American.)

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Arterion]

The problems are: the farmers use more potent fertilizers and higher densities than what is natural.

Is this the farmer's fault? They could grow food with weaker fertilizers, but I don't think society is willing to bear the cost. They'd rather use potent fertilizers and damage parts of the environment they don't care much about, or that doesn't directly affect them.

But that's okay. We are doing things FAR worse than damage caused by farming. We have limited resources. It's better to deal with things like dirty energy generation first, then come back to farming issues. It's the same idea of paying off your high interest debt first. It's way cheaper in the long run.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Eating meat destroys the planet

Wow. Just wow. That's not the least bit extreme exaggeration, is it?

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Hork_Monkey]

Or shoot them and state it was self defense, as you thought they were throwing anthrax at you. Then eat them.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Adriax]

Oh no, it's 100% true. Each bite of meat you take actually destroys over 2 dozen atoms. Poof, gone.
Eating meat breaks the laws of thermodynamics and hastens the heat death of the universe.

Damn universe killing meat eaters...

Re:Counter-intuitive

[scorp1us]

Actually it is. Because with proper irrigation, and following the buffering rules, run-off can be re-directed into run-off ponds and prevented from ending up in the tributaries.

Your logic seems to indicate that the ends justify the means. That's a false dichotomy. The means are a part of the ends and need to be included in the consequences. We produced a 12,000-point stock market, but under shady lending practices, now look where we are.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Tacvek]

The Heros was good, the Hulu commercial was mildly amusing, and the H&R block Death & Taxes was not terrible, but in general the rest were abysmal. Most of the commercials were significantly worse than the average regular season commercial which is saying something.

Consider Fords advertisement about a truck with "A full-sized tranny". I'm not sure about you, but that is really not what I want in a truck. I really don't go that way.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

you're obviously an idiot, no one will have trouble figuring that out, however it might be worthwhile to point out that without farms and farmers, we all starve. it's as simple as that.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Rutefoot]

From the vegansociety.com: If for any reason you choose not to use fortified foods or supplements you should recognise that you are carrying out a dangerous experiment - one that many have tried before with consistently low levels of success. If you are an adult who is neither breast-feeding an infant, pregnant nor seeking to become pregnant, and wish to test a potential B12 source that has not already been shown to be inadequate, then this can be a reasonable course of action with appropriate precautions. For your own protection, you should arrange to have your B12 status checked annually. If homocysteine or MMA is even modestly elevated then you are endangering your health if you persist.

Even a site called the Vegan Society warns against attempting to go vegan without using supplements. So by all means, feel free to take handfuls of pills daily in addition to the food you eat. Or I hear there is a particular type of yeast that you can eat to get proper B12.

Then you have just have to worry about protein, omega 3 fatty acids, iron, calcium, Iodine, Zinc and who knows what else.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[shiftless]

Better yet, knock the perpetrator down and beat him within an inch of death with the nearest blunt object you can lay hands on. I'm pretty sure the fucker won't ever try that shit again. It's high time we (as a nation) stopped putting up with this kind of bullshit.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[moodboom]

I hate to keep this little flame going, Rutefoot... especially with someone with your conviction... :>

I doubt it would be possible to "not use fortified foods or supplements". I like nutritional yeast, I take a B12 once in a while. I don't take "handfuls of pills daily". I don't have to worry about "protein, omega 3 fatty acids, iron, calcium, Iodine, Zinc and who knows what else" any more than you do. Also, I don't have to worry about my cholesterol (it's 123), taking lipitor (the "best-selling drug in the world"), or any other nonsense to prevent heart disease, a major problem for die-hard carnivores. I have to worry because I don't put meat and dairy in my body, you have to worry because you do. I think I come out ahead.

If all I cared about was my health, I might not be strictly vegan... but probably close.

Anyway, you appear to have a chip on your shoulder, I'm not here to hold it against you, or act like I have all the answers. I realize my vegan commitment comes from a concern for animals beyond the "norm", and most people will never see completely eye-to-eye with me. Just sharing what works for me.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[abbyful]

PETA is even against honey. Can't steal honey from the poor bees!

Re:Counter-intuitive

[moodboom]

Correction: I doubt it would be possible for anyone to "not use fortified foods" in this day and age.

Now I'm in a flame war with myself... please cut off my coffee supply and mod this down to oblivion... I'm so ashamed... it was nice knowing you, karma...

Pirated

[Jurily]

Do we really have to use this word? It's not like they're going to be upset about getting poeole to view their ad.

Re:Pirated

[sakdoctor]

Did the industries scheme to demonize copyright infringement backfire?
If they scream piracy at everything, then the word piracy will dilute until it doesn't really mean anything.

This might already have happened.

Re:Pirated

[Jurily]

Did the industries scheme to demonize copyright infringement backfire?
If they scream piracy at everything, then the word piracy will dilute until it doesn't really mean anything.

This might already have happened.

Good. Then I'm going to the fridge to pirate myself something to eat.

Re:Pirated

[camperdave]

Regardless of the fact that they WANT people to look at ads, it is still copyright infringement. The copyright holder must give permission to copy before that goes away. There may be reasons (contractual agreements with other companies, varying regulations in different parts of the world, trademark dilution) that they do not want to give permission.

Re:Pirated

[Lumpy]

The general public sees "piracy" as a joke anyways. 90% of the kids out there from ages 8-18 are downloading songs and video off the net like maniacs. Even the rich as hell kids, Their parents are building a 10,000 sq foot summer home here, use bittorrent and limewire and brag about how much free music they can get.

The ONLY people upset about piracy is the middlemen that only make money by not actually doing anything of value. They see they are obsolete and are panicking.

Re:Pirated

[martin-boundary]

Good. Then I'm going to the fridge to pirate myself something to eat.

What the pirate does that mean? Man, that pirating pirate is pirated up!

Re:Pirated

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Likely? No. Technically possible? Yes. Technically, it is piracy, but I think we're pretty safe sharing it around. ;)

Re:Pirated

[foniksonik]

Ogg is that Ogg... oggity ogg to ogg Ogg. Pirate? Ogg.

Re:Pirated

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The ONLY people upset about piracy is the middlemen that only make money by not actually doing anything of value. They see they are obsolete and are panicking.

That's not true! I'm a uni student who's reasonably poor, and has nothing to do with any artistic industry, thanks to my lack of talent. As someone who enjoys copyrighted music, movies, games, and other software (including GPL'd software) and who researches using copyrighted scientific papers, I care about piracy. I don't want to have to bear the costs of pirates who sap money from the respective industries, who will then pass the costs on to me. I don't want to have to fight for my rights, including my right to privacy, against the RIAA and MPAA every year, as they push for greater and greater restrictions. I don't want to trash copyright and hope that something better exists, and that it'll come along and save our culture.

Re:Pirated

[genner]

Good. Then I'm going to the fridge to pirate myself something to eat.

What the pirate does that mean? Man, that pirating pirate is pirated up!

Verbing pirates language.

Re:Pirated

[DarkProphet]

What a bunch of marklars.

Re:Pirated

[ChristTrekker]

Good. Then I'm going to the fridge to pirate myself something to eat.

Eat, riiiight. You're going to come back with a bottle of rum. Yo ho ho...

Re:Pirated

[fastest fascist]

Not only are they happy to spread their propaganda, the advertisers probably "leaked" the material themselves in the first place.

Re:Pirated

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Don't be such a Marklar.

Re:Pirated

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the fact that the secret code for the "pirated" bud ad was removed late saturday night so you don't even need the secret code to view the ad.

You do need to enter a birthdate that proves you're over 21, which no doubt prevents plenty of youngsters from seeing this ad. (insert "rolling eyes" smiley here)

Re:Pirated

[BaronHethorSamedi]

Do we really have to use this word? It's not like they're going to be upset about getting poeole to view their ad.

Agreed 100%. Advertisers, however, may still view this as a denial of another revenue stream. If you hop on over to Hulu.com to view the Super Bowl spots, before watching one of the ads you may be subjected to a 5-second spot for another product entirely.

It's an advertiser's dream: in order to watch an ad, you have to watch another ad.

Re:Pirated

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to have to bear the costs of pirates

The only "pirates" who cost you money are the ones who sell your products. If I were you, I'd be more wary of big corporations like Microsoft than some bum trying to make money by selling CDs on the corner, which may or may not be that new album or movie you wanted in low quality.

Re:Pirated

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Why can't pirates who give away their goods cost you a sale? If anything, they are far more problematic than your commercial pirates, since you can at least have a hope of competing against their price. Free pirates will always have the most attractively-priced goods.

Re:Pirated

[shiftless]

I don't want to have to bear the costs of pirates who sap money from the respective industries, who will then pass the costs on to me.

So how much is the MPAA/RIAA paying you to shill their sad propaganda?

Re:Pirated

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Nothing. Can you believe it? I sent them a lovely cake and everything! It's probably something to do with the way that keep decrying their business tactics, encouraging people to seek alternatives, and complaining about privacy invasions (and that's not even mentioning my comments regarding DRM and copy protection!). Oh well.

It's really, really, really a sad state of affairs when people are so closed-minded as to think the only way someone can disagree with them is through astroturfing. Sometimes you have to deal with the idea that some people have opposing viewpoints. It's the first step to realising what an idiot you really are.

Re:Pirated

[shiftless]

I only assumed you were being paid by the RIAA/MPAA as a courtesy, i.e. giving the benefit of the doubt, as the only other likely alternative explanation for your ridiculous ideas is that you are a moron.

Exactly how does piracy "raise costs"? If anything, piracy should lower costs, since rampant piracy (compared to legit sales) indicates that the product in question is priced too high.

Re:Pirated

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Exactly how does piracy "raise costs"?

Enforcement costs, loss of sales through unfair competition. Pirates get their entertainment on the copyright holder's dime, and guess who pays for it in the end? I'll give you a hint: not the copyright holder.

If anything, piracy should lower costs, since rampant piracy (compared to legit sales) indicates that the product in question is priced too high.

Piracy indicates that people are greedy, and not much more. No matter how low the price goes, people will still be able to pirate it for free. And free doesn't pay the costs of production.

Seriously, this is basic stuff. I think you said the word moron a little too soon (or perhaps, not soon enough).

Re:Pirated

[shiftless]

Enforcement costs,

If enforcement costs so much, why do we bother doing it? Especially since it is having absolutely no effect in shutting down piracy. And it never will, because piracy is in human nature. It's like trying to stop people from smoking marijuana. Who would be dumb enough to try that?

loss of sales through unfair competition.

Loss of sales huh. So how much money did Adobe lose when I pirated my copy of Photoshop? ... The answer is NONE, because I couldn't have afforded to buy Photoshop anyway. If Photoshop were impossible to pirate, I'd just use GIMP.

Piracy indicates that people are greedy, and not much more. No matter how low the price goes, people will still be able to pirate it for free.

Of course. But the lower the price goes, more people will buy it. If Photoshop were $5, or even $50, sure some people would still pirate it, but millions more would just purchase it. Haven't you ever taken a basic economics course?

And free doesn't pay the costs of production.

No, it doesn't. But the thousands of legitimate users certainly do. Which is why we have a thriving software industry these days. If you build a good program, people will buy it. Hell, even if you build a really shitty (but useful) program, people will still buy it. Has Adobe gone out of business yet? What about Microsoft? I'm sure their software is some of the most heavily pirated software in the world, isn't it?

Re:Pirated

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If enforcement costs so much, why do we bother doing it? Especially since it is having absolutely no effect in shutting down piracy.

[Citation needed]

Enforcement makes people afraid to break the law. The fact that we have murders still doesn't prove that police are having "absolutely no effect".

Besides, the point is moot, since we were talking about how piracy costs. It's a cost, unjustified or not.

Loss of sales huh. So how much money did Adobe lose when I pirated my copy of Photoshop?

Plenty. If the GIMP didn't do a comparable job for a lot less, and is copyright was being enforced properly, then there would be plenty of people who would, sometimes grudgingly, fork over the money to pay for Adobe's software. I don't lose any sleep over it, because the GIMP was made independently of photoshop, and the GIMP's success is, in fact, does not rely on photoshop, thus making it valid and fair competitor. Pirates, on the other hand, rely on the people they are ripping off to keep in business. They aren't competing, they're leeching. They grow fat off the work of others, and perish when they decide it isn't worth it.

Of course. But the lower the price goes, more people will buy it. If Photoshop were $5, or even $50, sure some people would still pirate it, but millions more would just purchase it. Haven't you ever taken a basic economics course?

I take it from that, you have. In that case, you'd know that the free market relies on the assumption that consumers are savvy, and they'll optimise the value of their purchases. If indeed the free market works, then they will pirate, ignoring enforcement of copyright law. It doesn't matter if the price is $5, $50, or $500, the identical free option is always better value, and always more appealing. Now, since people still are brought up (mostly) on parents who preach "thou shalt not steal", who are taught to pay people honestly for what they receive, and who know the dangers of turning to the dark side of the law, we are still a little hesitant to act like the savvy and greedy consumers we're supposed to be, but if enforcement stops, and paying for media stops being fashionable, and this passes through generations, then we will invariably choose the cheapest option. It's only a matter of time if we stop copyright enforcement.

But the thousands of legitimate users certainly do.

Assuming they exist and will continue to exist, what makes you think we want to bear the costs? Seriously? Why would we foot the bill for your self-indulgent orgy of entertainment at our expense? Why would we punish the moral, and greatly reward the destructively selfish?

Thanks, Slashdot!

[Goaway]

Thanks for these very important updates on how we should be manipulated! I was kind of feeling like I was thinking a bit too much on own, but finally I get some more ads to dull the senses and reinforce that conformity!

Re:Thanks, Slashdot!

[homer_s]

Thanks for these very important updates on how we should be manipulated! I was kind of feeling like I was thinking a bit too much on own, but finally I get some more ads to dull the senses and reinforce that conformity!

So you're weak enough to be 'manipulated' by TV ads? Is it safe for you to be browsing the web?

Re:Thanks, Slashdot!

[Goaway]

You know, the absolute basics of manipulating someone is making them think they're not being manipulated.

I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[Anonymous Coward]

Not too many Americans know this, but even though we get the Superbowl in Canada, the CRTC (our version of the FCC) allows broadcasters and cable companies to substitute their own commercials during the broadcast. (Yes, we get the Spokane NBC feed on our cable, but we get substituted Canadian ads!) This has been going on for years. So when the USA sees the most AMAZING KEWL Superbowl ad, most Canadians see an add for "Joe's plumbing and lighting"

The Web is the only way for most of us to see the Superbowl ads.

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[0100010001010011]

The USA does that too, sort of. I think it's around half time they let the 'locals' air what ever ads they want. Which is a good thing, because it lead to the best superbowl ad I've ever seen.

That tops anything the big companies put on, if not just for the "WTF did I just see" factor.

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[MooUK]

That... what the...

*sound of a squishy explosion and brains splattering everywhere*

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[Potor]

was that SCTV or something?

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[Anonymous Coward]

With Illico (Videotron) in Quebec, we had the American ads on NBCHD.

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[SpottedKuh]

With Illico (Videotron) in Quebec, we had the American ads on NBCHD.

I can confirm the same on the NBCHD channel using Shaw in Edmonton. I can't figure out why the American HD channels are treated differently than standard channels.

I'm somewhat surprised that commercials are actually slightly amusing during the Super Bowl. Why don't advertisers do this all year long, rather than have annoying people yelling at me (at which point I hit mute and read for a few minutes until my show comes back on)? Wouldn't they see better (i.e., viral) interest in their ads?

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[Jesse_vd]

This is a very different situation. When the Superbowl is broadcast there, there is blocks of time specifically set aside for local advertising, while the rest is sold for billions. What we have up here is a bunch of Canadian broadcasters whining that they can't sell Superbowl ad space because everybody used to just watch the American feed. So they went to the CRTC and complained, and they forced them to replace it all with Canadian content. So instead of seeing some of the funniest commercials of the year, we get the damn Bill Good news hour promo at every break in the game. Not to mention the new equipment Shaw had to install to have the capability to do this completely screwed up audio syncing and we now get treated to 2-second audio drops in every show being shown on more than one station. AWESOME!!!

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[Ertman]

If a local Canadian station is over-the-air broadcasting the same show, in the same format, at the same time as a US station, then the CRTC says that the cable/satellite company must "override" the US broadcast for the Canadian one. If CTV is broadcasting the superbowl in SD only, and NBC is showing it in HD, you don't get the substitution on the HD channel. There are very few HD over-the-air channels in Canada right now (Vancouver and Toronto mostly, CTV just launched an HD broadcast in Calgary a few days before the superbowl) so most people (unless they are on Bell TV, who just gives the whole country the Toronto feeds) still get unmolested US HD feeds.

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[91degrees]

Wow! I was expecting a twist. You mean that's the ad and not a parody!

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[n6kuy]

Vehicle sales people acting like crazy men in a commercial?

Yeah, that's original.

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[Guiness17]

Ok, that ad is without a doubt the funniest damn thing I've seen in a while. If you like it, you have to like the ol' Mel Lastman commercials for Bad Boy furniture as well - and this guy became the mayor of Toronto! Here's an example
NOOOOBODY!

to the OP - yes, simcasting sucked this year, and last. Frito Lay seems to buy about half the airtime.

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[piltdownman84]

Here is a hint. Watch the HD channels. For whatever reason they are never edited on Shaw. After all the fuss this year about how the American feeds will be edited to have crappy Tim Horton ads, I was able to watch all the American Ads.

Good thing too, most people at my Superbowl party were more interested in the Ads than the game.

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[jonaskoelker]

most Canadians see an ad for "Joe's plumbing [...]"

Him again?? The campaigns are over! :(

Re:I'm in Canada...the web is the only way for us

[ibennetch]

It's not really the same thing; in the US we have network breaks and local breaks, they're scheduled as such and all the local stations take their local breaks at the same time -- the network doesn't air anything during those spots so nothing is "covered up". In Canada, they apparently cover up both the local and network breaks with their own breaks, effectively blocking all the network commercials that we look forward to.

Hope I've explained this sufficiently; it's the difference between a scheduled local spot when there is no network spot run versus the (highly-anticipated) network spots being covered up.

Support PETA!!!

[RemoWilliams84]

I, for one, support PETA in everything they do... in the nude.

This is what the civilised world finds bizarre...

[Simon Brooke]

See, this is what those of us in the civilised world find so bizarre about the United States. You're perfectly happy to show ads (and programmes) containing violence, but some women in perfectly decent underwear? Banned.

What is that about?

Pepsi

[Daetrin]

Was it just me or were all the Pepsi commercials atrocious? Telling everyone that regular diet drinks are too "wussy" for a guy to drink isn't exactly going to endear yourself with guys who are already drinking diet drinks, and how many guys really want to drink diet drinks but are so wrapped up in their identity as a macho guy that they're afraid to? (And how many of those are going to be convinced that it's okay to make an exception for Pepsi because of the commercial?)

I haven't actually seen the SNL skit for comparison, but the Pepsi MacGyver spoof just seemed stupid. It wasn't even the kind of "poking fun at oneself" parody that will endear itself to fans of the show.

Re:Pepsi

[Lumpy]

I cant stand that sticky film feeling on my teeth from that crap. If I cant get Coke/Diet Coke I'll drink water. Pepsi products are too sweet to me.

Macho guys that don't want to rot out their teeth, or understand how screwed up your diet get's from drinking a lot of sweet soda will drink Diet. I wont touch the regular crap from here in the states. Coke from Mexico that is made with sugar and not corn syrup? that's a different story.

Pop made with corn syrup is nasty. Ask anyone from outside the USA.

Re:Pepsi

[elrous0]

The original SNL skits those were based on were actually funny. The commercials were most definitely not. It was taking a funny skit, stripping it of everything that made it funny, and just having the character say "Pepsi, Pepsi, Pepsi" over and over again. And having an almost unrecognizable Richard Dean Anderson who looks nothing like McGyver anymore didn't even add a novelty factor.

Re:Pepsi

[sapphirecut]

That ad was terrible. I didn't even understand what on earth the advertisement was trying to tell me. Pepsi should just advertise that if you're wussy, drink beer.

Re:Pepsi

[UnknowingFool]

I did like the one Pepsi ad with Bob Dylan and Will.I.Am singing "Forever Young" but overall they sucked. $3 million a spot and that's the best they could come up with?

Re:Pepsi

[foniksonik]

How much diet coke do you drink? I recently started having one 16 oz sweet soda ( I like Pepsi actually) a day which is a lot for me historically. I never understood how people could drink so much of the stuff...

I usually just have A coffee in the morning, water throughout the day, now a soda in the afternoon, and juice or water at night. I used to just drink coffee, water, juice and beer... cut back on the coffee and beer - added a soda.

Hear what you're saying about the corn syrup though... sugar based sodas are supposed to be way better tasting.

Re:Pepsi

[Duradin]

Pepsi Max is a manly diet pop.

Just drinking it could lead to a "I'm good" moment.

Prolonged exposure to Siberian Ginseng (which isn't a true ginseng but is much cheaper while having most of the same compounds as true ginseng) can cause nerve inflammation which will lead to muscle spasms. Unfortunately, this is not something they mention on the can, so if you think you've finally found a diet pop with a decent taste and a sizable caffeine payload and make the switch to it on a four can a day habit it may come back to haunt you.

It is the best tasting diet pop I've found but I can't really risk drinking it anymore.

Re:Pepsi

[genner]

It is the best tasting diet pop I've found but I can't really risk drinking it anymore.

Wuss

Re:Pepsi

[xaxa]

The real sugar coke/pepsi still leaves your teeth feeling sticky and horrible. (I only ever drink it as a mixer, and I still notice.) Lemonade is much better.

Typically, I'll drink fruit juice at breakfast, water and maybe one glass of squash (which is often as sugary as cola) during the day, and water in the evening/night.

Re:Pepsi

[gfxguy]

Aacchh... diet soda is bad enough (carbonation reduces absorption of vitamins and minerals), but non-diet soda?

8oz Classic Coke has 27 sugar carbs; that's 54 in your 16oz bottle... that's the equivalent of over 13 (yes, THIRTEEN) teaspoons of sugar.

That's hardly better for you than a beer or two.

Re:Pepsi

[Anonymous Coward]

Rotting your teeth is more of a phosphoric acid problem than a sugar problem.

I guess it's probably mandatory to include a wikipedia reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phosphoric_acid&oldid=268004678

Re:Pepsi

[DigitalSorceress]

Wow, scary since I can easily go through 6-10 cans in a day.

MUCH prefer Sugar-based coca-cola over the corn syrup as well.

Re:Pepsi

[Anonymous Coward]

But Ginseng (and Siberian Ginseng) are NATURAL! Don't you understand? They're not drugs, so you don't have to worry about any side effects. They're obviously good for you and perfectly safe.

Re:Pepsi

[Duradin]

But Ginseng (and Siberian Ginseng) are NATURAL! Don't you understand? They're not drugs, so you don't have to worry about any side effects. They're obviously good for you and perfectly safe.

Socrates: I drank what?

peta ad spoof

[characterZer0]

Let me know when there is a spoof of the PETA ad featuring bacon instead of vegetables.

Re:peta ad spoof

[sckeener]

Let me know when there is a spoof of the PETA ad featuring bacon instead of vegetables.

If you aren't stuck on bacon, a few searches on the internet will probably find you some hotdog spoofs.

Re:peta ad spoof

[Canazza]

or you could just watch this

Re:peta ad spoof

[Techman83]

Damn, gunna have that song stuck in my head for days... So catchy... mmm Pork!

Re:peta ad spoof

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about re-filming the same commercial with actual, typical, PETA members? Yummy... dirty dreads and olive oil.

Re:peta ad spoof

[xaxa]

Or how about re-filming the same commercial with actual, typical, PETA members? Yummy... dirty dreads and olive oil.

Hey, long hair is hot!

Well, when it's clean.

Re:peta ad spoof

[daveywest]

It already exists, and it involves a beef stick. You can find a copy on porntube.

Re:peta ad spoof

[Vegeta99]

Damn, the National Pork Board should be using that flash movie!

I'm gonna go wrassle me a pig for dinner now.

The web is not democratic,

[s1lhouette]

everyone just does whatever they want.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[morgan_greywolf]

See Right, Religious. Also see Party, Republican.

The rest of us a perfectly fine with women in "perfectly decent underwear". Except the nudists.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[FirstNoel]

It was those damn Puritans that the English sent over. They screwed the country up for everyone. I for one would rather see naked women on TV than another "terrorist" getting whacked or car exploding.

Re:Was there some sort of sports match?

[morgan_greywolf]

Just some overgrown boy millionaires tossing around some weird-shaped device, that, despite being decidedly un-spherical, is for some reason referred to as a 'ball'. Additionally, despite that this 'ball' can only be kicked by one guy from each of the opposing teams at specific times, the strange 'ball' has a 'foot-' prefix attached to it.

Other than that, no.

Slow day on Digg?

[Shivetya]

Can we have links to the latest XKCD or whatnot as well?

No JITB ad here

[hicks107]

Im on the East Coast and I missed the Jack in the box ad. Better go check it out. I sure miss those ads.

Yet another rejected ad

[LinuxWhore]

Certainly less risque than the Peta ad, yet rejected for political content: "Imagine the Potential"

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[Enry]

Well, I'm pro-choice (and ex-Catholic), and I didn't find a problem with that ad. At least it wasn't the usual "You'll burn in hell if you have an abortion!11!!".

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[RobotRunAmok]

At least it wasn't the usual "You'll burn in hell if you have an abortion!"

That may have been "the usual" about 30 years ago, but these days I have noticed the pro-life forces favor using science in their arguments, demonstrating clearly how very early life begins in the womb.

It hasn't seemed to be very effective, but you know how the zealots react when you start arguing with science...

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[elrous0]

Yeah, I used to work in a juvenile detention facility where I had to deal with the fallout from a lot of irresponsible crackheads who had decided 11-16 years earlier that their babies had too much potential to abort.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[Timothy Brownawell]

but these days I have noticed the pro-life forces favor using science in their arguments, demonstrating clearly how very early life begins in the womb.

It begins much earlier that that, hasn't Monty Python taught you anything?

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[Anonymous Coward]

You're pro-infanticide? Really? Man, that's extreme. I know this is the internet and all, and hence it's full of people with all kinds of extreme right/left views... But to support infanticide - specifically infanticide of lower-income minority children, and to deny them access to information about alternatives like adoption seems especially harsh. You know the Abortion industry is really a cover for the Eugenicists in the Progressive movement, don't you? Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote extensively about her hatred of the fecundity of lower-income women, and how their reproductive capacity should be limited, by force if necessary.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[genner]

Yeah, I used to work in a juvenile detention facility where I had to deal with the fallout from a lot of irresponsible crackheads who had decided 11-16 years earlier that their babies had too much potential to abort.

Yeah better to mow them down before they're old enough to fight back.....[/sarcasm]

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[jeff4747]

pro-life forces favor using science in their arguments, demonstrating clearly how very early life begins in the womb.

Science can't adequately explain what is "alive". So really we can't say when "life begins" when we can't define life.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[n6kuy]

Isn't it funny that when religious people argue from science for the definition of what a person is that the other side, who normally worship science and naturalism, respond with metaphysics?

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[jeff4747]

What metaphysics? This is a terminology problem.

If animals and plants are alive, how 'bout bacteria?
If bacteria are alive, how 'bout viruses?
If viruses are alive, how 'bout prions?
If prions are alive, how 'bout the minerals that catalyze the conversion of other minerals in order to 'replicate'?

Until we can come up with a reasonable criteria for "this is alive", we've got no basis for deciding when a human life starts.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many kids have you adopted?

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[n6kuy]

And thus, no basis for deciding when it's permissible to destroy it.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[jeff4747]

One can not destroy that which does not exist.

(Something I really wish the anti-abortion folks realized when they come out against easy and cheaper access to contraception)

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[n6kuy]

Fetuses don't exist?
Why perform abortions, then?

Or are you referring specifically to the "human life" that "doesn't exist" in fetuses.
But how do you know it doesn't exist?
You yourself wrote that we've got no basis for deciding when a human life starts.

Even so, I'm pretty sure human fetuses are in the "living human" category, scientifically speaking.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[jeff4747]

But how do you know it doesn't exist?

Because it's an edge case on what is alive. Without any reasonable rules for what is alive, there's no reason to say it is alive.

Or do you propose that we go with a 'default = alive' mode? K, so rocks are alive now?

Even so, I'm pretty sure human fetuses are in the "living human" category, scientifically speaking.

Yet you haven't provided any scientific basis for it.

If fetuses are living humans, how 'come we don't prosecute women who miscarry naturally? Wouldn't that at least be manslaughter?

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[snowwrestler]

The whole "when does life begin" campaign is kind of a red herring, because really the issue is about legal rights. Even if everyone agrees that a 1-month fetus is a full citizen, the most the law could do is compel separation from the mother. How would that work out for a 1-month fetus?

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[Qzukk]

If fetuses are living humans, how 'come we don't prosecute women who miscarry naturally? Wouldn't that at least be manslaughter?

Funny you should mention that... http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,595048573,00.html?pg=1 (not mentioned in all the hearsay in the article about her "fear of being scarred": her previous child was delivered by c-section)

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[Chardish]

It's scientifically indisputable that a human fetus is alive, and that a human fetus is fully human (i.e. the cells are all 100% his or her own DNA, and not his mother's.) The issue is whether or not the fetus has rights.

If a living organism is a human, "default = having human rights" seems perfectly rational to me, and if you're saying that "default = no human rights," what authority confers human rights?

Besides, if half the country says "X is a person and deserves human rights," we shouldn't allow the legalized killing of X.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[jeff4747]

It's scientifically indisputable that a human fetus is alive

Given that you've provided 0 scientific evidence, I dispute that.

Also, given that we don't prosecute the 25% of pregnancies that naturally miscarry, it seems rather odd to use this particular route to justify banning abortion. We can't decide that a fetus is a person with full rights in one situation, and completely ignore that in the other.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[jeff4747]

Which part of "miscarry naturally" do you not understand?

Fact is, 25% of known pregnancies end in a naturally-caused miscarriage. If we could factor in the women who didn't realize they were pregnant, that number would be far higher.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[Chardish]

The difference between miscarriage and abortion is that miscarriage is not the willful action of the mother. You can't blame someone for the result of their natural biological processes.

Yes, miscarriage is unfortunate, but I fail to see how it relates to abortion.

As for some science, this doctor can explain better than I.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[jeff4747]

The difference between miscarriage and abortion is that miscarriage is not the willful action of the mother.

That's what involuntary manslaughter is for. When someone "unintentionally" causes the death of another.

As for some science, this doctor can explain better than I.

Not really. The crux of their argument:

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization â" the change from a simple part of one human being and a simple part of another human being, which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being

They simply assert that "life" begins at fertilization.

In addition, they base their argument on the number of chromosomes in a fetus. That means people with Down's Syndrome are not humans.

Finally, they use plenty of scientific terms, but they fail to actually provide any science in that web page. It's just the same old assertions using the proper terminology. Having a scientific profession and using scientific terms does not make one's argument scientific.

Re:Yet another rejected ad

[Chardish]

But the woman doesn't cause the death of the child she's carrying in the womb. I don't know what definition of "cause" you are using, but typically cause implies control.
Punishing someone for an event they didn't know would happen, did nothing to cause, could do nothing to prevent, and did not have control over is ludicrous, and weakens the whole of your argument.

Your Down's Syndrome argument is incorrect, primarily because the article I linked doesn't claim that a certain chromosome number is required to be human, and furthermore even directly states that Down's and Turner's syndromes are genetic variants of the species and not separate species.

As far as science, why are you claiming that there's "no science" in an article that cites scholarly medical and scientific journals? What further information do you want, and are you prepared to proffer it to support your side?

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, thanks for taking them off our hands. I hear the BATF have it down to a fine art.

Re:Was there some sort of sports match?

[srussia]

Other than that, no.

Aussie Open Final. No "whooshes", please. Nadal-Federer five-setter in a Grand Slam final is nothing to sneeze at.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Dekortage]

I've wondered if it is because they don't want to see real violence or skin shown on TV, but the violence can be more easily faked. If an American TV show actually showed real people truly killing each other, or shooting each other, or whatever, it would be shut down immediately. (Boxing and football are violent but don't count.) But scripted, special-effect violence is fine. You can't (or don't) fake the sex stuff, so it offends people.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[somenickname]

It's simple. The human body is evil. Unless it's been shot or otherwise maimed.

This makes me so happy.

[Anonymous Coward]

What fantastic news! For a moment there I feared I wouldn't be able to make my life revolve around consumer products any more so than it already does. I want more more more more more more more more.

Re:This makes me so happy.

[camg188]

I have never understood the buzz about the superbowl commercials. They are commercials. Some people respond that these are the best, most innovative commercials. That's like getting excited about the best, most innovative turd.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[hansamurai]

The ads that did make it on that were "risque" were atrocious though. Danica Patrick, an indy racecar driver who has garnered some respect over the last few years, washing it away in a shower for GoDaddy.

... more democratic than ... huh?

[petes_PoV]

Businesses aren't democracies. Anyone who has ever worked for / in one will know that within the first 5 minutes of walking into the office. They're there to make money - that's all. If you don't do what you're told to, you're out. Which is actually how it is for a visitor to any democratic country, so there are similarities after all.

Re:... more democratic than ... huh?

[camg188]

"They're there to make money - that's all"
What a coincidence. That's why I go to work too.

Slashdotted - Google cache link

[tikram]

Since the site is already slashdotted here's the link to the google cache page:

http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:-aFSm98mcUAJ:www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/27/iraq-youtube-battle-footage/+http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/&hl=hu&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=hu&client=firefox-a

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[bartok]

Also bizarre is this fascination for ads.

Free Food

[chill]

More to the point, Denny's is giving away free Grand Slam breakfasts from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. (local time) today.

Time to see if the /. effect works IRL and DoS Denny's.

Re:Free Food

[geminidomino]

It did. I swung by on my way to work, and the line was out the door and halfway around the building.

For a $4 breakfast? Really? I went for my usual Dunkin Donuts coffee + bagel after all...

Re:Free Food

[Anonymous Coward]

You could put "free" on a pile of shit and you'll get people lining up for it.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[cbiltcliffe]

Are they made of meat?

Yeah, right

[Flavio]

After watching PETA's ad it's no surprise that it didn't air. I doubt they even have the budget to air commercials during the Superbowl.

PETA probably commissioned a sexy ad knowing fully well it wouldn't be approved by NBC. The fact that it's "banned" gives PETA the Superbowl publicity it can't afford. (And as others have said, Superbowl watchers aren't exactly PETA's target audience.)

Re:Yeah, right

[GeckoAddict]

That's giving a lot of credit to an organization that thinks fish should be called sea kittens...with a cute website in their campaign of terror as well!

Although they do have a point with this line:

When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover.

Re:Yeah, right

[Marticus]

I'm fine with that as long as we can call real kittens 'land-fish' (a la Stephen Colbert)

Re:Yeah, right

[Macrat]

That's the same reason Greempeace is always putting out press releases about Apple... Cheap publicity.

Re:Yeah, right

[atraintocry]

Probably? No, definitely. They did it last year, too.

SNL

[whisper_jeff]

Why did I waste 30 seconds of my life watching that SNL skit? With the exception of Tina Fey's recent Sarah Palin skits, SNL hasn't been funny for well over a decade and that skit was a prime example of it...

Re:SNL

[Anonymous Coward]

Pepsi pepsi pepsi pepsi, pepsi pepsi pepsi pepsi pepsi. Pepsi.

Re:SNL

[Just Some Guy]

SNL hasn't been funny for well over a decade and that skit was a prime example of it...

SNL has never been funny. It's always been good for a skit or two now and then, but the average humor level has been pretty low since the beginning.

Re:SNL

[iamangry]

Because Richard Dean Anderson reprised his role of MacGyver (see:legendary action hero with smarts), even if it was to make fun of himself.

Re:SNL

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a one joke skit (MacGruber's an idiot and gets too distracted to save the day before the bomb blows). Every MacGruber skit is the same one joke skit, and they play three of them in the same night.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[barzok]

It's a nation founded by Puritans and presently populated with 200+ million prudes which has a multi-billion-dollar pr0n industry.

What's so hard to understand?

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Zerth]

Meh, even the fake sex stuff gets way censored. There was a guy several years ago that got breast implants on a dare and when the local news showed a clip of him, they stuck a black bar over his top when he took off his shirt. I doubt many found that of prurient interest.

Or maybe it is just nipples, as they didn't censor manikins when shooting at the mall in outrage over a open-cup bra on display.

snl pepsi parody??

[Oo.et.oO]

as far as i can tell the (last macgruber of the night) snl skit was just re-aired during the superbowl. how is this a parody?

what am i missing?

Re:snl pepsi parody??

[Bruiser80]

You missed the MacGruber short after the one Pepsi used. The singer only says "Pepsi", and all MacGruber says is "Pepsi". Boat/Shack/Whatever blows up.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[riggah]

"See Right, Religious. Also see Neo-Conservative."

There, I fixed that for you since you don't seem to realize that Republican and Neo-Conservative are not synonymous.

SNL 'skit' not a skit

[professorguy]

The story makes reference to Will Forte's very funny SNL skits as MacGruber. There were no MacGruber skits during SNL on Saturday night. However, there were 3 different and unrepeated pepsi ads aired during SNL where Forte reprises his MacGruber role. THESE WERE ADS.

.

The ads (or at least one of them) were repeated during the superbowl.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[je ne sais quoi]

It probably has more to do with the evangelicals and mormons in this day and age. As far as I can tell, the descendants of the puritans are fairly open-minded, e.g., Massachussetts and Connecticut do support same sex marriage. So if you want to see scantily-clad women being sexually suggestive with vegetables and can't, blame the southern baptists, the LDS, some of the episcopalians, and the others like pentecostal (?), etc.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that would nice and all, but the Left controls the Government and the Media; in particular, NBC. If it was shown on FOX, you might have some minor basis for your argument, but NBC?... they are so far Left, they've had the right turn signal removed from their cars because it never gets used.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Lumpy]

We also ban public nudity, prosecute and berate those that choose to love more than one person, we sling hate at any chance we get.

But, video of someone beating the hell out of someone or even killing them? That's considered required viewing for children.

OMG They showed a nipple.... a NIPPLE!!!! OMG! OMG! OMG!

  There is nothing in puritanical ideals that is healthy for society or humanity.

Disclaimer: I'm a Lutheran, I believe in God and My savior Christ, not all Christians are simpletons and want to preserve oppressive ways.

Rescue is NOT the word

[Anonymous Coward]

Rescue? Oh noes, save the dying advertisements!

I don't think so. Nice going, asshats, these should have stayed buried, like all commercials. You people are so stupid that as long as there's a boob or a joke in it, you'll watch anything someone puts in front of your eyes, even as it turns you into a pop-culture-worshiping moron.

New Marketing Strategy

[nickruiz]

Nowadays, it might be a perfectly good marketing strategy to *almost* get your advertisement aired during Super Bowl commercial time. Then, work with your PR department to get some articles run about how your commercial was rejected. Next upload your advertisement to YouTube and your own website, and allow social media to bring people to your website.

IMO, this is a much more cost-effective strategy toward advertising during the Super Bowl. You might not be ensured that 97 million people, but your company will not have to spend as much money and the viewers will actually be interested in seeing your commercial. Many people just watch the Super Bowl for the commercials, anyway.

Re:New Marketing Strategy

[IBBoard]

It's similar to viral advertising - don't pay to show your advert, instead get other people to do the leg work for you. Advertising agencies need to work harder for their right to be ignored and cursed for ruining TV shows, damnit!

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[morgan_greywolf]

Apparently you haven't heard about the Federal Communications Commission, the fact that they have a process for accepting and acting upon complaints, and that there are members of the above-mentioned movements that have nothing better to do than sit there and watch TV and call in a complaint the moment they see skin or hear an F-bomb.

Don't forget about norml

[Anonymous Coward]

Their "superBOWL" adds can be viewed here and here

Here's one of the better ones

If you want marijuana legalized, support NORML anyway you can people, perhaps next year we can get one of these aired during the big game!

Re:Was there some sort of sports match?

[morgan_greywolf]

Tennis? Is that even a sport? ;)

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[emocomputerjock]

I'll get on that right after I'm done doing the Bartman.

Wussy? Well the things

[Shivetya]

that women will swallow might just excuse the taste of some diet drinks, let alone the taste of some diet food.

I know, crude, but the Pepsi commercial was just going at it from the guy point of view, I guess for things women put up with everyday... glass ceiling, mammograms, and childbirth....

Re:Wussy? Well the things

[Smauler]

I guess for things women put up with everyday... glass ceiling, mammograms, and childbirth....

Wait.... they do all this EVERY DAY?!

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, the descendants of the puritans are fairly open-minded, e.g., Massachussetts and Connecticut do support same sex marriage.

No, they don't, they've just never been allowed to vote on the issue.

If California won't allow same sex marriage when put to a popular vote, why would you think Massachusetts and Connecticut would?!

Neither state has ever allowed the people to vote on the matter. But opinion polls are clear: if the people were allowed to vote on the matter, gay marriage would be outlawed in a heartbeat.

And on the idea that Puritan descendants are "open minded" keep in mind that the church Obama went to for twenty years can trace its theology back to the Puritans. (I'm not making that up, it really can - Google it.) And what did their preacher say? Oh, right, "God damn America!" Yep, really open minded there.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Jedi Alec]

So if you want to see scantily-clad women being sexually suggestive with vegetables and can't

Some of us are at work and can't afford to start thinking about subject matter like that, you insensitive clod!

mod parent up!

[ChrisCampbell47]

The MacGruber bits during SNL were in fact Pepsi ads, not skits. And they certainly weren't parodies of the upcoming Super Bowl ads, since they were identical.

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, who the fuck cares about advertisements? I this what America has become?

Iran just put a satellite into orbit. That's news.

America has done better and still could lead all human kind into space, but fucking American Idol is somehow more important.

You wastrels have squandered the immense inheritance the last generations bequeathed to you.

Shame, America, shame.

Re:Fuck PETA

[geminidomino]

No shit. "Too hot for TV" my ass.

"To stupid that taking your money to air that would be like stealing lunch money from the retarded kids" is more accurate. I mean, what target "market" were they trying to reach? It was the fucking superbowl, for fuck's sake.

ouch!

[johnny cashed]

Now that is what I call flamebait. Yes, the web "rescued" some un-aired super bowl ads like I "rescued" some girl's virginity. (hypothetically speaking of course)

Re:ouch!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot and you posted about being intimate with a female... we know it was hypothetical.

Re:ouch!

[morgan_greywolf]

It was a tongue-in-cheek post, hence the ;). (Mine, not yours about the girl's viriginity. Get your mind out of the gutter)

Middle Men have use.

[jellomizer]

You should realize that almost every tech job out there are middle man jobs. Yes TV adds like to make it seem the Middle Men are just a wasted expense however they do add value in one way or an other. What some of those buy direct places do is the fact they are still the middlemen, however they improved their process to offer you services cheaper, however they are still the middle men, or you have to do that much extra work before before you can buy a product.

Lets think of the Middle Men like XML. Yes it is quicker for a direct communication between program A and program B, without XML just direct witting to each others data. However XML wile inefficient is a common communication platform which allows a safer transfer of problem without Owner of app B yelling at owner for app A for messing up their program.

They won't admit it

[hellfire]

Except the guys who do drink diet drinks won't wuss out and complain that commercials about manly diet drinks offend them.

Why are you complaining about a pepsi max commercial? ARE YOU A WUSS?????

Re:Fuck PETA

[dlaudel]

Who are you to decide someone else's values? Sure, eating meat may not matter to you or me, in fact I quite like it, but that doesn't give either of us the right to claim they can't voice their opinions.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[IBBoard]

And we were damned glad to get rid of them! How are you expected to have decent entertainment with some group of people constantly demonising you for the barest flash of a "soul corrupting nipple"?

Why stop there?

[brucmack]

If you're going to watch ads on the internet, may as well make it worth your while...

http://www.fleggaard.dk/movie.aspx

(click that you're Over 18, then hit the first video thumbnail)

Pirated?

[The Cisco Kid]

I don't understand, why was Budweiser's commercial loaded on a ship off the Somali coast? And how much ransom did the pirates want for it?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is something really sick and twisted going on here in the US. Like how many sex toy shops / strip joints there are in very religious areas. Yet we can't see a boob on TV. America really needs a mental health check.

Re:Fuck PETA

[Anonymous Coward]

When did PETA become anti-meat, anyway? I thought they started out just fighting to stop calfs being grown in small boxes for veal.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[foniksonik]

Are you saying that the US censorship laws are really a way to shore up the porn industry? (yes I said porn). As in, without all that repression on public media, porn would become less interesting because we'd all be desensitized to human nudity and sexual situations? Desensitized meaning it would become normal, rather than taboo.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[cbiltcliffe]

Off topic?

I'm specifically referring to the PETA ad which is MENTIONED IN THE SUMMARY!!!

How the @#%@$^ is that off topic?

Re:Was there some sort of sports match?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to like American football. Nor do you have to be knowledgeable about it. If that's the case though, there doesn't seem to be much reason to demonstrate such clear evidence of your ignorance.

Quibbles about the definition of a 'ball' aside, and with some sympathy for your opinion that the largest pro league doesn't necessarily offer the most entertaining version of the game I humbly submit these corrections to facts you chose to bring up:

American football is called football for the same reason association football is called football. They are both rule sets derived from a class of peasant games played on foot as opposed to aristocratic games played on horseback.

Every NFL team has at least two guys who specialize in playing the ball with their feet. These are not the only two players allowed to do this, and the circumstances in which the ball can be kicked are not as limited as you seem to think. These are just the people trotted out in most of the rare circumstances where it would be a strategic advantage to do so.

Yes - people love PETA ads while. . .

[JSBiff]

They are eating chicken wings, ribs, and 8-Meat pizzas.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[operagost]

You do realize that we have a leftist President now, and that he gets to appoint the director of the FCC? And that the FCC pretty much followed the same policies during the liberal Clinton administration, fining several radio personalities millions of dollars?

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[operagost]

Do you guys really want to try to explain to four-year-olds what the women are doing? If not, then do you really want to declare decidedly non-adult events like the Super Bowl off-limits until you can, because someone thinks it's funny to put sexually suggestive ads on before 9 PM?

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[operagost]

prosecute and berate those that choose to love more than one person

No we don't.

we sling hate at any chance we get.

Speak for yourself.

But, video of someone beating the hell out of someone or even killing them? That's considered required viewing for children.

No it's not, Captain Straw Man.

This ad was also rejected

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the NFL had control over what ads could run during the superbowl. This ad was also rejected.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[morgan_greywolf]

Try reading the FCC's definitions of indecency, obscenity and profanity. Mostly the revolve around the vague concepts of 'community standards' and what an 'average person would find patently offensive'.

IOW, if they get enough complaints, they pretty much have to act.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[MBGMorden]

Do you guys really want to try to explain to four-year-olds what the women are doing?

"I'll tell you when you're older." worked just fine for my dad. Kids don't need everything explained to them the instant they see it.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[ryanov]

But, in his defense, they don't seem to realize it either.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[MBGMorden]

There will always be a risky side of the moral compass that the porn companies are willing to visit. Don't matter how lax we get, they're (thankfully) ready to come out with a shocking video of something even kinkier. And really, that's nature. People love doing or looking at things that they feel like they're "not supposed to". It gives a nice rush.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[xaxa]

Do you guys really want to try to explain to four-year-olds what the women are doing?

They probably wouldn't ask, especially if you don't make a big deal out of it.

If they do, say "making themselves look nice" or whatever.

I always found the TV where people died (e.g. the news) much scarier than nudity etc. What would you rather answer? "Daddy, why isn't she wearing any clothes?" or "Daddy, why are those children really thin and why are there flies on them? And why does the man have a gun?".

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Archangel Michael]

How about Neither?

Why argue for both, when neither also is acceptable.

I don't want my daughters to become sexualized sluts at 13, any more than I want my boys to become homicidal maniacs. And just because you don't care doesn't mean I shouldn't either.

Why is it that it always boils down to "lowest common denominator" and "how low can we go"? I'm sick of the race to the bottom.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[gfxguy]

It wasn't "banned." NBC opted not to show it. There's a difference.

Yes, the religious people here wield a bit too much might, they've collectively run effective anti-show and anti-advertising campaigns here in the past, so NBC simply decided it didn't want the trouble.

The ad was shown (partially and in full) on other stations who were reporting NBCs decision. It wasn't "banned."

Luckily these people were not able to get the Simpsons canceled. If the Superbowl was on Fox, Fox probably would have shown it.

For the record, I'm not a football fan. And despite their best efforts, I bought a Tivo because I DON'T want to watch commercials. I've simply never understood the fascination.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[gfxguy]

Like many other industries, the porn industry is so successful because of all the legal complications, very much (although not exactly) like the illegal drug industry and prostitution.

Trying to criminalize it only makes it stronger. We learned this with alcohol, I don't understand why people don't learn it with other things.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Whorhay]

Sadly enough many commercials are of better quality than the regular programing. For instance I really get a kick out of the humor in the freecreditreport.com commercials.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Archangel Michael]

Of course this is a complete and utter falsehood in the form of ignorant rant against principles.

Human body is not evil. What people do with it is either good or evil, it is just a tool. Sexualizing of women demeans women and objectifies them.

This is one of those weird things that has backfired on the whole woman's liberation movement, IMHO. The Sexual revolution has turned women from respected members of society to cheap whores and sluts, good for only one thing .... sex.

Danica Patrick isn't an Indy Car Racer, she is a "Hot Chick" who drives Indy Cars. Anna Kornakova isn't a Tennis Player, she is a "Hot Chick" who used to play tennis.

It is really bad when people look at women and only see their boobies.

Turning women into objects of desire isn't woman's liberation, it is woman's slavery.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[yali]

Thank you for saying this. The Puritans get a bad rap, in part because many people assume there is an unbroken line from them to the modern religious right. In fact, Puritans would have had deep theological disagreements with the modern evangelical movement, which has its own origins.

The Puritans were a diverse lot, but among them were some of the early heroes of church-state separation. Take Roger Williams. His religious beliefs were so extreme that he thought even most other Puritans were going to hell. But he was also a vehement proponent of church-state separation. He thought that moral behavior should be freely chosen, not compelled by the state; and like many Puritans, he had seen firsthand back in England the corrupting influence that church-state mingling could have on both sides. He founded Rhode Island after a rift with other Puritans, and made it a safe haven for people of many different religions (including one of the first settlements of Jews in North America). That tolerance is as much or more a part of the Puritan legacy as "The Scarlet Letter" and religious prudery.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[gfxguy]

Well... what you say is true. Unfortunately, we've become a nation(s) of bored people in search of entertainment and resorting to watching absolute garbage instead of people who watch a show because it's compelling entertainment.

If you're sitting there watching a show (not you, Whorhay, in particular), and thinking "this show sucks, even the commercials are better," then what the heck are you doing sitting there watching that show?

Just accept it; we're insane when it comes to sex

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Don't get me wrong. I think our attitude towards violence is just dandy. I have no problem with enforcing the castle doctrine, i.e. the notion that if someone breaks into my house and I have an even remotely reasonable fear for my safety, I get a free pass to kill him. That's just logical and those euro-locales that would prohibit people from defending themselves and their property with guns and violence are insane to me.

But the sex thing? We're just nuts. We're so squeamish on the subject that useful sex education in this country is considered such a novelty that it's worthy of a feature article in the Boston Globe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the sort of sex ed discussed in that article fairly common in Europe? It's crazy-rare, here in the U.S.

I swear, take some politician or law enforcement official with responsibility for enforcing laws protecting youth from the U.S., plop him down on a beach in Rio, and watch him die of apoplexy.

Hey!!!!

[hoytak]

I'm a member of PETA, you insensitive clod!

Oh, it's not people eating tasty animals?

Fine, fine, carry on then.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you live with multiple women, more power to you. Its not my thing, one is more than enough for me, thanks, but if ti works for you and both of them, sweet. I hope all three of you are happy. I don't hate anyone, really, I don't I don't even allow the kids to say they hate something. They can dislike it, they can not care for it, but hate is an awfully strong word, and they know that. Required viewing for children huh? 2 Channels make it on my TV, PBS kids Sprouts and Nicktoons. I have a game system that they are free to play, its called the VSmile. I have a computer in the kitchen with Reader Rabbit, and a dozen other educational games on it. I have a 6 yr old, a 4 yr old and a toddler. Killing is not required viewing for any of them, and as long as I can control it, it will not be. Admittedly, they have friends, and right now, those friends come over to play mostly since my wife is at home with the boys. Eventually, they will go over their friends house to play and they will be exposed to that stuff. By then, hopefully there will be a firm grounding in the belief that hate is not ok, that violence is not acceptable entertainment and that bigotry is not acceptable behavior. Do not over-generalize.

Just figure that out, huh?

[nobodyman]

Tell me, when did it first dawn on you that this was a Pepsi ad?

• When you see pepsi cans all over the title secuence?
• When Macgruber says, in fact, that he is sponsored by Pepsi?
• The "Pepsuber!" logo after the explosion?

Sorry, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this was an ad, so I don't understand why you are acting as though this is some big conspiracy.

Re:Just figure that out, huh?

[Achoi77]

The MacGruber Pepsi skits are more pastiche on sponsorships than ads themselves. Even MacGuyver yells at MacGruber, "You're such a sellout!" Not having seem these skits prior, my assumption was that Pepsi saw the MacGruber skits on SNL and wanted to use them for future advertising.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[blitzkrieg3]

Then where did the phrase "Banned in Boston" come from? Face it, the pilgrims screwed it up at the very beginning and we're still dealing with the consequences.

mod up

[ChristTrekker]

Deserves at least a +1 Insightful.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Nitage]

"God damn America!" Yep, really open minded there.

Nice unintentional irony there - you're so closed minded that you assume anyone who dislikes the behaviour of the US government over the past 8 years must be closed minded.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[daveywest]

Personally, I just want to see Pepsuber get wacked.

Frickin England

[xant]

Seriously. England, this is your damn fault. Australia got all the fun people.

You can still make this right, though. Send over some more regular people. Or even criminals, I don't care at this point (and we'll take em - it's written right there on that statue). Anything's better than having the Puritans be the mainstream.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[gknoy]

I completely agree.

I'd rather explain the workings of sex, why people prance about with vegetables and lingerie, or what porn is ANY day than to have to explain why people hurt one another, or have to explain why people starve to death, or why we live under a constant (minor) threat of nuclear apocalypse. I mean, at some point, my kid will find out that my wife and I have sex, or will want to know where his new sister (or brother) will be coming from (eventually).

The ads were baaaad...

[technobabblingfool]

The budweiser ads which DID air were bad enough. There was one about one of the budweiser horses picking up a tree in its mouth and galloping around and another one about a boy horse running off to the circus to meet up with his girl horse sweetie. Maybe the people in those high-price ad agencys who are creating this stuff are on drugs. Hey, people, you're selling BEER here. No one gives a sh#t about the horses. Show me a cold can held by some guy partying with his girlfriend in a bikini. Or, if you want highbrow, tell me how the beer tastes better because your trucks have great refrigeration or you ship it fresh or you filter it with great filters or something.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that both Connecticut and Massachusetts are both predominantly Catholic today, right?

The Puritans didn't so much become more moderate as they were diluted through immigration.

Modern policy in those states is dictated more by the Catholic church than the few scattered remaining churches that can claim a Puritan heritage. In both states, the number of people belonging to a church descended from Puritans (namely, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Congregationalists) is down to less than 10% of the state population.

And the only reason I say "less than 10%" is because it's so fractured, that trying to figure out exact figures is impossible.

So, yes, blame the Puritans - they may no longer be in power in New England, but it's definitely their legacy that drives US policy.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Simon Brooke]

Do you guys really want to try to explain to four-year-olds what the women are doing? If not, then do you really want to declare decidedly non-adult events like the Super Bowl off-limits until you can, because someone thinks it's funny to put sexually suggestive ads on before 9 PM?

If you can see anything remotely sexually suggestive in women licking fruit, you've got issues, guy!

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Simon Brooke]

I don't want my daughters to become sexualized sluts at 13, any more than I want my boys to become homicidal maniacs. And just because you don't care doesn't mean I shouldn't either.

Is watching women lick vegetables going to turn your daughters into sexualised sluts? If it is, what does that say about your parenting skills?

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[jeff4747]

Danica Patrick isn't an Indy Car Racer, she is a "Hot Chick" who drives Indy Cars. Anna Kornakova isn't a Tennis Player, she is a "Hot Chick" who used to play tennis.

In your mind, perhaps. To me, they're a race car driver and a tennis player.

Claiming that it's society that's objectifying women is passing off the blame for one's own objectification.

And, to be blunt, before "womens lib" women were not respected members of society. They were appendages to the man they were attached to (either father or husband)

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Kashgarinn]

/internet rant on.

Maybe not all Republicans are neo-con, but all neo-cons are Republicans. You will always have the neo-con stigma no matter how liberal you are as a republican, but then again, you know this already and are probably ok with it.

If you don't think the neo-con speaks for you, then you might not want to be a republican anymore? I'm not saying you have to join the democrats, but if there was a party which was centrist with a right-lean, but would say no to the bullshit of the neo-cons, would you join it?

Think about it, Everyone in the republican party think they have to spout off nonsense just to please the neo-cons, there's a disgustingly obvious "I'm saying this just to please the right-religious-scaredshitless-delusional-neo-cons" to everything republicans say or do, and it's become such a "newspeak" that people are convinced themselves that they see five fingers.

I'd love it if you'd just stop being just 2 stupid parties, there's a lot to be gained from saying "hell no" to the neo-cons and have a real republican party who is centrist with a right-lean.

But that's also what I love about america, the irony, they fight religious zealots at abroad because they just can't face them at home. /internet rant off.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[n6kuy]

You and just about everyone else lately who uses the "neo-con" epithet seem to think that neo-cons are the extreme hard right of the political spectrum.
But, you're wrong.

Re:Was there some sort of sports match?

[drsquare]

Nadal and Federer? Those are the last two I'd expect to be in the final. With tennis becoming this exciting and unpredictable, I might start watching it!

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slightly off-topic, but have y'all in the civilized world learn the benefits of bathing yet?

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Yert]

I didn't have a problem explaining this to my children. "Those women are pretending the vegetables are body parts men have and use for making babies, hoping to spark the genetically programmed response men have to make babies in an attempt to manipulate and exploit the viewer's emotions."

What's the problem?

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[atraintocry]

What it's about is that PETA can't afford a real Superbowl ad (and if they can then, as a charity, they shouldn't waste their money on one), so recently they've thrown together some shit for the internet, made sure it wouldn't pass NBC's censors, and then made a big deal of the fact that their ad was "banned".

PETA is a joke. Wanna help animals? Donate to your local SPCA. They know how to actually run shelters, rather than just euthanize every animal that comes in and then spend the Alpo money on celebrity endorsements.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Archangel Michael]

My daughters don't watch crap like that, they don't want to. They don't want to be like the cheap sluts and tramps who think they are making any point besides "If you seek Amy"

People who think there is nothing wrong with letting girls watch stuff like that, end up with 14 year old girls who are parents. Or Abortions parents never care about. Or ......

Saying it doesn't affect girls because one girl may not follow after the sluts is like saying Cigarettes don't cause cancer because one guy didn't get cancer and lived to 105.

Ad hominem attacks are not logical arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

Just FYI.

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because "I disagree with America's policies" and "God DAMNS America!" are equivalent phrases.

He didn't talk about how he disagreed with America's policies. He claimed that God disagreed with America's policies, and that the 9/11 attacks were God punishing America.

Not quite an open minded view.

Re:Was there some sort of sports match?

[KingAlanI]

Yes...there is a lot of athleticism involved in running around the court area for several hours, making all those sharp turns, etc.

Re:Was there some sort of sports match?

[KingAlanI]

Interestingly, there have been a couple cases this season where the quarterback kicked the ball in what would be the punter's usual role/style, as a surprise manuever

The New England QB (Matt Cassel?) against Buffalo/ The Pittsburgh QB (Ben R.) in one of the earlier playoff games.

Peta ad

[Anonymous Coward]

First, it's REALLY long, do they have the cash to afford THAT long a superbowl ad?

Second, consider the audience. Not for /. but just great for superbowl ..?

PETA shows the results of vegetarianism

[abbyful]

From their commercial, I concluded:
1) Vegetarian women can't get a man, so they resort to pleasuring themselves with vegetables.
- or -
2) Vegetarian men can't "get it up", so the women have to resort to pleasuring themselves with vegetables.

Oh, they have the money all right!

[abbyful]

PETA takes in over 30 million a year.

Take note, though, that they spend a minimal among of their budget on "helping the animals". They spend money on "important" things, such as: donations to domestic terrorist organizations, industrial freezers to keep all the animals they euthanize in (97% kill rate in 2007, 2008 numbers not released yet), silly costumes for their protests at fast-food restaurants, etc.

You can find links to several years of PETA's tax returns here: http://peta-sucks.com/smf/index.php?topic=14697.0

And yes, they knew the ad would be banned. PETA plays the media like a fiddle.

Re:Fuck PETA

[abbyful]

PETA is against anything that is human-animal interaction.

A partial list:
- no eating meat or any other animal product (even honey)
- no pets
- no service dogs for blind/disabled people
- no police dogs
- no "no-kill" shelters
- no using any animal product for clothing, not limited to fur & leather, but also including wool and silk
- no hunting
- no animal testing, even for medical advancement
- no zoos, no matter how well the animals are taken care of
- no medicines or vaccines that come from animals, which includes but is not limited to insulin and the flu shot (flu shot vaccine is grown in eggs, therefore not "vegan")

Re:This is what the civilised world finds bizarre.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes YOU do.

I dont have to, you TERRORIST.

you are captain HeadIntheSand Man.

Talk to the Gays, I'm certain they dont feel the love of the United States public. Polyamory tribes all feel the seething hate of their community and the laws. Oh and don't you dare be a Muslim or light brown eastern human, right now you are stared at as if you will blow up the building. WE (that includes YOU) as Americans SEETHE hate at every opportunity. Last election proved it. California overturn of gay marriage is proof that the populace HATE the homosexuals. Lumpy is SPOT ON. only the self proclaimed rich middle class say otherwise because they know a black guy at work and are nice to him, and "I voted for a black man, I don't hate!" The Catholic church seethes hate along with 98% of all the reformist churches. Preaching doom and hate keeps the pews full. Get over your private fake life bubble and get into the reality of the USA. we hate, the south still has rampant hate for the blacks. Gays are discriminated against everywhere. Middle Eastern hate from coast to coast. This is the reality of the USA. and Lumpy is 100% right. Nothing from puritanical ideals is healthy for humanity or the community. Puritanical ideals = hate for those that dare to not do what they are told. Actually their original ideals say to kill those that do not obey. but then I'm a history major and know more about it than you ever will hope to.