Slashdot Mirror


Comcast Apologizes For Super Bowl Porn Glitch

DrinkDr.Pepper writes "Just after the last touchdown by the Cardinals, with 3 minutes to go in the game, approximately 30 seconds of pornographic material was shown, seen by an unknown number of Comcast customers in Tucson, Arizona who were watching the game in standard definition. Comcast has apologized (they used the word 'mortified') and is issuing a $10 credit to any customer who claims to have been impacted. Various news accounts suggest that the incident was a malicious act, but no one knows how it was done or by whom."

526 comments

  1. First penis by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tyler Durden strikes again!

    1. Re:First penis by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Tyler Durden? Or Ron Jeremy?

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    2. Re:First penis by martinw89 · · Score: 3, Funny

      While Ron Jeremy incidentally does have a penis, I believe Tyler Durden is the one inserting it everywhere.

    3. Re:First penis by Applekid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While Ron Jeremy incidentally does have a penis, I believe Tyler Durden is the one inserting it everywhere.

      Who here that has a penis ISN'T interested in inserting it everywhere?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    4. Re:First penis by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anybody who's married. We're not inserting it anywhere. (without permission)

      --
      You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    5. Re:First penis by snspdaarf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, not everywhere everywhere.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    6. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You must be new here. Nobody here gets laid. Leave while you can!

    7. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Various news accounts suggest that the incident was a malicious act, but no one knows how it was done or by whom.

      "Well shit on me! Another hacker!"

    8. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I would except for me not having one anymore after my wife caught me doing just that.

    9. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was clearly Ebaumsworld.com

    10. Re:First penis by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Do not ask questions about Project Mayhem!

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    11. Re:First penis by Ares · · Score: 5, Funny

      there are married people here?

      :: ducks as his wife reads over his shoulder ::

    12. Re:First penis by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't lie. You're still interested.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.

      -Tyler Durden

    14. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any female human old enough to have breasts... or at least that was how it felt the instant I got off base when I was in the army...

    15. Re:First penis by n122vu · · Score: 1

      His name.....is Robert Paulson.

    16. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're aware that 14-year-olds aren't legal, right?

    17. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, just meatloaf with tits (well slightly bigger tits)

    18. Re:First penis by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      No... but parents...
      Not every Slashdot reader does not know what sex is :-)

    19. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some southern states they are... Not like I know that or anything...

    20. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently in some northern midwestern states they are legal too. But who's talking legal here? After being stuck on a military base with nothing but guys for weeks, the penis doesn't care to check ID... boobs is the only ID it needs...

    21. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on your own age they might be, but generally speaking, no.

    22. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Two 14 years have a combined age of 28 though

    23. Re:First penis by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1

      "Well shit on me! Another hacker!"

      That is quite another fetish altogether.

    24. Re:First penis by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      People with some self respect and morals maybe?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    25. Re:First penis by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      How does one go about proving they were, "to have been impacted" while watching Comcast Pron?

    26. Re:First penis by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Two 14 years have a combined age of 28 though

      Following that logic, two 9 year old girls have a combined age of 18.

      Just sayin'.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    27. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please calculate the required number of 4 year olds to reach the age of consent?

      Just askin'.

    28. Re:First penis by TornCityVenz · · Score: 1

      You can't stop the signal Mal.

      --
      I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
    29. Re:First penis by Miseph · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I think the girl in the clip has some pretty compelling evidence she was "impacted".

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    30. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best thread ever.

    31. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who's married. We're not inserting it anywhere. (without permission)
      --
      You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .

      That comment followed by that signature... Wrong on so many levels.

    32. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're aware that 14-year-olds aren't legal, right?"

      Here in So. Carolina 14-year-olds are not considered "fresh" anymore. We likes them as soon as breasts pop out. a 10 year old is sometimes prime enough. My sister was good for both me and my daddy at 12.

    33. Re:First penis by ConanG · · Score: 1

      9 year olds generally don't have developed breasts.

    34. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it was Lenny and Sqiggy...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqHZWdFVyyQ

      hijacked the comsat.

    35. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who here that has a penis ISN'T interested in inserting it everywhere?

      I'm transsexual you insensitive clod.

    36. Re:First penis by janrinok · · Score: 1

      Aren't your parents married?.....

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    37. Re:First penis by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "Who here that has a penis ISN'T interested in inserting it everywhere?"

      Those who aren't trying for Darwin Awards?

      --
    38. Re:First penis by Cnik70 · · Score: 1

      Neither... it was Turk 182!

      --
      -Cnik
    39. Re:First penis by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Well yes... no seriously I got a firstborn on december the 15th... :-)

  2. Thanks comcast by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Funny

    First time I'll have been paid to watch porn.

    1. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably some slashdotter trying to goatse a bunch of innocent bystanders.

      I would want to be paid if that were force upon me as well!

    2. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't pay, but i still want to see the footage. youtube? anybody?

    3. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is it, you pervert! NSFW! (obviously) http://comcastsuperbowlporn.com/cache/page2.html#video

    4. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep away from my tube!

    5. Re:Thanks comcast by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even more amusing is that somebody registered ComcastSuperBowlPorn.com just to display it.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    6. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you should reread the parent's comment and then realize how much of an idiot you've been.

    7. Re:Thanks comcast by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Direct link. Otherwise I just get told I don't have the proper plug-in. Not very interesting porn, though.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    8. Re:Thanks comcast by eltaco · · Score: 1

      another link, for those it doesn't work for and/or when it gets /.'ed.

      !!!NSFW!!!
      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0c4_1233598904

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    9. Re:Thanks comcast by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How fucking jaded are you by the Internet where you'd use the phrase, "Not very interesting porn?" You're just disappointed that there were no animals/dildos/watersports/lesbian nuns/feces/toe licking/[insert your favorite fetish here]. There are some people out there that find titties scandalous (just consider how rich the "Girls Gone Wild" scumbag is).

      Besides, everyone knows that hairy lesbian nun watersports is the height of sexy.

      Not feces, though; feces is never sexy.

    10. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amateur.

    11. Re:Thanks comcast by piltdownman84 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They must have watched the GoDaddy ad that reinforced the idea that the internet is only for porn.

    12. Re:Thanks comcast by weighn · · Score: 1

      Not feces, though; feces is never sexy.

      Not feces, though; feces is never sexy.

      There, fixed that for you :)

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    13. Re:Thanks comcast by Aazzkkimm · · Score: 5, Funny

      In Tucson, AZ, porn pays YOU!

      --
      Desire is not an occupation.
    14. Re:Thanks comcast by lavardo · · Score: 0

      slashdotter??

      most likely an Anonymous Coward

    15. Re:Thanks comcast by darth+dickinson · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What were we talking about again?

    16. Re:Thanks comcast by Lars+T. · · Score: 0

      Not as amusing as the image of somebody recording the whole Superbowl with a hand camera - probably in the hope to capture something that gets censored later on. Hello?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    17. Re:Thanks comcast by jabberwock · · Score: 1
      As noted, above ... he got 178,000 pairs of eyeballs but didn't even set up Adsense or anything. He's looking for ... donations.

      http://www.intotemptation.net/2009/02/03/super-bowl-porn-postmortem/

      That someone might think that keeping the video online is worthy of *charity* might be the funniest part of the whole story?

    18. Re:Thanks comcast by Nabeel_co · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In refrence to your sig: I'm in Canada, so I can decrypt it all I want! :P

      Fgvpx gung va lbhe cvcr naq fzbxr vg!

    19. Re:Thanks comcast by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It appeared to be a DVR recording, so that's plausible -- maybe he saw something, rewinded, and started recording.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    20. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the website:

      ***WARNING, YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 18 TO VIEW THE VIDEO BELOW AS IT CONTAINS SEXUAL CONTENT AND MALE FRONTAL NUDITY AS VIEWED ON COMCAST DURING THE 2009 SUPERBOWL***

      I thought this stuff doesn't matter anymore?
      http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/21/1830247
      http://www.pcworld.com/article/158131/copa_childporn_law_killed.html

      Can't anyone that wants to watch porn on the internet now?

    21. Re:Thanks comcast by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, if you enjoy watching guys wave their wanker around, enjoy!

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    22. Re:Thanks comcast by againjj · · Score: 1
    23. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How fucking jaded are you by the Internet where you'd use the phrase, "Not very interesting porn?"

      4chan.
      that is all, thank you.

    24. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn? So that's what they called the final drive by the Steelers? It sure was offensive!

    25. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Analogous to the GTA incident:

      I went to a website site, watched the clip in question, and now I want 10$... Any chances of that happening?

      Just a thought

    26. Re:Thanks comcast by edmazur · · Score: 1

      He was using TiVo.

    27. Re:Thanks comcast by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna have to agree with the gp on this one, that was indeed some pathetic porn.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    28. Re:Thanks comcast by Atriqus · · Score: 1

      Hell if you spun the context, that could have been on the Discovery Channel.


      (And yes that wording is begging for an innuendo-based reply)

      --
      Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
    29. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How fucking jaded are you by the Internet where you'd use the phrase, "Not very interesting porn?"

      Hello? Wieners, no pussy???

      How jaded and gay are you that you would consider this "porn"???

    30. Re:Thanks comcast by Arcady13 · · Score: 1

      That was not a TiVo. It was a crappy Comcast DVR box.

    31. Re:Thanks comcast by RJFerret · · Score: 1

      First time I'll have been paid to watch porn.

      At $1200/hour, count me in!

      I wonder how many will "claim" to be bothered to get the credit? And will they refuse to credit anyone who also subscribes to adult programming???

    32. Re:Thanks comcast by KayakFun · · Score: 1

      That was just the trailer, they gave you $10 to rent the whole video so you can see how it ends (just in case you never saw porn and don't know how they all end).

    33. Re:Thanks comcast by Dunkirk · · Score: 1

      PLEASE mod parent DOWN. How this guy managed to bypass the usual notation of posting domains behind links, I don't know, but, thankfully, he's not clever enough to bypass the preview of the link in the status bar of FireFox...

      --
      Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
    34. Re:Thanks comcast by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shit, did you even watch it?

      Meat and two veg waving around floppily. The girl doesn't even show us her TITS much less anything else.

      I've seen Monty Python skits more porn-y.

    35. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that we mortals had to refer to the superbowl as "The Big Game".

      slashdot will probably be closed down for this.

      Oh, they are trying to trademark that too http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/23/SPGUAQ07LN6.DTL

    36. Re:Thanks comcast by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      this guy managed to bypass the usual notation of posting domains behind links

      You've got something configured wrong, I see:

      Not feces [tubgirl.com], though; feces [2girls1cup.com] is never sexy.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    37. Re:Thanks comcast by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I couldn't see them either. I don't know when that happened. Could it be the Slashdotter extension?

  3. Janet Jackson Started a trend by FredFredrickson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know your feature is boring when people watch it to see the funny ads, and in order to keep ratings up they flash tits at every turn.. Janet Jackson Started a trend..

    What's so big about this football anyway?

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would have agreed a few years ago, but the last two Superbowl matchups have been excellent, exciting games. For that matter I thought Springsteen did a great job with the halftime show, no gimmicks or voiceovers.

    2. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It was actually penis.

    3. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by moderatorrater · · Score: 2, Informative

      The game was as exciting as it gets. Even my sisters-in-law who don't like football were on the edge of their seats. It was a good time.

    4. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i was hoping for a voiceover, but alas we had to listen to springsteen the whole time...

    5. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by furby076 · · Score: 1

      What's so big about this football anyway?

      Don't worry about it...just go back to playing your sorcerer of light.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    6. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Springsteen? Are you on crack? Prince laid it down in 2007. That was talent.

      Put those chicken fingers down! *crotch plant to the camera* LOL!

    7. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's so big about this football anyway?

      A bunch of people watch it, so it's relevant, so a bunch of people watch it. I don't know the original cause, but it's self-sustainable now.

    8. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by fermion · · Score: 1

      CBS was fine half a million for that act. I would hope that comcast would be fined the same. Even if this was an accidental thing, it shows the unreliability of the comcast equipment, and if it was malicious, it shows a lack of security. One reason I do not have cable is the lack of reliability. It was a routine event to be days without cable. Anything that forces the cable company to be more reliable and responsive will help.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by The+FNP · · Score: 1

      I agree, it was very exciting. Just the way I like my only sporting event that I watch at least a little of each year to be. Sports doesn't really excite me, but this year's game was actually interesting and not just a wait for the next commercial break.

      --The FNP

    10. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pretty sure the FCC can't fine Comcast, since it isn't public broadcasting, and therefore isn't bound by the decency rules. It's a completely different situation. And although you may hate the cable company, I don't see how that's relevant.

    11. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Cable companies (being a paid and access controlled service) are not subject to the same rules as OTA broadcasters. They follow those rules in general for PR reasons, but they aren't subject to the same fines OTA broadcasters are.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    12. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Settlers of Catan?

    13. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry about it...just go back to playing your sorcerer of light.

      I was attacking the darkness!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    14. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I think it might be determined by what contract Comcast was relaying the broadcast signal. I think they're only allowed a limited amount of replacing broadcast ads in certain breaks with their own ads. (I remember watching MTV simulcast over FM on the cable and hearing the national ad with the local cable ad's video.) An argument could be made that the public was expecting to see the same content as they would over the airwaves, governed by the same broadcast content standards, and that Comcast has a responsibility to preserve those standards in their activity as a relay.

      I wouldn't want to be Comcast in any lawsuits over this. Imagine if it were an ad for Dr. John's Adult Novelties and Boutique in the commercial break of... of... damn, what are the current crop of children's programs on broadcast commercial television these days?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    15. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      I would have agreed a few years ago, but the last two Superbowl matchups have been excellent, exciting games. For that matter I thought Springsteen did a great job with the halftime show, no gimmicks or voiceovers.

      Yeah, the halftime shows used to really suck until the year after the "wardrobe malfunction" incident. Then they got good.

    16. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For that matter I thought Springsteen did a great job with the halftime show, no gimmicks or voiceovers.

      ... and no wardrobe malfunctions (thank God!)

  4. Haha, oh wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fapfapfap

  5. FTA by martinw89 · · Score: 1

    FTA:

    In light of the incident, Comcast says it will issue a $10 credit to any customers who say they viewed the 30-second clip, which featured full male nudity. (SEE BOX)

    I was unfortunately disappointed to find that the BOX did not have 30 seconds of free porn, but instead an offer for $10.

    1. Re:FTA by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'll show you 30 seconds of full male nudity for $10.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:FTA by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      FTA:

      In light of the incident, Comcast says it will issue a $10 credit to any customers who say they viewed the 30-second clip, which featured full male nudity. (SEE BOX)

      I was unfortunately disappointed to find that the BOX did not have 30 seconds of free porn, but instead an offer for $10.

      If that's your thing...

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:FTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd only watch a superbowl in which there were, full frontal nudity.

    4. Re:FTA by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "I'll show you 30 seconds of full male nudity for $10."

      I'm guessing you'd make more money if you asked people to pay you $10 to stay clothed.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    5. Re:FTA by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1

      Players, or cheerleaders? Or *everyone*? (That would get interesting in Green Bay...)

  6. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it had been any other night and any other game, I imagine most people would have been willing to pay $10 to see it!

  7. I think by duckInferno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the day that a news source posts a full uncensored clip of the incident is the day society has truly moved on from the arbitrary taboos of old.

    Of course it'd also be the day that such an incident would merit only a footnote in an "odd stuff" newspaper section.

    --
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    1. Re:I think by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      With the blandness of the superbowl ads this year, porn would be a step up. Even the half time show and pregame shows are all simple bands.. Really sad they took the extreme measure of making it so bland.

    2. Re:I think by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      So, you were hoping for ads more like the rejected PETA ad (non-PETA link)? ;-)

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    3. Re:I think by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Our brains are hard-wired for taboos because they helped primitive societies avoid disasters.

      There is a lot of "noise" in the taboo "signal", for example: taboo words. But some taboos (against incest, or eating certain things) were socially useful. Even the common taboo against homosexual sex could have been beneficial to primitive societies because such practices were significantly more likely to spread disease through the population. Obviously, modern medicine makes this a non-issue, today.

      I would say it is unrealistic to expect a society to have no useless taboos, because they are physically part of our brains. But if we stop using government to enforce useless taboos, we will have advanced.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:I think by duckInferno · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The homosexual taboo is a relatively recent development. Many ancient cultures practiced it openly and it was often seen to be as perfectly normal as a relationship between a man and a woman.

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    5. Re:I think by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Informative

      Homosexual taboos are documented as going way, way back. Documentation of the taboo appears in ancient Hebrew religious texts, for example. It is *not* a recent development in human history. This is not the same as saying it was shared by every ancient society (which is the mistake you are making).

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    6. Re:I think by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      Heterosexual taboos are documented as going way back to. "Documentation of the taboo appears in ancient Hebrew religious texts, for example." Ever read the Bible? The Koran?

    7. Re:I think by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      You're both right, but are each focusing on opposing points of inflection of the same cycle.

      The taboo of homosexual relations is as old as the acceptance of it, just like gambling, drugs, prostitution, and non-monogamous sexual relations.

    8. Re:I think by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      any idea who the music is by? also wouldn't the fact the lyrics are fuck the veg (with veg not-said clearly) mean they were trying to get it banned.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    9. Re:I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya sure about that ?

    10. Re:I think by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      But unlike now it was widely accepted in Roman/Greek times.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    11. Re:I think by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      Both are predated by judaism (technically they're also both offshoots of judaism).

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    12. Re:I think by duckInferno · · Score: 1
      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    13. Re:I think by johanatan · · Score: 0

      Even the common taboo against homosexual sex could have been beneficial to primitive societies because such practices were significantly more likely to spread disease through the population. Obviously, modern medicine makes this a non-issue, today.

      Umm... really?? I suppose you haven't heard of the 'epidemic' known as HIV/AIDS?

    14. Re:I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like something this nice old man said to me when I was 12.

    15. Re:I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many != most
      Those cultures went extinct for a reason

    16. Re:I think by kreyg · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't taboo, though, why would it be in the news in any way at all?

      --
      sig fault
    17. Re:I think by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Many != most
      Those cultures went extinct for a reason

      Yep. It was the fags that crumbled the Roman Empire. Nothing to do with the whole Imperialistic, spread-your-military-thin-as-paper-over-half-the-fucking-world, internal corruption stuff.

      Well, we'll see. When the US tanks, homophobes in all, maybe some enterprising young lad will correct your statement from the archives.

    18. Re:I think by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Even the common taboo against homosexual sex could have been beneficial to primitive societies because such practices were significantly more likely to spread disease through the population. Obviously, modern medicine makes this a non-issue, today.

      Umm... really?? I suppose you haven't heard of the 'epidemic' known as HIV/AIDS?

      I suppose you haven't read the latest research that says it spreads through heterosexual sex too?

    19. Re:I think by johanatan · · Score: 0

      No, I've heard that (in fact about a decade or more ago). But, the fact remains that it spreads much more quickly through homosexual (or anal) sex.

    20. Re:I think by goretexguy · · Score: 1

      Although, notice that most of those 'Ancient Cultures' are now extinct.

    21. Re:I think by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that reason is religion. Hate to deliver that line but it's verifiably true.

      The fact is that a lot of cultures -- PNG tribes, Ancient Greece and Rome, African tribes, native Americans, China, Thailand, Ejypt, etc -- had thriving homosexual integration with mainstream life, which was then summarily removed when the cultures were introduced to religion X that preaches against homosexuality (usually Christianity).

      Homosexuality occurs quite frequently for something that you'd think would be rooted out by evolution; it's also recently been theorised that homosexuals have a certain edge in a competitive tribal environment (no link from work sorry), which explains the frequency.

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    22. Re:I think by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      Sloppy. If you're going to direct a troll at me at least do some research into where I'm from!

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    23. Re:I think by rach3l · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, I'm positive. Anyone with a brain realizes homosexual sex is as likely as heterosexual sex to spread disease (they're all mucosa, pal). And the argument that homosexuality implies increased polygamic behavior is asinine, and a result of the Bush admin's 8-year-long misinformation campaign. The only possible biological reason for a perceived taboo against homosexual preferences is that man + man != baby. But really, people just fear what they don't understand. That whole guy-who-had-sex-with-a-rhesus-monkey-and-spread-aids-to-humanity-story? Never happened.

  8. Is there a difference? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With the Superbowl commercials being what they were this year, I'm surprised anyone noticed the difference. GoDaddy in particular is getting out of hand, though I was not impressed by the Doritos or NBC commercials either. (At least the Conan commercial was just amusing innuendo.) All around, it was a rather embarrassing year to be watching the Superbowl with the family.

    1. Re:Is there a difference? by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It got pretty Raunchy. Hell, I was watching it with my College Buddies and _we_ were surprised they got away with it.

    2. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Christ, grow up, and pull the stick out of your ass already.

      He can't. He's nailed to it.

    3. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After watching on YouTube the PETA ads which were "too sexy" I was a bit surprised to see the GoDaddy commercial and honestly shocked that Doritos was acceptable.

    4. Re:Is there a difference? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      All around, it was a rather embarrassing year to be watching the Superbowl with the family.

      You mean, more embarrassing than all the other years you watched a bunch of big sweaty guys in tights slapping each other on the ass for hours?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Is there a difference? by BobReturns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair to the grandparent, he did say "with the family.".
      I wouldn't mind virtually any amount of explicit content in ads if I was on my own, but I'd be unhappy if there were kids watching it with me.

    6. Re:Is there a difference? by twistah · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe you should tell your family this isn't the Victorian era anymore.

    7. Re:Is there a difference? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      The coke commercial w/ insects was pretty slick. The rest were fairly lame.

    8. Re:Is there a difference? by jaavaaguru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really? I sat in a bar and watched Superbowl. I didn't see anything that I'd consider particularly raunchy or inappropriate, and I didn't hear any complaints from the people around me either. Are Americans really this prudish when it comes to TV advertising?

    9. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GoDaddy in particular is getting out of hand, though I was not impressed by the Doritos or NBC commercials either.

      You were impressed enough to just mention them.

    10. Re:Is there a difference? by legoracer18 · · Score: 1

      I think different commercials were shown depending on the carrier and area that you were in/using to watch. Here in south eastern Idaho there were a lot of local commercials that were shown, stuff that you would see any other day.

    11. Re:Is there a difference? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe you should tell your family this isn't the Victorian era anymore.

      But they'd already spent so much on their wigs!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Maybe he should pimp out his daughters and train his sons to make and sell crack too.

    13. Re:Is there a difference? by Beat+The+Odds · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should tell your family this isn't the Victorian era anymore.

      Oh you enlightened ones.... we bow before you....

      Maybe we should all just run around with our peckers out....

    14. Re:Is there a difference? by eigenstates · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait- we /aren't/ supposed to be running around... oh shit.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    15. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh come on mods, that was damned funny

    16. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only about one half of one percent would probably fall into that category. Unfortunately, they also account for 99.5% of complains to the FCC.

    17. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few of the people I was watching the superbowl with were actually convinced that GoDaddy.com was a porn site.

    18. Re:Is there a difference? by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      If your kids understood the godaddy commercial then that is your own fault.

    19. Re:Is there a difference? by jmichaelg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A family watching the Super Bowl has a reasonable expectation that they won't be subjected to someone else's idea of what acceptable sexual mores are these days. It was a football game, not a Victoria Secret premier.

      Personally, I don't care about porn being available but I can sympathize with folks who were offended by Go Daddy's poor taste. I watched the game at a friend's house and ofter the Go Daddy Ad aired, they decided to switch registrars for their family domain away from Go Daddy.

    20. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes

    21. Re:Is there a difference? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why? Is explicit content something dirty or shameful to be hidden away from the eyes of our poor defenseless children?

      Yes, and I think we should KILL anyone who exposes children to graphic sexual imagery. After all, all children are products of violence, but not all children are products of sex. Er, wait...

      (If you (the global you) were thinking of bringing up test tube babies as a counterexample, just kill yourself. kthxbye.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it's NOT dirty/shameful, then you're not doing it right.

    23. Re:Is there a difference? by nrozema · · Score: 1

      When I first saw the "porn airs during Superbowl" headlines, I actually thought they were talking about those GoDaddy ads.

    24. Re:Is there a difference? by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between "hiding" something from children and blatantly exposing them to something they might not be ready for yet.

    25. Re:Is there a difference? by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't mind virtually any amount of explicit content in ads if I was on my own, but I'd be unhappy if there were kids watching it with me.

      I submit that this is a cultural artifact.

      You either see nothing offensive in ads with explicit content or feel that you can safely ignore it because you understand the difference between real life and the image of life that such advertisements would present. However, you'd be uncomfortable showing a child the same thing. Why is this?

      I suspect there are a few reasons ranging the spectrum from cultural guilt, to superstition, and taboo abeyance.

      Perhaps you'd feel responsible for educating the child on the differences between real life and the image of life that are presented by advertisers. In any other context, this is something we don't even think about. We know that simply eating breakfast cereal doesn't suddenly make you super-athletic and attractive. We don't have any difficulty repeating that to children, or explaining what's necessary to achieve those goals in the real world. But since our culture has placed such a strict taboo about imparting sex education to children, we feel incapable of telling the same kids that drinking beer and wine coolers doesn't make you attractive to half-naked dancers. We don't tell them that getting drunk in order to seek sexual gratification is a really risky, self-destructive behavior.

      Arguably the latter is a much more important life lesson, but that same taboo forbids us from admitting that children have sexuality, let alone that they're even more vulnerable to being pandered to than adults.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    26. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. It's sex. Either they're too young and won't get it, or they're old enough and it's really your problem of being embarrassed. Either way it's hardly traumatizing your kids.

    27. Re:Is there a difference? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "I watched the game at a friend's house and ofter the Go Daddy Ad aired, they decided to switch registrars for their family domain away from Go Daddy."

      Commercial or not, they should have done this a LONG time ago....

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    28. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of hand? There was nothing even distantly close to being out of hand.

      Assuming you find the human body repulsive and sexual attraction a punishment, then there's still nothing to be upset about. No sex. No nudity. Nary a wardrobe malfunction in sight. The closest thing was a stupid GoDaddy commercial whose women had breasts larger than that of a teenager.

      What born-again church or extremist mosque were you watching the game at? I must have been ferverently worshiping elsewhere.

      The only thing out of hand was my full-sleeved trouser snake, because there wasn't enough sex to turn on anyone over the age of 12.

    29. Re:Is there a difference? by russotto · · Score: 1

      A family watching the Super Bowl has a reasonable expectation that they won't be subjected to someone else's idea of what acceptable sexual mores are these days.

      This statement includes the implicit assumption that it's OK to be subjected to prudish sexual mores. (and if you don't think they can be legitimately offensive, you're wrong -- I know people offended by women who dress in burkhas and such)

      Personally, I don't care about porn being available but I can sympathize with folks who were offended by Go Daddy's poor taste. I watched the game at a friend's house and ofter the Go Daddy Ad aired, they decided to switch registrars for their family domain away from Go Daddy.

      That's certainly the right move, even if for the wrong reason.

    30. Re:Is there a difference? by joranbelar · · Score: 1

      Why?

    31. Re:Is there a difference? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      I'm not offended by the sex in GoDaddy's ads... just the sexism. It's been clear since their first SuperBowl ad got "banned" that they're just trying to push people's buttons and create a sensational scandal, under the reasoning that it's free publicity. I wrote to Parsons at the time of the original ad and complained that he was making me - a long-time customer - embarassed to be associated with a business whose ad campaign was based on adolescent T&A fantasies, and he shrugged it off with a joke. All he cares about is that it's making him money.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    32. Re:Is there a difference? by BobReturns · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You may very well have a point. I'm British, and cultural guilt is something we do incredibly well.

      In my personal experience, there is a stage when children become aware of sexuality, the age of which varies from child to child. The attitude I expressed refers to children before this point, who honestly probably aren't ready for frank discussions about the subject (I know I wasn't at a young age, conversations like that were incredibly odd to me when I was younger than about 10 - but I suppose it varies based on the child).

      I think the key point here is varying definitions of "child", I'd be much happier explaining what was up with that PETA advert to someone with a certain level of maturity than I would to an 8 year old.

    33. Re:Is there a difference? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I would like to point out that it used to be standard for a 20-year-old to marry a 12-14-year-old and start having sex, and she'd have a baby a year or so in. We teach our kids about sex in school, at 9; they have to wait 9 more years before they're "ready for" actual pictures of it, according to the law. In Nevada you can have sex with a 14 year old if you're 35, but you go to jail if you show her a picture of your penis.

      There's knee-jerk reactions in both directions here, both on the fundamental "SHIELD ANYONE UNDER 90 FROM PORNOGRAPHY" (yes we have people trying to BAN ALL PORN and all possession of porn) level and on the "in nature you'd see naked people all the time, we invented clothes to deal with the cold and used to have sex in community caves" level. Be mindful of the arguments and of the realities when you're engaged in these discussions.

    34. Re:Is there a difference? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Is there somewhere I can watch these ads online, besides Youtube? I mean like, somewhere that says "here is the whole series" (even if it's all on youtube), rather than just youtubing "super bowl ads" and figuring the 30 unique ads I see are ALL the ads aired on ALL channels during the WHOLE superbowl?

    35. Re:Is there a difference? by HiThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Never lived on a farm, did you. Yet through most of history most families did. And also lived in single room huts.

      Exposure to sex isn't harmful to children. I have no idea why some people think it is.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    36. Re:Is there a difference? by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      Wow, that post's turned out surprisingly controversial.

      I suppose it's because of a personal preference in how I'd raise kids, there are conversations I wouldn't consider them ready for until a certain level of maturity.

      (Alternatively, I'm willing to admit to myself that it's because I would have no idea how to go about explaining what those kind of ads are aiming for. - i.e. Largely cowardice on my part, which is one of the reason why I don't have kids)

    37. Re:Is there a difference? by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Nevada you can have sex with a 14 year old if you're 35

      huh?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    38. Re:Is there a difference? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      It's just a prudish attitude that is proabably unhealthy. The US is the most restrictive as far as restricting porn goes, and we also have one of the highest number of sexual crimes.

      Also, how explicit do you really think a commercial on broadcast TV can be anyway?

    39. Re:Is there a difference? by SBFCOblivion · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for the vast majority, yes.

    40. Re:Is there a difference? by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      A few points,
      Firstly, correlation != correlation. I have nothing against porn, in fact I'm something of a fan, but I still think it shouldn't be something we start our kids off watching at an early age - they should discover it themselves, the same way many of us did (on the internet, when we first worked out how to clear our histories).
      And secondly, in my (admittedly, probably quite prudish) opinion, there's a difference between sex and adverts using sexuality to try and sell things. Like it or not, kids aren't born with fully formed powers of critical reasoning, there are valid reasons for parents limiting, to a certain degree, exactly what their kids are exposed to at young ages when still potentially easily influenced by what they see - and this goes for all advertising, not just the overtly sexual.

    41. Re:Is there a difference? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      There are other societal issues to deal with, though. You have to worry about what your kids will say to their teachers, around other people's children, etc.

      For example, I don't think that any words should be "bad." Why is "poop" ok to say, but not "shit?" It's asinine. But I'm not about to cuss in front of my kids, because they'll get into trouble if they repeat the words in school. They're not going to watch porn, either, not because I think that sexuality is something to be hidden, but because if they go to a teacher and say, "I saw a pepe on TV!" that teacher's going to call CPS.

    42. Re:Is there a difference? by xianthax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      testosterone infused giants beating the tar out of each other while discussion taking untested injections to repair injuries just enough to play while ignoring all side effects, thats completely comfortable to watch with the kiddies..... display and discussion of our natural bodies and activities, uncomfortable..... fail....

    43. Re:Is there a difference? by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      > I'd be unhappy if there were kids watching it with me.

      Then your kids will likely grow up with the same confusion and shame about sex that has poisoned western civilization for centuries. Congratulations, I guess.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    44. Re:Is there a difference? by internerdj · · Score: 1

      This statement includes the implicit assumption that it's OK to be subjected to prudish sexual mores. (and if you don't think they can be legitimately offensive, you're wrong -- I know people offended by women who dress in burkhas and such)
      So the people you know would be offended by any non-sexually suggestive clothing or just clothing that is tied to a culture that currently suppresses womens' rights?
      If the first, are these people women? If you know women, then what are you doing posting here? (sorry couldn't resist)
      If the second, I know people who would be offended at sexually suggestive clothing who would also be offended at women in burkhas and such. This would suggest that the issue is reasonably separate from the freedom of sexual morality, whether you want to lump them together or not.

    45. Re:Is there a difference? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm amazed that among all these replies, no one has considered that my problem might not be so much the sex itself as much as the attitude toward sex? We're talking about commercials that objectify the people and devalue the act itself. Perhaps as a parent, I don't really want my kids to think of sex that way?

      And besides. If we start allowing sex everywhere on television, that will soon be the ONLY thing on television. (It's getting pretty close these days.) There's always the desire to pander to the lowest common denominator. As an intelligent species capable of reasoning and critical thinking, we should be making efforts to stimulate our intelligence rather than pandering to our baser instincts.

      For those of you who need the cliff notes version (probably the ones who think these commercials are "ok"): I don't want my kids to grow up to be drooling apes.

    46. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, nothing but man on man violence for the family. Anything related to sex is evil!

      And people wonder why America is so fucked up.

    47. Re:Is there a difference? by profplump · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But an 8-year-old doesn't care. They'd be happy with a very superficial explanation -- because they have no interest in sex, explaining it to them is just boring for them. They're only asking questions because they don't understand at all; a little bit of context is plenty to make them stop caring.

    48. Re:Is there a difference? by nodrogluap · · Score: 5, Informative

      Funny enough, the commercial must have worked, because guess where the guy bought the domain:

      % whois ComcastSuperBowlPorn.com

      Whois Server Version 2.0

            Domain Name: COMCASTSUPERBOWLPORN.COM
            Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
            Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
            Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com/
            Name Server: DNS66-1.NEXCESS.NET
            Name Server: DNS66-2.NEXCESS.NET
            Status: clientDeleteProhibited
            Status: clientRenewProhibited
            Status: clientTransferProhibited
            Status: clientUpdateProhibited
            Updated Date: 01-feb-2009
            Creation Date: 01-feb-2009
            Expiration Date: 01-feb-2010

      >>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:46:33 EST

    49. Re:Is there a difference? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Reading the wiki article, and I noticed that about half the states, the legal age is 16, the other half it is 18. So, if you were having sex with a 16 year old in a moving car, that started in a state where it was legal and the car drove across the border into a state where it wasn't... It would magically turn into a felony. Neat. I wonder if the same law applies to airplanes... (granted, it's pretty tough to do anything in an airplane, but it has been done)

    50. Re:Is there a difference? by Adilor · · Score: 2, Funny

      RTFA

    51. Re:Is there a difference? by daremonai · · Score: 1

      hulu.com. Though they show them with a 3-second secondary commercial first. Yes, commercials sponsoring commercials.

    52. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When pornography is outlawed, only slashdotters will have pornography.

    53. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, the GP keeps getting confused between their own fantasies and the actual law.

    54. Re:Is there a difference? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean, more embarrassing than all the other years you watched a bunch of big sweaty guys in tights slapping each other on the ass for hours?

      They aren't slapping ass for hours. There's incidental ass-slapping between bouts of football playing. Here's how it works:

      If you're watching a show where it's in the majority football, with occasional ass-slapping, then you're watching the Super Bowl.

      If you're watching a show where it's mostly ass-slapping with some football thrown in, then you're watching the DVD classing The Super Bowel.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    55. Re:Is there a difference? by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reading the wiki article, and I noticed that about half the states, the legal age is 16, the other half it is 18.

      Don't forget the states where it's 17.

      So, if you were having sex with a 16 year old in a moving car, that started in a state where it was legal and the car drove across the border into a state where it wasn't... It would magically turn into a felony.

      Magic ages are kind of dumb anyway, if you ask me. At 18 you're magically old enough to smoke and vote, at 21 you're magically old enough to drink, at other magic numbers you're magically able to drive or have sex.

      Incidentally you'd get whacked with at least two offenses: the sex itself, and transporting a minor across state lines to engage in illegal sexual activity. (Whereas if I took a 16-year-old to the next state over where 16-year-olds are legal, we could rent a hotel room and fuck and it'd all be perfectly legal.)

      I wonder if the same law applies to airplanes... (granted, it's pretty tough to do anything in an airplane, but it has been done)

      Well, I guess the bathrooms are pretty small...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    56. Re:Is there a difference? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Teacher: Your student shouldn't say certain words during class.

      Parent: ... why the fuck not?

    57. Re:Is there a difference? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting. I thought the age of consent in Nevada was 14, which makes it a pretty good US state to use the thought problem on. Oh well, it's still 14 in Canada I think... I heard they tried to change that a couple years ago. They had/have the same problem though: you can pull your dick out in front of them and get it sucked, but you can't show them a picture of it.

    58. Re:Is there a difference? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a difference between sex and porn, though. Sure children shouldn't be taught that sex is somehow wrong or taboo. But the way sex is presented in a lot of porn pandering to male adolescent fantasies that have nothing to do with sex with a real live woman. I have nothing against porn, but children don't need to see women moaning with pleasure when nothing particularly pleasurable is happening to them - it wrong information that leads to urealistic expectations.

    59. Re:Is there a difference? by toiletsalmon · · Score: 1

      Don't oversimplify things.

      I know for a FACT that at least one of my children is still young enough that they have difficulty separating "real stuff" from "TV Stuff", so therefore it would be IRRESPONSIBLE for me to casually plop my kid down in front of anything just because some advertising director said it was "appropriate for everyone". Until my child is able to make those distinctions, they will be shielded from whatever I deem "inappropriate".

      Besides, can you give ME a LOGICAL correlation between PETA and some half naked woman sucking-off a cucumber and rubbing it on her snatch on a TV commercial? I know that's an exaggeration, but I really don't feel like explaining the concept of selling things with sex to a 5/6 year old...It's just not worth the effort it would take. I don't even like football anyway...

    60. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the problem is that the kids will ask questions that are surprisingly hard to answer.

    61. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we should be making efforts to stimulate our intelligence rather than pandering to our baser instincts.

      Hey, Mister - if it weren't for your parents pandering to those baser instincts, you wouldn't be here.

      Come to think of it, you're right.

    62. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, grow up, and pull the stick out of your ass already.

      He can't. He's nailed to it.

      That was an amazing reply. You win.

    63. Re:Is there a difference? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      If you made indecent proposals to one of those MySpace sluts that is in a state where it is illegal, but you are doing it from a state where it is legal, are you committing a crime? And you invite her to come to said notel in your state?

      LOL and that doesn't even get into even more legal gray areas. Maybe you make a lewd electronic proposal to a girl who SAYS she is 18 in her online profile, but is actually under age. Can't very well demand to see ID from there.

      And if you are one of those 'players' who videotapes their sexual encounters with a hidden camera in order to protect yourself from rape allegations and provide beat off material for dry spells... Then it's kiddie porn.

      And what if you demand to see ID from one of those skanks prior to sex and she shows a fake one that appears to prove she is of legal age...

      Damn asshole lawmakers...only way to be safe from all this is to only have sex with cougars...

    64. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if it weren't for your parents pandering to those baser instincts

      That word? Pander? I do not think it means what you think it means.

    65. Re:Is there a difference? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Yeah we have daily mail readers here. you cant even call the queens pussy haunted, without getting 1000 people that didn't even watch it complaining.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    66. Re:Is there a difference? by HiThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To an extent I agree with you. The problem is the tremendous range of things that get called porn...all the way down to a woman nursing her child.

      Porn, apparently, is anything that bothers someone somewhere that has any connection however remote to sex.

      I'd be much more in favor of saying that children shouldn't be exposed to violence. That wouldn't work either, but it would make as much sense.

      FWIW, banning the road-runner cartoons for excessive violence is just stupid. STUPID!! Some people seem to think that censorship is the answer to everything. They ban cartoons, but don't stop wars. Which is more violent?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    67. Re:Is there a difference? by actionbastard · · Score: 1

      Best. AC. Comment. Ever.

      --
      Sig this!
    68. Re:Is there a difference? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed, and what I said wasn't meant to extend to some prudish, Victorian attitude about sex. And I have nothing against porn being made that shows women as playthings for men - any man who doesn't know the difference between how women act in the fantasy porno world and how real women respond sexually is ... well limited. But children don't know this - they see is what they see - they have no context to put it in. Besides that, I would have thought that the reason adults wouldn't want to see porn in front of children is simply beacuse it is pornographic - it's meant to arouse or at least titillate. Surely this introduces a certain awkwardness to the family lunch? Recognising that sex is essentially private act and not wanting it to be commodified to sell whatever isn't the same as prudishness.

    69. Re:Is there a difference? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "hey, I can see my house from up here!"

      (sorry. aisle seat, please..)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    70. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I see your point about getting in trouble, I do think it's possible for parents to teach their children about the context of what they say and do and that it matters. For one thing, it's one of the most important skills you can have in later life to be able to identify the subtleties of different situations and how they require you to modify your conduct. And I think the earlier in life that children are introduced to this concept, the more advanced they become in later life.

      I see so many parents telling their children not to ever do something which I very rarely remember hearing from my parents. Instead, they would always tell me when it was appropriate for me to do what I was doing and why that moment wasn't one of those situations. The result, for me, was that very few of my parents' rules seemed arbitrary and I never had any problem following them and never felt the need to test their rules. And by scolding me in this fashion, it was always very easy for me not to internalize the scolding. I never felt that I was bad or that my desire to do something was bad. I just learned to wait until it was okay to do it. On on the rare occasions that they told me never to do something (drinking and driving, ingesting hydrogen peroxide or any of the chemical products they kept under the kitchen sink), I knew that it was very important for me not to do it.

      As an example of how this worked, unlike most parents, mine didn't tell me that I'd get in trouble for using drugs. Instead, they told me that if I could write a well-researched paper explaining why they were safe enough, how much was safe and when it was appropriate to use them, I could do it. The result is that I used far less drugs than the average teenager...mostly limiting myself to occasional alcohol and pot. I had absolutely no qualms about calling my parents when I was too drunk to drive, since I knew there were zero repercussions when I did. And I learned a lot about each and every substance that I could have possibly gotten my hands on...I learned which ones were relatively harmless and which ones I should legitimately stay away from. And my parents never worried about peer pressure or poor judgment on my part since the structure they gave me left me little reason to do anything behind their backs.

      The upside of all this is that if you see that your children are able to recognize the context of their actions and adjust accordingly, you can begin trusting them to avoid the situations you mentioned and others like it.

    71. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exposure to sex isn't harmful to children. I have no idea why some people think it is.

      NAMBLA member detected.

    72. Re:Is there a difference? by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      A family watching the Super Bowl has a reasonable expectation that they won't be subjected to someone else's idea of what acceptable sexual mores are these days. It was a football game, not a Victoria Secret premier.

      What you say seems to sound reasonable, unless you actually think about it.

      A family watching the Super Bowl has a reasonable expectation that they will see some advertisements that contain sexual content these days. Period. One can assume that some of the sexual content will include someone else's idea of what is acceptable. This is because advertisers have found that, yes, sex still sells. Why should the Super Bowl be any different than any other time?

      It is not reasonable to expect advertising to always be in good taste. It is certainly not reasonable to expect that no commercial contains sexual content that offends a $random_person, even if they do happen to have a family.

      That said, there are consequences, positive and negative, to advertising in any form. From your post it seems Go Daddy is about to find out about some of those.

    73. Re:Is there a difference? by DarKnyht · · Score: 1

      hulu.com is currently hosting them all.

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    74. Re:Is there a difference? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      So, you don't have a problem if someone shows hardcore porn to your kids? It's just sex afterall. And, before you say hardcore porn is unrealistic, let's say that the DVD is the more gentle erotica kind.

      I can't imagine any parent answering YES to that question.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    75. Re:Is there a difference? by localman · · Score: 1

      If sex were allowed on TV it wouldn't be the only thing on TV. I have access to porn whenever I want it for free and a very small percentage of my time is spent watching porn. And that's coming from someone who likes porn quite a bit. (I'm 35, by the way)

      Also, despite my liking porn, and despite having first discovered dirty magazines at maybe 8 and dirty movies by 12, I doubt anyone who knows me would call me a drooling ape.

      I understand completely your desire to protect your children, and I'll support ratings on movies, games, etc. for that reason. However, I honestly think the kids are far less fragile than you imagine, and far more able to exercise judgment.

      My parents were pretty modest about this kind of thing and tried to protect me from it. When I did see such things as a kid, I thought they were funny and maybe a bit embarrassing and that was about it. It wasn't a major point in my life. I sort of wish my parents hadn't made such a big deal out of it so that I would have felt a little more comfortable talking to them about it. As it was, even when they eventually wanted to talk about the birds and the bees (when I was age 16 or so) I had already decided they were the last people in the world I'd want to talk to about such a thing because they seemed so positively terrified by it.

      As to the objectifying and devaluing, that is a common thing in nearly all humor, sexual or not. Were you as offended at the snow globe being thrown at the boss for example? Or any of the other non-sexual dehumanizing content? That is all over television already, in much higher doses than sexuality. Kids learn (or don't) how to muck through it. It's just part of life.

      Cheers.

    76. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: religion.

    77. Re:Is there a difference? by Dreadneck · · Score: 1

      You're making an excellent case for how warped our society is due to religious taboos. Why is it acceptable to expose children to violence, terror and destruction, but people freak out if they are exposed to sex - be it for pleasure or procreation? I can't be the only one who sees the disconnect of reason inherent in this situation.

      --
      Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
    78. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't we keep the wigs and just be less prude?

    79. Re:Is there a difference? by daveime · · Score: 1

      women moaning with pleasure when nothing particularly pleasurable is happening to them - it wrong information that leads to urealistic expectations.

      You're just doing it wrong !

    80. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All around, it was a rather embarrassing year to be watching the Superbowl with the family.

      Oh, come on -- the Cardinals weren't that bad!

    81. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair to the grandparent, he did say "with the family.".

      I wouldn't mind virtually any amount of explicit content in ads if I was on my own, but I'd be unhappy if there were kids watching it with me.

      or parents!

    82. Re:Is there a difference? by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I'm glad there's someone at least who sees where I'm coming from.

    83. Re:Is there a difference? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Even better would be to do the deed while straddling a state border with the genitals kept in the "legal" side and the upper half lying across the "illegal" side. It's like a legal Gordian knot.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    84. Re:Is there a difference? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      so, since all children are products of sex, we should actually fuck anyone who exposes children to graphic sexual imagery?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    85. Re:Is there a difference? by Xest · · Score: 1

      "And besides. If we start allowing sex everywhere on television, that will soon be the ONLY thing on television."

      Wrong. The very fact it's somewhat taboo is the reason it's used, because it attracts viewers. If it was always on no one would care. You can't stand out and attract viewers if you're only doing what everyone else is doing. This has been demonstrated many times in lots of European countries with much more lax laws on what's acceptable to be shown on TV. If you let this kind of thing play out, people will eventually get fed up of it. We're seeing this happen with reality TV in the UK, the likes of Big Brother are in decline now because our TV was flooded with it, there's much more of a backlash against it when it tries to take things further than it's ever taken them before. Reality TV has gone from something pretty much every channel was doing back to Channel 4's niche, where even there it's losing viewers quite drastically year on year, soon it wont even be worth bothering with. Channel 5 used to show porn every Friday night but they soon got bored of that as viewing figures eventually declined. One of our biggest comedians, Frank Skinner recently looked into swearing and whether it was really even necessary and now cuts the amount of swearing he uses drastically after deciding it's not, others are beginning to follow after the realisation that "Yeah we can do it, but it's doesn't really help much".

      This is the same problem we have with with racist words and swear words, they only have impact because they're kept taboo, said regularly and often by everyone then "fuck" would be no more problematic to say than "damn".

      You see this is the irony with those who push for things to remain taboo, it is that very fact that causes them to remain offensive to some in the first place. There is no evidence that allowing people to become desensitized to these things leads to any decline in society either because it's something that's been happening for years, after all with my example above, the word "damn" itself used to be a looked down upon.

      So don't worry, seeing sex, swearing or anything like that wont cause your kids to grow up to be drooling apes, it'll allow them to grow up as open minded individuals who are capable of putting reason over reaction and who simply aren't phased by such trivial (and perfectly natural) things.

      Of course, that or you could hide them from these things and allow them to become people who get angry at them when they inevitable encounter them instead, anger that ultimately achieves nothing but to repeat the very cycle of anger you talk of.

      The fact is, your kids will encounter this stuff eventually, the problem is they wont be prepared for it and people in that situation often act irrationally and eratically.

    86. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His kids are seeing it now, and in more graphic detail than he imagines. Parents are just hypocrites that they can't remember how they were at that age and what they did. If don't think your little snowflake isn't looking at 4chan or posting pics of themselves, you are living in denial.

      The worse you saw was maybe some penetration. Even with just an innocent Google search, kids these days are staring at gangbangs, bukkake, donkey shows, enema showers, even some missionary positions.

    87. Re:Is there a difference? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      If you made indecent proposals to one of those MySpace sluts that is in a state where it is illegal, but you are doing it from a state where it is legal, are you committing a crime?

      Hm, hadn't thought of that. Obviously I haven't given this much consideration, lol.

      LOL and that doesn't even get into even more legal gray areas. Maybe you make a lewd electronic proposal to a girl who SAYS she is 18 in her online profile, but is actually under age. Can't very well demand to see ID from there.

      That might actually be a defense in my state: (from the same wiki article)

      Mistake as to the age of the victim may be a defense in some circumstances as defined in RSMo 566.020.

      The link for RSMo 566.020 isn't loading, though...

      And if you are one of those 'players' who videotapes their sexual encounters with a hidden camera in order to protect yourself from rape allegations and provide beat off material for dry spells... Then it's kiddie porn.

      Well, that goes without saying. We just had a story about that here recently.

      Damn asshole lawmakers...only way to be safe from all this is to only have sex with cougars...

      Ugh, no thanks.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    88. Re:Is there a difference? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      So you think you belong in prison if, after your kid goes to bed, you're making love to your SO and your kid walks in to ask for a glass of water?

    89. Re:Is there a difference? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      You make a very good points, but there is one I disagree with.

      Perhaps you'd feel responsible for educating the child on the differences between real life and the image of life that are presented by advertisers. In any other context, this is something we don't even think about.

      You should absolutely be doing this anyway, on everything from why Optimus Prime doesn't really walk and talk on his own to why slurping down a Coors isn't going to make him score with half the Cowboys' cheerleaders

    90. Re:Is there a difference? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Pfft... Why? So they can pay more. So they can be forced to call customer service because the registrars website doesn't work right and then they have to listen to a sales pitch just to update their MX records? I've been with GoDaddy for years and never had to call them and everything just works! Plus they save me money!

    91. Re:Is there a difference? by GeneralTao · · Score: 1

      Wrong audience. You honestly expect the average slashdot reader to relate to your thoughts on this? :)

      I'm with you. I have kids. I don't like it when my little girl watches women being objectified and exploited because I worry that it's shaping her self-image and her ideas about her role in society.

      One thing you can do, however, is to openly have a reaction to content you find objectionable. Then your little girl will know that you don't consider the portrayed reality to be acceptable, and she will not pattern herself after it. (One hopes.)

      I think there is a difference between your kids being exposed to mature material if the parent offers guidance and context and the kids just soaking it in and thinking it's all perfectly acceptable.

      Try not to pay too much attention to the juveniles who are basically having a "when I'm a parent I'm never EVER gonna say no!!" moment.

      --
      --- Tao
    92. Re:Is there a difference? by samuisan · · Score: 1

      > Never lived on a farm, did you.

      Thankfully, no. (Squeal like a pig Boy!)

    93. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are several countries in Europe where it is allowed to show sex and porn everywhere on television.

      Yet, they still air the same bullshit you are used to. Renders your argument kinda invalid. Too much TV lets kids grow up as (drooling) apes with or without Nipplegate, anyway.

    94. Re:Is there a difference? by rach3l · · Score: 1

      If you want your children exposed to intellectually stimulating content on a regular basis, you'd be well-served to throw that TV out the window. Take them to the library. Read a book. It's cheaper than TV, a bonding experience, and the walk will do you good. If you let your children watch TV willy-nilly (or internet, or PS3--whatever), then you deserve to churn out consumerist robots who value fruit punch capri suns higher than sexual fidelity.

      Since leaving home at 18, I don't watch television. I don't even own one. And I count my blessings that I don't have to filter my entertainment through a 1:3 ratio of ads for crap I'll never need.

    95. Re:Is there a difference? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I'm hurt! You think I'd really complain so loudly about television without having already given it the boot? ;-)

      The only reason we have cable at all is because Comcast gave it to us for free with our Internet package. So we turn it on for the Superbowl and that's it. All other watching of shows or movies is by DVD or iTunes. Watching is strictly controlled and limited.

      As an aside, consumer televisions with VGA ports make excellent large-screen monitors...

    96. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they wanted to be drooling apes, you'd need to let them, or you're a horrible tyrannical parent. Why don't you calm the fuck down and start fostering THEIR goals, help them excel at their strengths, instead of thinking that if you hide this one 30 second porn clip from them they'll grow up to be angels? Your parenting baffles me so much that I don't even know how to help you. Just make sure you give your kids anxiety pills for when they've grown up in a different shape than the mold you cast for them.

    97. Re:Is there a difference? by tedge0219 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps as a parent, I don't really want my kids to think of sex that way?

      And besides. If we start allowing sex everywhere on television, that will soon be the ONLY thing on television. For those of you who need the cliff notes version (probably the ones who think these commercials are "ok"): I don't want my kids to grow up to be drooling apes.

      Ok, just so you know, in very large parts of the world, sex is not thought of as taboo, it is not uncommon to see sex or nudity in a commercial, and yet, they still have normal television, it is not the only thing on television, and the residents of those countries are not drooling apes. I have not only visited these places, but lived there for several years. The primary reason that there is a market for so much porn is exactly because it is treated as a taboo. If it is treated as normal, the novelty wears off and the ability to make ridiculous amounts of money by shaking your ass or tits in front of a video camera becomes less. Less incentive for easy cash to those born with nice assets and they will find other more socially rewarding pursuits.....or not, either way, if nudity is not treated as a taboo, the black market for it lessens considerably by the way, was that a commercial...or a clip from a movie?

    98. Re:Is there a difference? by blueskies · · Score: 1

      Or maybe children have a much greater neuroplasticity and being titillated by ads wires the objectification much stronger in their brains?

      Educating kids about sex is not the same as titillating them and having them associate sex with commercial products.

    99. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair to the grandparent, he did say "with the family.". I wouldn't mind virtually any amount of explicit content in ads if I was on my own, but I'd be unhappy if there were kids watching it with me.

      First off learn the rules for punctuation inside or outside quotes.

      Second, ride public transit a few times. Third graders now say things you didn't even know about until you were eighteen. And guess what, it isn't just words -- they know what the words mean.

      Or are you just afraid to explain life to them?

    100. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps as a parent, I don't really want my kids to think of sex that way?

      Perhaps you're such a bedwetting pansy that you don't have the balls to say it straight out, but have to end with a question mark, so as not to offend anyone.

      And besides. If we start allowing sex everywhere on television, that will soon be the ONLY thing on television.

      The same could be said of classical music or Gregorian Chant.

      Maybe get some balls and parenting skills and monitor what your kids watch. Or do you think they'd start thinking of you as a parent and not their best friend?

      I have a friend who raised two wonderful, intelligent, accomplished daughters without TV. If there was something worthwhile on, he and his wife went out and rented a TV for the evening.

    101. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And besides. If we start allowing sex everywhere on television, that will soon be the ONLY thing on television. (It's getting pretty close these days.)

      Right. Except for all of the violence and murder.

  9. awesome by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

    so let me get this straight. Comcast customers got to see porn and they're getting paid?

    Where do i sign up for that service?

  10. The Spice? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Will Spice end-ter-tainment be deeply im-packed-ted? Probably not. The'll probably get a slap on the...

    Wait. This should cost more than the Janet Jackson cleavage/busted bust incident...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  11. Comcast missed the point. by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comcast needn't have apologised for broadcasting porn. What did warrant an apology was showing porn containing nothing more than an ugly guy flapping his cock all over the place. You, sirs, have crossed the line!

    --
    Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    1. Re:Comcast missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for that demonstration of classic male phallophobia. The people most traumatized by this incident were not innocent little girls, prudish old ladies, or even young adult women who suffer from their routine objectification in porn. No, the people most traumatized were quivering heterosexual men who are afraid to see... a penis.

    2. Re:Comcast missed the point. by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that demonstration of classic male phallophobia. The people most traumatized by this incident were not innocent little girls, prudish old ladies, or even young adult women who suffer from their routine objectification in porn. No, the people most traumatized were quivering heterosexual men who are afraid to see... a penis.

      I'm not afraid, I just don't want to. Thank you for that demonstration of a classic attempt by an amateur psychologist to turn every thought into a $2 diagnosis of the human condition.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    3. Re:Comcast missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, that's an ugly one! Quick, Bubba, get the shotgun, that's gonna look great above the fireplace!

      Real manly men have shotguns, and they ain't afreed of nuttin. Not even a big ol' ugly penis.

  12. it could be viewed as a package deal by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    theme: the many different weird and wonderful effects of testosterone

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  13. What, no link ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, watch the clip in question here...

    1. Re:What, no link ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:What, no link ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that clip is edited. To see the full waggling display see it Here NSFW obviously.

    3. Re:What, no link ? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Three thoughts:

      1) There wasn't a better way to "encode" this than to hold a camcorder up to the TV?
      2) Why couldn't it have been good porn?
      3) Hope the NFL doesn't sue him for showing more than five seconds of the super bowl ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:What, no link ? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm just waiting for someone to post a link to a 30 second long clip of the Super Bowl that ends with no porn.

      BOWLROLLED!

    5. Re:What, no link ? by gblfxt · · Score: 1

      another wacked site that posted that probably has viruses or something (redirect from fark to comcastsuprbowlporn.com):
      http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?i=4183059&l=http://www.comcastsuperbowlporn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/comcast-super-bowl.mp4

    6. Re:What, no link ? by weighn · · Score: 1

      Ok, watch the clip in question here...

      Yeah, like I'm gonna follow a link to YouTube Nederlands.
      It's probably just a clip of someone smoking a big fat joint

      .:ducks:.

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    7. Re:What, no link ? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Here is the HD version.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    8. Re:What, no link ? by griffjon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Taken down for TOS violation. Was it because it was porn or because it was rebroadcasting the superbowl?

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  14. PPV by Fnord666 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Knowing Comcast, I'm surprised they didn't bill everyone for the whole Pay-Per-View movie!

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:PPV by JCSoRocks · · Score: 2, Funny

      They probably already did. This $10 credit they speak of is actually just a refund.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    2. Re:PPV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.

      Here's a handy guide: Your is not You're.

  15. 30 seconds is not long enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    to get my lotion from the cabinet. I am mortified.

    1. Re:30 seconds is not long enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're at a natural disadvantage to men who weren't genitally mutilated at a young age by their parents, sorry.

  16. I was impacted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a non-AZ resident I didn't my fair share of free pr0n. Do I get $10 ?

    How apropos - the slashdot captcha is pucker. I read that she did!

  17. And Somewhere... by AioKits · · Score: 4, Funny

    And somewhere in that mess, someone was enjoying some porno only to have their fantasy broken by the defensive line of the Cardinals.

    --
    "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    1. Re:And Somewhere... by genner · · Score: 5, Funny

      And somewhere in that mess, someone was enjoying some porno only to have their fantasy broken by the defensive line of the Cardinals.

      Some people are in to that.

    2. Re:And Somewhere... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Funny

      And somewhere in that mess, someone was enjoying some porno only to have their fantasy broken by the defensive line of the Cardinals.

      Yeah, where's my $10, you bastards? That KY doesn't pay for itself you know.... ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:And Somewhere... by hullabalucination · · Score: 2, Funny

      And somewhere in that mess, someone was enjoying some porno only to have their fantasy broken by the defensive line of the Cardinals.

      OK, so I'm confused now. When Al Michaels talked about "going long," was he referring to action on the field or in the porn clip?

      * * * * *

      NOTE: my normal sig line has been replaced by 30 seconds of Richard Feynman discussing quantum electrodynamics. We apologize for this interruption.

    4. Re:And Somewhere... by amchugh · · Score: 1

      Look at that, he's deep in the pocket...
      The play is up the gut, now a quick lateral... They are all over that tight end...

  18. Free Viagra and Enzyte by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Instead of $10 they should give away Enzyte and Viagra.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  19. Why by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

    Comcast Apologizes For Super Bowl Porn

    Why are they apologizing? And where can we see the re-runs?

    1. Re:Why by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Spice Network

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:Why by philspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why are they apologizing?

      So the masses of idiots who write letters to the FCC urging the immediate nationalization of all TV will be pacified. The FCC was flooded with complaints at the Janet Jackson bit, and I bet they weren't happy with the delay they were forced to put in for all live broadcasts. You can guess at least a few people are so miffed at seeing human body parts that they want more government control.

      It would be nice if they didn't apologize so deeply, grew a spine, and issued a statement that reflected the ridiculousness of this situation, something like

      "We're sorry, that was of course unintentional, and when we find whoever did it they're at least going to lose their job here. Of course, it's not like this is anything too bad, it's anatomy, grow up already and get over it."

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

      Neither is drinking a splash of piss in my wine. But I paid good money for the wine and I didn't want piss in it. Regardless of piss or porn not being a big deal consuming, it definitely spoiled what I was paying for.

  20. Re:The Spice? Cue the lewd lines... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    I bet it was .... Cum-Castic.... having this cumpound interest in their broadcasting... I bet their lawyer will say of any impending case... "This VERY SUCK"....

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  21. 30 seconds is not long enough... by darrenf15e · · Score: 0, Redundant

    to get my lotion from the cabinet. I am mortified.

  22. Link? by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can we get a link to the Porn?

    I googled "Porn" and nothing came up.

    1. Re:Link? by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I googled "Porn" and nothing came up.

      But did it suggest pr0n as an alternate search term?

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    2. Re:Link? by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Then I think your google is broken. You should see your nearest google repair man.

      As for the clip, some other posted this link earlier : http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=CKfo5NsliVY

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    3. Re:Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they make drugs to solve that problem

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

      Yes

    6. Re:Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we get a link to the Porn?

      I googled "Porn" and nothing came up.

      Do not worry, science has a pill for that these days.

    7. Re:Link? by thospel · · Score: 1

      > I googled "Porn" and nothing came up

      React to some Viagra spam to solve that problem

    8. Re:Link? by hldn · · Score: 1

      I googled "Porn" and nothing came up.

      they have pills for that.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    9. Re:Link? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I googled "Porn" and nothing came up.

      You're doing it wrong (somehow).

    10. Re:Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a personal problem.

    11. Re:Link? by BooRolla · · Score: 1

      funny, that's why your wife started having me come over

    12. Re:Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we get a link to the Porn?

      I googled "Porn" and nothing came up.

      I googled it as well but when I didn't see anything I figured it might have been tagged incorrectly so I searched all 255,000,000 sites. Wasn't there, so much for my daily entertainment.

    13. Re:Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I googled "Porn" and nothing came up.

      Isn't there medication for that now?

    14. Re:Link? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Turn "safe search" off.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  23. It was barely pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The guy was just hanging brain. I mean, what's all the fuss?"

    1. Re:It was barely pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Swing low sweet chariots."

  24. I was impacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was impacted, I did not receive the porn that other users got. Can I get my refund for that?

  25. Too many jokes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle"
    "Cox communications"
    "just after Arizona Cardinals player Larry Fitzgerald scored on a touchdown pass from Kurt Warner to put the team in the lead." - hell of a celebration

    but the best part? Sports fans complaining about watching a blowjob on t.v. for free (better than free...they get $10!

  26. Irony... by MojoRilla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Several years ago when my home team was in the Superbowl, my comcast cable went out for several hours during the game. Their response was tough luck. They weren't willing to give me any credit. So it is pretty ironic that people "exposed" to 30 seconds of porn are getting $10 back. The moral of the story is that corporations are only responsible when the news media shames them.

    1. Re:Irony... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The news media could give a ... never mind. Anyway, the issue here is not that they screwed up, it's that they screwed up in a way that bring the Keepers of Public Virtue down on them. Screwing over your customers is no big deal. But offending the KPV can put you out of business.

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

      Call them and demand the credit and if they say no, ask for the cancellations department. If you are not prepared to sever your ties, they will treat you like shit.

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

      "...my comcast cable went out for several hours during the game. Their response was tough luck. They weren't willing to give me any credit. So it is pretty ironic that people "exposed" to 30 seconds of porn are getting $10 back." ...no, it's not ironic. yours was probably a (very) localized incident or "outage" or whatever.
      when an entire area/region gets something like that--they care. your one residence? yeah, doubt it.

    4. Re:Irony... by philipgar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, this is basically true anytime. If you complain to your cable company and threaten to cancel they will almost always move you to a cheaper rate (assuming you're not on the cheapest introductory rate). They make money off a customer paying $70/month (for cable and internet) and those who pay $100/month. Obviously, they prefer the ones who pay them more. However, they realize that they're better off with a customer paying $70/month than having no customer at all. You just have to be willing to say you want to cancel your account, and either pull the trigger when needed, or hang up before you do.

      Phil

  27. isn't this going to get them fined? by v1 · · Score: 1

    Won't the FCC be all over this? I don't think the $10 coupons will save them from that. This is a tad more severe than say, a 7/10 of a second "wardrobe malfunction"...

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:isn't this going to get them fined? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      I think Cable has different standards than Broadcast, I suppose it could be a violation of the 'Must Carry' rules.

    2. Re:isn't this going to get them fined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast = cable. Decency-regulation-wise, it's outside the FCC's bailiwick.

    3. Re:isn't this going to get them fined? by philspear · · Score: 1

      I think the FCC may have been more motivated to fine them for the nation wide janet jackson thing, and the hundreds of thousands of idiots who were screaming to them for blood. This is a much smaller population, so hopefully this won't become a thing.

      At the very least, they will get fined probably, but by pacifying the idiots they can hopefully silence a few of them screaming for even more restrictions.

    4. Re:isn't this going to get them fined? by furby076 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They claimed to have been hacked. As long as the investigation supports being hacked then no they will not get fined. The FCC is not some ridiculous organization that goes on witch-hunts. Even if it was not a hacker - it was a technical foul-up, not an intended viewing. The FCC are smart enough to realize that computers have glitches and shit happens.

      I could see someone sueing them under the pretense "my baby got scarred from this".

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    5. Re:isn't this going to get them fined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      From FCC (emphasis added):

      Do the FCC's rules apply to cable and satellite programming?

      In the past, the FCC has enforced the indecency and profanity prohibitions only against conventional broadcast services, not against subscription programming services such as cable and satellite. However, the prohibition against obscene programming applies to subscription programming services at all times.

      The definition of "obscene" from the same FCC page:

      What makes material "obscene?"

      Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.

      So basically, something on a subscription service must: 1) make the average soccer mom get hot, 2) show hardcore porn or is so hateful that it makes everyone uncomfortable, 3) exist only to be offensive...then the commish goes after them.

    6. Re:isn't this going to get them fined? by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      The FCC does not regulate cable, only over-the-air broadcasts. This only went out to Comcast cable subscribers.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    7. Re:isn't this going to get them fined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it's true that only cable subscribers received it, the FCC does in fact regulate it. See my other post: http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1114525&cid=26716447

  28. four hours of violent smashing is not porn? by peter303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    four hours of violent smashing is not porn?

    1. Re:four hours of violent smashing is not porn? by BiAthlon · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're doing it wrong.

    2. Re:four hours of violent smashing is not porn? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      four hours of violent smashing is not porn?

      Ah, yes, indeed it is, but don't give anyone the wrong idea, lest they find a way to either tax or fine the shit out of it. I pay enough for my cable bill...

    3. Re:four hours of violent smashing is not porn? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      four hours of violent smashing is not porn?

      It is, but they probably find this whole incident was actually the "Cheerleaders extreme".

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    4. Re:four hours of violent smashing is not porn? by mishehu · · Score: 1

      It is, but it's gay porn. Put it to you this way - the only way that American "football" would interest me is if I was the only male on either team, and all the other players were hot teen girls...

    5. Re:four hours of violent smashing is not porn? by m00seb0y · · Score: 1

      You mean you haven't heard of the Lingerie Bowl?

  29. It's a broadcast. It may invoke revenue clauses. by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Laugh about the porn clip (I did, here in Tucson, I yelled "FTW!")

    But depending on the origin of the video, Comcast may be on a very real hook for broadcasting copyrighted material without license, and could conceivably be exposed to distribution royalties for a much larger audience than the one that is supposed to be limited to a specific, accountable pay-per-view arrangement.

    I would be very surprised if lawyers were not working this out in a damage control mode.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  30. Please stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any customer who claims to have been impacted

    Is this Slashdot or a marketing manager's office? The word you are looking for is affected.

  31. Malicious or ignorant? by daveywest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work for a CATV operator, and my desk is 200 feet from the headend. There is no way that could have been a glitch. The real question is was it a malicious or ignorant act of an employee. Regardless, the unemployment rate just went up in Tucson.

    1. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I work for a CATV operator, and my desk is 200 feet from the headend. There is no way that could have been a glitch. The real question is was it a malicious or ignorant act of an employee. Regardless, the unemployment rate just went up in Tucson.

      It could easily have been a glitch that didn't require direct human intervention.

      Reasonable providers (read those that aren't Comcast) will separate adult and non-adult programming onto different QAMs. This minimizes exposure to issues with adult-content.

      I've seen a QAM broadcast programming from the wrong PID when the original PID was interrupted. It's not supposed to happen, but it does.

    2. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by furby076 · · Score: 1

      Really? Computers/electronics cannot have glitches? Maybe you should answer your door, I hear Microsoft is looking for a new media director.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    3. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Reasonable providers (read those that aren't Comcast) will separate adult and non-adult programming onto different QAMs.

      Not possible when marketing insists on using the same on-demand / pay-per-view system to sell "fuzzy bunnies animated childrens movie" and "xxx naughty cheerleaders" or whatever. Also switched digital video is hard to segregate, although at least in theory you could do it. You are partially correct that you can segregate continuously broadcast non-switched digital video channels. Even funnier would be a QAM boots up on the wrong frequency and at a high enough level to capture the "real" channel. And then there are wiring errors.

      Reasonable providers (read those that aren't Comcast) will separate adult and non-adult programming onto different QAMs. This minimizes exposure to issues with adult-content.

      Where I work they don't reboot QAM modulators during certain hours anymore after a very similar unfortunate incident that also made all the major media outlets. If the parents are watching TV at 3am, then yes there is a 1 in a billion chance they'll see something interesting for a few seconds.

      I have no idea what they were thinking rebooting a QAM during the game. If that thing hadn't come back online, rather than just being kind of scrambled up, it would have been black screens all around for at least maybe ten minutes before a working one could be patched in. Of course sometimes accidents happen and sometimes things spontaneously crash/reboot in which case there really isn't anyone to blame.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad to see a guy with knowledge of local advertising respond. People... basically the way it works is that you have a machine that is full of 30/60 seconds ads that plays on top of the national ads. Those files have to be placed on that machine and scheduled through usually not very easy methods. Someone could of replaced a scheduled ad but that would require access to the machine which is usually over some sort of private network.

      As the parent said.. this is no glitch... this is deliberate by someone who understands these machines.

    5. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by BcNexus · · Score: 1

      I thought it was an analog, non-QAM stream that was affected.I thought QAM was only for digital transmissions. I'm curious to know, having only a "pro-sumer" knowledge of how cable broadcast works.

    6. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by INeededALogin · · Score: 1

      It could easily have been a glitch that didn't require direct human intervention.

      No, it could not have been. 30 seconds is advertisement which is served by a rather isolated ad system. Local Ad systems are pre-loaded with files and schedules ahead of time. Most operators have entire departments that support local advertisement since advertisement pays the bills. Simply put, someone loaded a file into the local ad system that was porn. I place my bets on a laid off employee with intimate knowledge of how this system work.

    7. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by swb · · Score: 1

      Could it have been the result of a knowledgeable outsider?

      I'm way too lazy to re-read the "story" description, but IIRC it said "some" Tuscon subscribers. Is it possible that someone could have physically hacked into some neighborhood/regional distribution box and injected other programming onto a channel?

      I know its trivial to buy a box that allows you to selectively replace CATV channels with your own (for home media distribution). It's not a real over stretch of the imagination to think that while "everyone" is drunk watching football, two intrepid young men rip into some big grey box in some alley and hook up their own equipment and jack into cable system.

    8. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by vlm · · Score: 1

      I work for a CATV operator, and my desk is 200 feet from the headend. There is no way that could have been a glitch.

      You guys still all analog? I'm not trying to be harsh or whatever, just finding it hard to believe. Went digital here, oh, about a decade ago. It's kind of like finding the last MF switching trunk in the (former) bell system, or the last SxS switch, or finding the last operational production VAX system, or finding the last thicknet 10base5 lan. Just idle curiosity.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      IIRC it said "some" Tuscon subscribers

      I'm betting it said Tucson.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    10. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by TheSync · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reasonable providers (read those that aren't Comcast) will separate adult and non-adult programming onto different QAMs.

      Here is where the problem could have occured:

      1) Video input problem: MSO Satellite Radio tuned to wrong channel. Doubtful because of authentication / encryption. This is more likely if the east coast/west coast feed of the same provider got swapped. Also if the MSO was using an over-the-air TV receiver, that of course can't happen. If the MSO gets a video fiber from the TV station, that might be a fiber carrier routing screw up.

      2) Video router misconfiguration: Ff the satellite radio outputs baseband video, it may go through a video crosspoint swtich (they call them "routers"). The wrong crosspoints between the satellite radios and the modulators (analog tier) or encoders (digital tier)

      3) Multiplexer/CherryPicker misconfiguration: On the digital tier, MPEG-2 programs are multiplexed together into a QAM. It is possible there was a brief misconfiguration.

      Big question - did this happen on the Comcast SD digital tier, HD digital tier, the analog tier, or some combination? If it was both analog and digital SD, I would suspect a video router crosspoint misconfiguration. If it was just digital SD or digital HD, I would suspect a multiplexer misconfiguration.

    11. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by vlm · · Score: 1

      I thought it was an analog, non-QAM stream that was affected.I thought QAM was only for digital transmissions. I'm curious to know, having only a "pro-sumer" knowledge of how cable broadcast works.

      I didn't know that was released that it was definitely an analog. QAM is digital yes. Analog in the US would be NTSC although I heard there was at least one cableco pushing ATSC (the over the air digital) format.

      Note that if it only affected folks watching the NBC channel on settops, then they are running digital simulcast where you tune to a local channel and you think you'd see the direct connect analog NTSC channel but the box replaces it with the digital simulcast.

      Just because there is an analog channel for the direct connect customers doesn't mean the settop users aren't seeing a digital simulcast.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    12. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Could it have been the result of a knowledgeable outsider?

      If it only happened on the digital tier, this is possible. A hacker could get access to the web GUI of a multiplexer, and take an MPEG-2 program from one output QAM and move it to another with PID remapping.

      If it happened on the analog tier as well, that would mean a hack of the baseband video router, which I find more difficult to believe (many plants don't have these commanded over IP) , but I suppose it can't be ruled out.

    13. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that someone could have physically hacked into some neighborhood/regional distribution box and injected other programming onto a channel?

      My house is on a 20 dB tap so the hardline is at a 20 dB higher level than the drop to my house.

      Whatever I inject will be 40 dB lower on my neighbors drop since its 20 dB from my drop the the hardline, then another 20 dB to their house.

      Now, if I lived at the end of the line, perhaps right before the input of an amp or at a terminator, maybe I'd be on a 4 dB tap so I'd only use 4dB.

      You could tap into the hardline that has several amps at 90 V AC to run the inline amplifiers... You ever seen that video of the hotdog that's cooked by getting put across 110 V AC? You get the idea. Seriously, the fuse would blow before anyone got cooked. None the less I'd advise against fooling around with cable company hardline, especially since it's right next to the high voltage power lines...

      Or you just use sci-fi technology to splice into the fiber. Yeah right. Maybe on a TV cop show. You'd have better luck practicing your ninja skills to break into the headend.

      In summary, no, unlikely.

      Anyone who could do that would probably find something more fun/profitable to do, like give everyone all the channels for free or something.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    14. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by vlm · · Score: 1

      30 seconds is advertisement which is served by a rather isolated ad system

      That is technically possible. But to be honest unless the employee had some unnatural special attachment to that particular clip, they could hurt their previous employer much more by just deleting all the files. Its alot of work to find or collect a video clip, then reformat it for the ad system, then reprogram the ad system so no one notices. Heck of a lot easier to just wipe the thing so it all has to be re-entered or restored from backup and re-enter any changes.

      Or if the saboteur really wanted chaos, swap all the files around so the cableco is sued for fraud for not providing the correct service. No one would notice for weeks, maybe, until the lawyers descended... After all, local ads are showing up (just the wrong ones at the wrong time)

      Not saying its not possible, just unlikely.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    15. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by vlm · · Score: 1

      I thought it was an analog, non-QAM stream that was affected.I thought QAM was only for digital transmissions

      I thought of another reason... The Guardian reported it was the Club Jenna feed. Now I can't imagine distributing club jenna on analog, you need digital for settop authorization and accounting. No one does club jenna on the standard analog lineup, or if they do, I should move there. So, if Club Jenna absolutely has to be digital, then what it was swapped for must have been the digital... The digital feed for NBC. You can't just swap a QAM subchannel on top of an analog channel and have it display. Apples and oranges.

      I guess you could theoretically distribute unencrypted NTSC plain analog channel club jenna, but thats an unlikely design. Gotta be digital...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    16. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by mqduck · · Score: 1

      "fuzzy bunnies animated childrens movie" and "xxx naughty cheerleaders"

      "xxx animated naughty fuzzy bunny cheerleaders"

      --
      Property is theft.
    17. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The signal originated with COX, which receives their NBC affiliate on their own fiber loop, then Comcast ran their own fiber to COX. This could have easily been a man in the middle attack. If you really look at it, it looks like someone inserted something into a MPEG 2 stream.

    18. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like slanting helican scan blur at each end of the pr0n! Suggesting a "manually controlled VCR" misconfiguration. =)

    19. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by LackThereof · · Score: 1

      TFA says it affected SD customers only, but didn't mention if it was limited to only digital or only analog customers. However, looking at their Tuscon channel lineups, it appears that the porn is only offered on their digital packages nowdays. I don't know much about the innards of a cable system, but it seems like that would make it difficult for a regular analog-tier customer to "accidentally" recieve porn.

      --
      Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
    20. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      However, looking at their Tuscon channel lineups, it appears that the porn is only offered on their digital packages nowdays. I don't know much about the innards of a cable system, but it seems like that would make it difficult for a regular analog-tier customer to "accidentally" recieve porn.

      The thing is there is no "ordinary" head-end these days. Some MSOs want just MPEG-2 transport streams over UDP out of satellite radios, others want NTSC analog baseband SD out, and some want serial digital baseband video. If all their SD was taken to baseband video (both porn and network), it could have been mixed at that level, regardless of whether it was modulated for the analog tier or encoded/muxed/modulated for the digital tier.

      It could be simple as taking "source 92 to destination 63", oops I meant "take source 29 to destination 63" on the video crosspoint router control panel.

    21. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by flynt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, since yours is the only comment modded 4 or higher with any technical knowledge, I have a question for you. We got my mom an HDTV a couple years ago, and she was only paying for basic cable, no digital boxes in the house at all. When we set it up, I did a "channel scan" and the TV picked up some HD channels with numbers like 121.1 (as an example). Many of these were just the big networks HD feeds, like ABC, CBS, etc. But there was a block of channels even higher up that were HD movies. And we'd be watching them, and then all of a sudden they'd flip to a different movie, or rewind itself and play again. I guess we were 'intercepting' some neighbors' on-demand movies. Could this be what happened in AZ during the superbowl? For all I know, that's what you just described, so pardon my ignorance.

    22. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      I saw on the Ars thread on this that the Cox and Comcast have divvied up Tucson, so the reason it only affected some customers is probably because the others are on Cox.

    23. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by NuttyBee · · Score: 1

      Reasonable MSOs have restricted program routers and isolated adult islands. No comment about how I know this.

      Malicious use of video router - inside job..
      Malicious use of a CherryPicker - inside job..
      Poor use of access controls - Ignorance

      Assuming they already waterboarded the on-site operators... This wasn't some random Capt. Midnight hacker with an uplink available to him. This person had the ability to the control LAN via VPN and then had the passwords to make those changes.

      This person was an operator or engineer at Comcast..

    24. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by Brianwa · · Score: 1

      Or something important was configured with a default password.

    25. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by NuttyBee · · Score: 1

      leitch / leitchadmin

      Nah, nobody I know does that.. hehe..

    26. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      Big question - did this happen on the Comcast SD digital tier, HD digital tier, the analog tier, or some combination? If it was both analog and digital SD, I would suspect a video router crosspoint misconfiguration. If it was just digital SD or digital HD, I would suspect a multiplexer misconfiguration.

      The incident only happened on Comcast's network, and only on the analog channel. Comcast's feed comes from a fiber link to COX, which was fine.

      Basically, it sounds like someone took a run-of-the-mill RF modulator*, plugged it into a grey-market amplifier, and then plugged it into the cable. It's a pretty good prank if they can get away with it!

      *Those devices that let you use a DVD player with a TV that can only be hooked up to an antenna.

    27. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Among other reasons why this can't be the case, VoD programming is inserted at the node/neighborhood level, where nodes only serve a couple hundred people at most. If the whole city saw it, the feed came all the way from the top.

    28. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by Darkk · · Score: 1

      I too used to work for CATV and seen the headend. There is always somebody manning the room so is a good possibility somebody hacked into the controller that deals with the channel mapping or converter control.

      When I saw the video clip of the incident I saw pixelization as if somebody interrupted the data stream for a second and replace it with their own.

      How is it possible on a small scale? I honestly don't know. Just hope Comcast can find out and prevent it from happening again in the future.

    29. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by Darkk · · Score: 1

      Yep very true about the HD VOD feeds. I have HDHomeRun that allows me to tune to all of their digital channels including VOD. It's interesting to watch but annoying when somebody decides to pause or fast forward for awhile.

      Can't really complain since I wasn't paying for it. Just surprised they didn't enable encryption for VOD.

    30. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by daveywest · · Score: 1

      We're a small shop with 8k subs. We only added digital feeds last year, and that was just new channels. We still maintain the analog feed, but I suspect we'll switch that channel range over to clear QAM in 2010.

      When something goes wrong on the digital end, the channels just shut off, not switch to Debbie Does Dallas.

      Regardless, the only PPV we ever sell anymore is porn.

    31. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) the work of a disgruntle employee....

  32. why $10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how did they decide $10 was the magic number to make it okay? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

  33. Anonymous is legion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous from www.ebaumsworld.com are everywhere.

  34. Meanwhile, back at the Butt-Bowl . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    ". . . huh, huh . . huh, huh . . . Beavis, we're like watching Cum-Cast now . . ."

    ". . . heh, heh . . . hehehe . . . Wait they're showing football again . . . change it! Change it!"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  35. And where's MY ten dollars? by meist3r · · Score: 5, Funny

    I had to watch 30 seconds of Super Bowl right inbetween my porn. That's so not cool Comcast.

  36. comcast by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Funny

    So this is the Superbowl "Package" Deal that Comcast was advertising, huh?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  37. They're showing the real game... by need4mospd · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're just showing what the sportscasters were watching anyways. "Check out that penetration!" "Yeah John, you can see the backfield has been totally violated." "If he got his hands on that ball, he would have scored for sure."

    1. Re:They're showing the real game... by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      OMG, I couldn't believe how often Madden kept using those terms. I kept waiting for him to mention something about the player getting all the way through to the clitoris, but I guess he just didn't have enough cojones.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    2. Re:They're showing the real game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...getting all the way through to the clitoris...

      Judging by your idea of the female anatomy, I would expect your slashdot UID to be lower...

    3. Re:They're showing the real game... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      He'd have to be in the double digits or less...

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    4. Re:They're showing the real game... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      You don't understand, you're not a professional football player.

      If you run far enough with the ball, beyond the goal line, you're bound to run into a clitoris eventually. Face first.

  38. Just like the movie 'Hackers' by Agent0013 · · Score: 4, Funny

    See, that movie wasn't all that ridiculous. That is probably what happened. Some 'Zero Cool' dude must have hacked into the network and changed the channel!

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  39. Re:It's a broadcast. It may invoke revenue clauses by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Laugh about the porn clip (I did, here in Tucson, I yelled "FTW!")

    Are you aware that it takes longer to yell eff tee dubba-yew than "FOR THE WIN!"? Perhaps you should stand up, go outside, and take a deep breath of fresh air.

    Oh wait, you're in Tucson. I take it back. Stay inside.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  40. Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Photos or clip or it didn't happened!!

  41. Where do I get... by Poruchik · · Score: 1

    Cumcast feed and get paid $10?

    --
    $signature =~ s/$signature//;
  42. Other TV hacks by twistah · · Score: 5, Informative

    I love when stuff like this happens. In the past, there have been incidents such as when someone switched over a feed of Jeopardy to the Playboy Channel. Other notable incidents:

    Max Headroom Incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWdgAMYjYSs
    HBO "Captain Midnight" incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFlMHCdYXLM

    1. Re:Other TV hacks by ajayrockrock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about Spaghetti Cat? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMyHuCVaRaE

  43. Re:It's a broadcast. It may invoke revenue clauses by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    >Are you aware that it takes longer to yell eff tee dubba-yew than "FOR THE WIN!"?

    Yes! That's why I did it! I also cheered when the Cardinals lost, just to be contrarian. I wish they'd have lost by one point though.

    Air quality in Tucson is some of the best in the world, and it's beautiful weather right now...

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  44. More then 1 occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've heard thru the grapevine that this was also seen in Yuma, AZ, and that it was more then 1 occurrence: "she actually saw the same thing on saturday night and sunday morning" (before the superbowl)

  45. Worthless Content-Thieving Parasites... by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it was clearly Ebaumsworld.com

    No, Ebaumsworld just got hold of a copy of the report where the original hacker claimed credit and replaced his name with theirs.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:Worthless Content-Thieving Parasites... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Woosh.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  46. Re:Link? Noodles Commercial Banned in Asia: by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1723015/banned_asian_commercial/

    http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?&next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DFQZJZRhm_3k

    https://www.mywii.com.au/VideoDetail.aspx?id=1296

    It would have been funnier if it had been a guy instead (or in stead, hehehe).

    (Begin (or, resume) the slashdotting...)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  47. Re:It's a broadcast. It may invoke revenue clauses by furby076 · · Score: 1

    You really pulled that one out of your ass didn't you. If they were hacked, which they claim to have been, they would not be liable for anything. It would be similar if someone shot someone with your gun. You proved you weren't the trigger man, or even involved, but went to jail for murder.

    That won't stop someone from sueing, but I don't think comcast lawyers are losing any sleep.

    --

    I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  48. This has happened before with Comcast by Cowmonaut · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This has happened before. But it affected Cartoon Network at 3:00 PM for like two minutes in Vancouver WA. I was like 14 at the time and thought it awesome.

  49. They could just say it was stem cell-cloning by davidsyes · · Score: 1
    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  50. I'm from Canada.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and is issuing a $10 credit to any customer who claims .... and I'm claiming to have been affected. Now pay me!

  51. The U.S. Has Collapsed: +1, Informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and Slashdot posts news about a Comcast glitch in AZ.

    Continue the trivia, Slashot.

    It's easier to get Nerd news from news.google.com.

    Yours In Communism,
    Kilgore Trout.

  52. 30 Seconds from Tucson by d0n0vAn · · Score: 5, Funny

    As an accounting major, I am just doing the math: 30 seconds of pr0n equals $10 dollars...so, that's $20 a minute and $1200 dollars an hour. By my calculations, I can watch two hours of pr0n each month and be able to pay my tuition instead of taking student loans. What a country!!!

    1. Re:30 Seconds from Tucson by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      In soviet russia, porn pays you!

  53. *NOT* interested by DrYak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Trust him.

    Once he has seen the time-consuming, noisy, loud and dirty results that started appearing 9 months after the "insertion", he'll never ever be even interested in inserting his penis anywhere.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:*NOT* interested by phulegart · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Stop. Think.

      Your comment, although humorous, falls completely apart under the most basic of observation. For example... How does your statement explain the 2nd child? And the 3rd? I'm a 4th child of a married couple. So there is ample precedent that a married man continues to bury the seed in fertile soil, long after the first puppy has been pushed out the play-dough fun factory of life.

      Where would the urban myth be of how wearing a wedding ring works out to be a great way to attract women... if married men were known for their abstinence?

      Why do women divorce their husbands for cheating, if the husbands in fact have no interest in that kind of thing after they have their first kid?

      These are just a couple of the obvious barriers to believing him.

      So don't trust the GP(P). He was just being funny. He definitely still has an interest in insertions.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    2. Re:*NOT* interested by mustafap · · Score: 5, Funny

      >How does your statement explain the 2nd child? And the 3rd? I'm a 4th child of a married couple

      Alcohol.

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    3. Re:*NOT* interested by Hork_Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mailman.

    4. Re:*NOT* interested by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      a married man continues to bury the seed in fertile soil

      gross gross gross gross GROSS ugh... I need a vasectomy, no kids.

    5. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or different male characters...

    6. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where would the urban myth be of how wearing a wedding ring works out to be a great way to attract women... if married men were known for their abstinence?

      Obviously anyone wearing a wedding ring is a sex-starved maniac.

      Why do women divorce their husbands for cheating, if the husbands in fact have no interest in that kind of thing after they have their first kid?

      Maybe because her husband just figured out that she doesn't control the only pussy in the world?

    7. Re:*NOT* interested by easyTree · · Score: 1

      How does your statement explain the 2nd child? And the 3rd?

      Natural selection favours ability to impregnate over ability to remember? :)

    8. Re:*NOT* interested by phulegart · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you aren't contributing to the proliferation of the species, you are contributing to it's demise.

      Save your money. Try Suicide instead. No kids, and much cheaper.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    9. Re:*NOT* interested by phulegart · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that Dad forgot he had a kid already? That could happen. Why would he regain interest then? Wouldn't just the mere presence of children itself on the planet be enough to kill interest, if children killed interest in sex?
      Or are you saying that Dad forgot he wasn't interested in inserting his penis into anything female? Because if he forgot he wasn't interested anymore and went and had more sex... he was OBVIOUSLY interested... and this proves my point that just having the first child doesn't kill interest.

      How could the national average for the number of children in an American Household be 2.3 kids... if it hadn't been proven already that married men do NOT lose interest in sex?

      Sorry... you might fight it just because proving something to Slashdot expectations is impossible and you are simply trolling... but the numbers prove me out. All over the world.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    10. Re:*NOT* interested by lavardo · · Score: 0

      eharmony.com

    11. Re:*NOT* interested by jcgf · · Score: 1

      Uh, so if he chooses not to have kids, it's a bad thing?

    12. Re:*NOT* interested by phulegart · · Score: 1, Troll

      {sarcasm}
      now Mailman is a much better response than Alcohol. Because we ALL know there are no married mailmen.

      That must be it.
      All married men stop having sex after the first child.
      All subsequent children are fathered by mailmen.
      No Married man has an interest in sex after the first child... therefore
      All Mailmen are single.

      That makes perfect sense. I knew the mailmen who delivered the mail here (I'm on a training route) and were wearing wedding rings, were only wearing them to attract women... although married men don't have sex and we've established that... well, they must be wearing their fake wedding rings to scare off... something.
      {/sarcasm}

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    13. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, beer... the cause and solution of most of lifes problems.

    14. Re:*NOT* interested by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1

      Because of the lack of blood to the brain when the penis is erect.

    15. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are contributing to it's demise

      Try Suicide instead

      Much like your contribution to the demise of grammar, I assume.

    16. Re:*NOT* interested by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Every time an organism reproduces, the genes it passes-on increase in frequency slightly.

      If some gene tends to result in some physical or behavioral characteristic which makes it more likely that the individual reproduces, there's a feedback loop of sorts set-up.

      It seems to me that a gene for increased sexuality and actual ability to impregnate would result in a really tight feedback loop.

      So, I'm saying that as long as the person carries enough of a memory gene to enable them to safely navigate themselves towards the next willing mate, memory really doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things.

    17. Re:*NOT* interested by diqmay · · Score: 1

      I think you need to double-check your sig, I believe the correct quote is:

      "I love humor. I love the whooshing sound it makes as it flies by." -D. Adams

      Please reference this thread as proof.

    18. Re:*NOT* interested by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Wait a sec, I thought the stork delivered the babies, not the mailman.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    19. Re:*NOT* interested by nazsco · · Score: 2, Funny

      that's the most humongous sense of humor ever!

    20. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the person I always fear meeting at parties.

    21. Re:*NOT* interested by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      I suppose presenting your own functional genitals with a darwin award isn't something to be proud of.

    22. Re:*NOT* interested by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      It's surprising how little women remember of child birth. I would say you should apply for a research grant. :P

    23. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      >How does your statement explain the 2nd child? And the 3rd? I'm a 4th child of a married couple

      The Pool Cleaner,Pizza Delivery Guy and Bill Clinton might have something to do with that.

    24. Re:*NOT* interested by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Dude, are you *still* arguing about this?

      Let me clue you in: when someone disagrees with you, they might be doing so for humorous purposes.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    25. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Muslim friends in college introduced me to the idea that anything under 150 proof counted as a mixed drink. (everclear cut with brandy - mixed drink.)

      Just because something is prohibited doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

      Prostitution, scheduled drugs without a script, betting on the superbowl, driving faster than 65 miles an hour on the freeway, are all prohibited in the U.S.A.

    26. Re:*NOT* interested by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      >How does your statement explain the 2nd child? And the 3rd? I'm a 4th child of a married couple

      Alcohol.

      Catholicism.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    27. Re:*NOT* interested by syousef · · Score: 1

      Why do women divorce their husbands for cheating, if the husbands in fact have no interest in that kind of thing after they have their first kid?

      Because "that kind of thing" translates to "sex with the wife resulting in children" not "sex with the mistress".

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    28. Re:*NOT* interested by fugue · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nice try, but the proliferation of the species is exactly what is responsible for its demise.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    29. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because there are absolutely no Muslims living anywhere in the US. Anti-US dickweed.

    30. Re:*NOT* interested by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Then who's fucking the stork?!

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    31. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score one for homosexuality!

    32. Re:*NOT* interested by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Your speaking of the demise of humanity as though it were a fact already in the past betrays your lack of realistic perspective. Thomas Malthus and all people of his ilk are idiots who don't take into account the increase of efficiency through technology. They panic about population growth as though no improvement has ever been made in the logistical handling of resources. The critical mass of human population and technology is such that great minds are no longer produced sparsely through history, one at a time in a generation, but rather thousands of 'one in a million' geniuses are produced now in each generation. This army of once-rare intellect is now networked together in real time with virtually the entirety of human knowledge besides. Consequently resource efficiency keeps going up, more food is produced more quickly in less space with less spoilage for instance decade after decade, and hydroponics is the only real ceiling on that and it hasn't even been touched yet. Just recently researchers are investigating means of producing meat directly from cell cultures instead of the more costly and inefficient care of animals.

      All we need to do is get our lazy asses into space and humanity wins the game.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    33. Re:*NOT* interested by vandelais · · Score: 1

      That makes perfect sense. I knew the mailmen who delivered the mail here (I'm on a training route) and were wearing wedding rings, were only wearing them to attract women... although married men don't have sex and we've established that... well, they must be wearing their fake wedding rings to scare off... something.
      {/sarcasm}

      I know, Catholic mailmen.

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    34. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody really likes you.

    35. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are contributing to it's demise

      Try Suicide instead

      Much like your contribution to the demise of grammar, I assume.

      He meant Suicide Girls, of course.

    36. Re:*NOT* interested by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      Beautiful. I shot ice cream out my nose there I was laughing so hard.

      Moral of the story: don't eat ice cream while reading /.

      Thanks for brightening my day!

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    37. Re:*NOT* interested by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      I know, Catholic mailmen.

      Ex-Catholic Mormon mailman.

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    38. Re:*NOT* interested by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      anywhere? FYI: You can't get pregnant from oral.

    39. Re:*NOT* interested by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Where would the urban myth be of how wearing a wedding ring works out to be a great way to attract women... if married men were known for their abstinence?

      Why do women divorce their husbands for cheating, if the husbands in fact have no interest in that kind of thing after they have their first kid?"

      It isn't the men losing interest...it is the women.

      You know the old saying "What food completely destroy's a woman's sex drive?

      ....Wedding Cake."

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    40. Re:*NOT* interested by JunoonX · · Score: 1

      Nailman.

    41. Re:*NOT* interested by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Your assumptions of the monogamy of the female is astounding...

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    42. Re:*NOT* interested by nicodoggie · · Score: 1

      No, Suicide (tm) is a trademark of Death Co., makers of Euthanasia and Genocide.

    43. Re:*NOT* interested by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Catholic Alcoholic Mailman.

    44. Re:*NOT* interested by fugue · · Score: 1

      So we just keep growing forever? Maybe we can get into space by the thousands in our lifetimes, but probably not by the tens of billions. And just how many people do you want? Will you be happier, lead a richer life, when you have one square meter allocated to you? A tenth of one?

      Consequently resource efficiency keeps going up, more food is produced more quickly in less space with less spoilage for instance decade after decade

      Ah, that explains why as humanity expands, we have never had to cut down any forest to turn it into crop land? Because "one-in-a-million" geniuses would need to produce food efficiency increases on the order of a millionfold in order to pay their way in your scenario. Logistics don't really play much of a role in your thought processes, do they?

      What about global warming? Food production is about to go down, not up. What about increasingly toxic processes? Almost every new technology has unexpected negative consequences. Fertilisers create dead zones in the oceans and less nutritious crops, our need for packaged energy poisons our air and water, creates incentives for wars, and is now causing global climate destabilisation, irrigation poisons our topsoils, genetic engineering kills diversity (even aside from the obvious socioeconomic problems of the legal framework that makes them profitable), and perhaps you've heard of pesticides? Those are just off the top of my head; there are thousands more examples.

      Show me a stable society. We haven't had one yet, so I find your blind optimism simply idiotic. If we can manage to stabilise our way of living, then perhaps we can talk about safe growth. But to assert that growth is always OK because there will be a yet-to-be-discovered magic solution is moronic.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    45. Re:*NOT* interested by vishbar · · Score: 1

      With that sense of humor, I think these are questions and quandaries that will be completely irrelevant to you.

      --
      Ride the skies
    46. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      poolman

      gardener

      cable guy or pizza man?

    47. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TV blackouts!

    48. Re:*NOT* interested by Kharny · · Score: 1

      yep, my turkish friends in istanbul were of the same type, going to the mosque 5 times per day and then taking the dumb foreigner(me) to drink raki by the litre.

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
    49. Re:*NOT* interested by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      true say. This video I saw in business class today says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ

    50. Re:*NOT* interested by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Talking about the scale of populating space in terms of lifetimes is pretty useless. The New World took centuries to populate to a degree that had any meaning, and is still less densely populated than Europe or Asia. Does that make the hemisphere any less important? And please, you go from talking about the demise of humanity at less than 7 billion to postulating a future of 510 billion people? 5 trillion? On one planet? Talk about thinking two dimensionally.

      Millionfold? Really, you're not letting hyperbole run away from you at all? Looking at the past century the term 'threefold' would be most realistic. Christ. How many fingers am I holding up? One million? And you want to insult my thought process?

      Global warming. Pull the other one. Global temperature was higher two thousand years ago and higher than that again three and four thousand years ago. Of the last ten thousand years, the most recent thousand years has been the coldest. Beyond all that, it's glacial periods that are bad for life. Mass extinctions and the overall shrinking of plant and animal populations occur in glacial periods, not interglacial. Higher temperatures might be bad for some species, any environmental change is going to bad for something somewhere, but the net effect in the fossil record is positive. Oh well. (Oh and salinization from irrigation has been a problem since people started doing it in Neolithic Mesopotamia. Remember that hydroponics thing I mentioned? Solves that.)

      Stability is relative. And how does that old saying go (Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law), "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." All the advancements made in the course of human evolution were (of course) previously 'yet-to-be-discovered'. Implying that the process is going to suddenly stop is as stupid as Malthus' having completely ignored it.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    51. Re:*NOT* interested by trold · · Score: 1

      The combination is so common that Merriam-Webster included Cathloholic is a proper word.

    52. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember? They reproduce... they have more than one child per family... and they DON'T DRINK...

      And you might have remembered that they're allowed up to 4 wives.

      Doink.

    53. Re:*NOT* interested by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Funny

      The wife milked the man like a cow while he was sleeping, and then injected the sperm into her womb:

      WIFE: "Hey honey! I'm pregnant again!"

      HUSBAND: "What? How? What? We stopped having sex five years ago!"

      WIFE: "Uhhhh..... did you take out the trash? Take my car for inspection? Fix the roof? Mow the lawn?"

      HUSBAND: (runs away to his cave and wonders why he married this shrew)

      WIFE: "Whew. That was close."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    54. Re:*NOT* interested by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      ...and don't forget their best seller : Lobotomy in a box(tm)!

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    55. Re:*NOT* interested by Linzer · · Score: 1

      The New World took centuries to populate to a degree that had any meaning

      And just before that, it only took about one century to depopulate.

      --
      Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
    56. Re:*NOT* interested by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      DON'T BLAME ME. THE BOARD OUSTED ME. -- Death

      (Ignore this. Just here because the stupid slashdot filter doesn't get Discworld references)

    57. Re:*NOT* interested by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Once he has seen the time-consuming, noisy, loud and dirty results that started appearing 9 months after the "insertion", he'll never ever be even interested in inserting his penis anywhere.

      That's why we invented the vasectomy. It's true that they have a disturbing tendency to fix themselves, but if you go in for routine service every ten years or 100,000 strokes (hopefully the latter will come sooner, if you know what I mean, and I think you do) the risk is fairly low.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Married man has an interest in sex after the first child... therefore

      No, it goes "No married man has an interest in babies after the first child... therefore, he fucks your wife".

      although married men don't have sex and we've established that...

      Not having sex != not good at sex. In fact, if pent-up desire is any factor, the two might be inversely correlated.

    59. Re:*NOT* interested by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is an interesting way to win a Darwin.

      Jealous man wins Darwin Award for smashing Genitals with friend's Darwin Award.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    60. Re:*NOT* interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that be because they were all drugged up during the process?

    61. Re:*NOT* interested by fugue · · Score: 1

      Talking about the scale of populating space in terms of lifetimes is pretty useless. The New World took centuries to populate to a degree that had any meaning, and is still less densely populated than Europe or Asia.

      Populating the New World was not a means to reduce population burden on Europe. It was a means to escape from religious nutcases. I thought you had advocated moving off-planet in order to bypass an eternally growing population.

      And please, you go from talking about the demise of humanity at less than 7 billion to postulating a future of 510 billion people? 5 trillion? On one planet? Talk about thinking two dimensionally.

      Humanity is already running into population problems. We have been for a while. Don't you read the news? However, my argument stands--if our population doubles every 30 years, and we're now at 7 billion, how long before we reach 510 billion? 5 trillion? If your answer isn't "forever", then you must see that there's a wee little problem.

      Millionfold? Really, you're not letting hyperbole run away from you at all? Looking at the past century the term 'threefold' would be most realistic. Christ. How many fingers am I holding up? One million?

      Oops, my mistake with the math. But you are making a bigger mistake: if you expect that the population can keep growing indefinitely, then how many threefold--or millionfold--improvements are needed in order to keep us fed? How many are you counting on? We have already gone way beyond what we can sustain with current technology, as evidenced by the problems I mentioned earlier. And as the climate goes fubar, this will get much, much worse.

      And you want to insult my thought process?

      I'm only insulting your thought process because of the things that you wrote.

      [deranged rant about global warming]

      Read the fucking research, shitwit. Fox News is not science. Or are you the only climatologist in the world right now who doesn't think that this is going to be a serious problem for us? Could you please send along some of your publications? Or perhaps you're taking the reasonable view that humans can kill off most of the higher life on the planet, including themselves, and that life will go on elsewhere? That's fine, except that I kind of like some of those humans that you don't mind inconveniencing.

      Higher temperatures might be bad for some species, any environmental change is going to bad for something somewhere, but the net effect in the fossil record is positive.

      I still have to respond to this: "positive net effect on the fossil record" means--as you said--lots of evolutionary pressures happening on evolutionarily plausible timescales, or sudden vacancies in some niches. Is that a good thing? Go check up on the effect on the fossil record that humans are having.

      salinization from irrigation has been a problem since people started doing it in Neolithic Mesopotamia. Remember that hydroponics thing I mentioned? Solves that.

      Ah, good, glad we no longer have to worry about that, since hydroponics (with full pollutant reclamation systems) are already deployed everywhere. But I suppose a great climatologist like yourself would overlook the small logistical and financial problem of universal deployment on the scale we'd need. Or perhaps you are a hitherto unknown global supplier of fine hydroponic supplies, and you just happen to have a large amount of stock available to donate?

      Implying that the process is going to suddenly stop is as stupid as Malthus' having completely ignored it.

      (1) Malthus didn't completely ignore it, but it was irrelevant for his argument. While you address only food (one of Malthus's four), you ignore not only his other three but also the host of others that large-scale deployment of various "solutions" has caused. Check out J

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    62. Re:*NOT* interested by LiMikeTnux · · Score: 1

      Jeez dude, relax, it was a joke. Anything to bash the US i guess...

      --
      yap
  54. Not just the porn - it also interrupted the game by billstewart · · Score: 1

    If this had happened in, say, the middle of the third quarter when not much was happening, they'd still have gotten some complaints, but if you were watching the game for the football and not just the commercials, the timing would have been really annoying. It was one of those games where most of the action was in the last three minutes of each half.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  55. We shouuld have expected... by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

    Another "wardrobe malfunction."

  56. Also, it's just Tucson, not nationwide by billstewart · · Score: 1

    The rules are a lot less strict for cable than for broadcast TV, though the FCC and some Congresscritters keep wanting to use regulation of broadcast TV as an excuse to regulate cable.

    But even if they were regulated, they'd get a lot less heat for it because it was not only obviously not the company's intended broadcast, it was also only in one limited market as opposed to the whole country.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  57. offensive? by v1 · · Score: 1

    Are those three points OR, or AND? I assume AND.

    also, 3) exist only to be offensive I don't think the wardrobe malfunction incident would have met this criteria? Didn't they get fined?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:offensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you may have wanted to reply to this: http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1114525&cid=26716447

      If you read the quoted FCC text in my original reply, it requires all three of those criteria to be met....my numbered list is my own layman's terms, but the actual wording is in the quoted text. Janet's boob "...must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." In other words, breast feeding during a show about maternity has scientific value since it's educating you.....Janet's boob during a wardrobe malfunction doesn't, nor was it artistic, nor was a "malfunction" political. I think a good example is when they aired Schindler's List unedited on broadcast television and they showed brief male nudity....that could be artistic, scientific and/or political since it's a fact-based documentary and there was certainly no sexual basis for it.

    2. Re:offensive? by The+Moof · · Score: 1
      Initially, yea, they got fined. However, from your link:

      Since November 2004, CBS has challenged its fine for the halftime show on the grounds that the broadcast was unintentional and thus exempt from indecency regulation.[11] In July 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit voided the FCC's fine.[12]

      So, no, in the end, there was no fine directly to CBS for it. However, it did open a door for massive fines and regulations throughout the industry...

  58. Lube? Only if someone cut a bit of you off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    to get my lotion from the cabinet. I am mortified.

    Who the heck needs lotion to do that?!

    Actually- don't answer, I just figured that one out. While growing up (pre-widespread Internet), it wasn't something I'd been aware of- and having tried it with lubrication once or twice, I found it didn't add anything and certainly wasn't necessary.

    Yet- even via jokey comments like this- it seemed like a lot of guys online connected the two in a way that suggested it was an everyday thing and culturally normal.

    Then it clicked- if I'd had my foreskin cut off at birth, the... uh, mechanics of masturbation would be significantly less comfortable without some form of lubricant. And unlike the society I grew up in, Internet forums are dominated by Americans.

    The answer- I'm guessing that the majority of men who feel the need to use lubricant are circumcised or at least grew up in a culture where that was the norm.

    Sorry if I icked anyone out with that one, but it was one of those "of course!" moments of enlightenment I felt that I had to share :/

    1. Re:Lube? Only if someone cut a bit of you off! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I don't have foreskin, and I don't work well with lube. Actually it makes it hard to cum during sex... I wind up drilling for a really long time.

  59. edge of their seats... by howman · · Score: 4, Funny

    was that during the game or the penis flash?

    --
    flinging poop since 1969
  60. People noticed? by Lennort · · Score: 4, Funny

    With Madden talking about penetration and strong man hands the whole time I'm surprised anybody even noticed.

  61. comcastsuperbowlporn.com traffic by jabberwock · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I emailed the guy who grabbed the domain and posted the video. Traffic: 178,000-plus the first day.

    http://www.intotemptation.net/2009/02/03/super-bowl-porn-postmortem/

    Unfortunately for him ... he had no plan to monetize the traffic at all.

    How fast do you think traffic will drop off? My guess is ... down 80 percent in 30 days ...

    1. Re:comcastsuperbowlporn.com traffic by daveime · · Score: 1

      QUICKTIME ??? NOOOOOOOOOOOO, I'm not THAT desparate to see SuperBowl Porn

  62. Apparently by microbee · · Score: 1

    Comcast wanted to present another kind of superbowl. This time you only got to see the outside, but there were multiple of them.

  63. $10? by linuxosinside · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would have claimed developing a porn addiction and demanded free porn for the rest of the year.

  64. Thanks Madden by Main+Gauche · · Score: 5, Funny

    Most amusing was, after they cut back to the SuperBowl, you hear Madden saying "He went to the perfect guy, in the perfect situation."

  65. When I was 17. . . by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I was 17 my father said the following: "the reason God made kids so cute is so people would have more than one of them before they turned into teenagers."

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:When I was 17. . . by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 4, Funny

      You were pretty lucky. My parents said they were made cute so that they wouldn't be tempted to kill them.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    2. Re:When I was 17. . . by halfhaggis · · Score: 1

      The temptation is still there, despite the cuteness. It's the actual killing that the cuteness cuts down on.

      --
      "Write down your worries and then depress your companions by reading them out loud." - Eeyore's Little Book of Gloom
    3. Re:When I was 17. . . by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I thought it was House who said that. Like... last week.

  66. Bird porn. by hack++slash · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't get it, what's so bad about some superb owl porn?

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    1. Re:Bird porn. by zienth · · Score: 1

      I didn't see it, was it Wierd Owl Yankovic?

    2. Re:Bird porn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure got a hoot out of it.

      (I'm so sorry)

    3. Re:Bird porn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because we're owl exterminators.

    4. Re:Bird porn. by syousef · · Score: 1

      I don't get it, what's so bad about some superb owl porn?

      1. It makes the mediocre owls feel inadequate

      2. There may be hatchlings watching.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:Bird porn. by Sawopox · · Score: 1

      It's the disturbing owl porn fetish of basically reverse-bukkake at the end of the hunt.

      --
      [http://it-tastes-so-good.blogspot.com] Are you hungry?
  67. Wouldn't work at all ... Major turnoff .. by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    ... By the time the Viagra is working you'll be watching superbowl again ... what a turnoff..

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:Wouldn't work at all ... Major turnoff .. by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      ... By the time the Viagra is working you'll be watching superbowl again ... what a turnoff..

      A major part of the male US population sitting there watching a bunch of guys in tight pants...while sporting a massive boner. That's not a turnoff, that's comedy gold...as well as a goldmine for the shrink community :P

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  68. Why pay 10 bucks for that when free? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 3, Funny

    While you can have it for free at Comcast?

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:Why pay 10 bucks for that when free? by halfhaggis · · Score: 1

      Comcast are actually paying you $10 to watch 30 seconds of porn. That's $300 an hour.

      --
      "Write down your worries and then depress your companions by reading them out loud." - Eeyore's Little Book of Gloom
    2. Re:Why pay 10 bucks for that when free? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Fail math is fail. ;)

      $10/30s = $20/min
      $20/min * 60min/hr= $1200/hr

  69. Hrm, you know what... by e-scetic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This got me thinking about Broadcast Signal Intrusion", culture jamming, radio/television piracy, etc. Is the recent/upcoming conversion to digital signals from analog a way to circumvent or foil "terrorists" who might want to broadcast "alternative" messages? Would it make this a thing of the past?

    1. Re:Hrm, you know what... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      It takes out one category of attacks certainly. On the other hand all this digital equipment which is almost certainly networked probablly introduces some new attack methods.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  70. That's just great .. by Akita24 · · Score: 2, Funny

    .. when are they going to apologize for the 30 seconds of Super Bowl that interrupted my pr0n?

  71. Re:The Spice? Cue the lewd lines... by techess · · Score: 1

    When I first heard about the incident I was shocked it didn't happen to Cox Cable.

    --
    Don't anthropomorphize computers. They *hate* that.
  72. I'm a victem! by xushi · · Score: 1

    "is issuing a $10 credit to any customer who claims to have been impacted."

    I was impacted! i saw it after downloading it on one of them torrent sites... my $10 please..!

  73. It's Comcastdick! by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1

    Talk about a Triple Play. Knew someone would catch them package shaping one of these days.

    --
    "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
  74. What happens in vagas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and nobody will ever know because what happens in the head end stays in the head end.

  75. Re:It's a broadcast. It may invoke revenue clauses by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    They may have a defense, but having a defense does not automatically limit your liability.
    The gun analogy is not so bad, because in many places you can indeed be held liable for negligently allowing a crime to be committed with your firearm.

    >I don't think comcast lawyers are losing any sleep.

    You've seen the clip? You understand the political and social stripe that is predominate out in Pima County where Comcast is the provider (as opposed to the extremely liberal city of Tucson proper?) I'm sure they are being confronted on all sides. I would almost put money on Comcast being stripped of their contract and replaced by Cox.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  76. Comcast? by GNUThomson · · Score: 1

    Comcast, is that you again?

  77. Simple answers to simple questions... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? I sat in a bar and watched Superbowl. I didn't see anything that I'd consider particularly raunchy or inappropriate, and I didn't hear any complaints from the people around me either. Are Americans really this prudish when it comes to TV advertising?

    Yes.

    1. Re:Simple answers to simple questions... by Animaether · · Score: 1

      In particular, the GoDaddy ads?

      There's two that I could find (on spike dot com), maybe there's some I'm missing?

      1. Danica Patrick (and yes, she's definitely hot) getting into the shower of which you see, at most, her from the shoulders up in what appears to be a shower. The suggestion being made is that a buy behind a computer is making her do this.

      2. Danica Patrick at a 'trial' exclaiming "yes, I've been enhanced" while a shot of her in full gear is shown with - granted - her chest area the focus of the camera's view.. then going on to show a godaddy website somethingorother. ... and one of these has the commenters up above - with families or not - throwing hissy fits?

      Surely every other shampoo or body wash ad would raise more concern, then.

    2. Re:Simple answers to simple questions... by Atario · · Score: 1

      Are Americans really this prudish when it comes to TV advertising?

      Yes.

      For certain values of "Americans". Not all of us are screwed up beyond reason.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    3. Re:Simple answers to simple questions... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Are Americans really this prudish when it comes to TV advertising?

      Yes.

      For certain values of "Americans". Not all of us are screwed up beyond reason.

      Ok, well, if the simple answer won't work...

      Replace "Yes." above with the following:

      No. However, the current prevalent culture in the United States emphasizes shame with regard to sexuality -- that is to say, sex is not something we talk about openly. It is considered uncouth at best to admit enjoying sexually charged materials, despite them being used to sell everything from soap to motor vehicles to French fries.

      Us Americans as a whole are a very horny people -- being more sexually liberated than most other countries -- but pointing that out is a very uncomfortable thing to most people, as the 10% or so that object to this fact have brow-beat a certain level of shame into the rest of us.

      More importantly current American culture is extremely vulnerable to "concern trolls" -- people who feign concern for an issue in order to promote an agenda. You will note, for example, that 99% of the comments about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" were laughing at the situation, the outrage was limited mostly to the far right. And that outrage was universally that Janet Jackson dared to show her breast on stage -- not that the young man was pantomiming sexual assault.

      So what was the agenda? Keeping up the shame (see previous paragraph), as above, by sanitizing the airwaves. If this had gone unchallenged, imitations would have occurred, and we might have had an open discussion about why an inch of skin of a woman's chest is so scandalous. We might have even got over ourselves a tiny, tiny little bit.

      Similar issues have occurred in our speech -- note how cursing is becoming infinitely easier to get away with on the air after "South Park?" The last thing the far right wants is something similar happening to breasts in the US -- this is because sexuality is such a useful wedge issue (mainly because no one wants to be "that guy" who argues in favor of sexuality) the far right does not want to give it up at any costs.

      Something similar had already begun in recent years, which is why they pounced on this as an opportunity to rewind the tide -- remember when seeing a bare butt on NYPD Blue was considered shocking? Or when underwear in "Night Trap" was huge? Hell, in New York City it's perfectly legal for a woman to walk around without a shirt on in public, the "Evil commie hippy liberuls" have worked their evil so well that someone in NYC decided women should have the same freedom that men do to take their shirts off when it's uncomfortably hot. Last I heard, society has survived unscathed.

      It's what I call the "Principle of Maximum Freedom" at work -- A free people, over time, become more free (and, I would point out, more liberal) unless outside forces cause a reversion.

      The combination of the two -- a group of people who are unwilling to say that "sex sells", or rather "sexy ads work for me" or even "wow, you know, I really like blondes"; and a second group of people who are too willing to defame sexual content -- or even art they think is "too naughty", debase women as little more than uppity brood mares, or outright abuse people of alternate sexualities to promote an agenda leads to an interesting situation, where 90%+ people simply do not care about a sexy ad or two or a half second of nipple on TV, but the remaining 5-10% who object object so loudly that it creates an echo chamber of sorts -- with people who do not care that much being afraid to appear as "perverts" and thus go along with the crowd.

      In short, but admittedly not as short as "Yes.", we Americans are horny, horny sheep, and the shepherds are drunk closeted perverts with an axe to grind.

  78. Re:It's a broadcast. It may invoke revenue clauses by The+Moof · · Score: 1

    Comcast may be on a very real hook for broadcasting copyrighted material without license, and could conceivably be exposed to distribution royalties for a much larger audience than the one that is supposed to be limited to a specific, accountable pay-per-view arrangement.

    Opposed to, say, subjecting viewers (including minors) to pornographic content over an FCC regulated channel? Because, you know, kids and families never watch sporting events, let alone the Super Bowl.

    But you're probably right, they're completely worrying about copyright damage control as a top priority with this.

  79. WoW! by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 2, Funny

    You get $10 to watch 30 seconds of pr0n! I'm quitting my job and moving to Tucson.

  80. Re:It's a broadcast. It may invoke revenue clauses by iYk6 · · Score: 1

    I would almost put money on Comcast being stripped of their contract and replaced by Cox.

    Oh! The irony!

  81. A view from Europe by Don_dumb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would be massively more exciting if they didn't keep throwing adverts and extended half time breaks in. It's a great way to lose the tension and the moment - several minutes of drinks adverts.

    PS - if you need Cheerleaders, you don't have an atmosphere.

    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
    1. Re:A view from Europe by timeOday · · Score: 1

      NFL games are much, MUCH better with a PVR. Mainly due to ads, but also timeouts and other delays. If I start watching an hour after the game starts, I catch up near the end and watch it live. (It's good to catch up in case the game goes into overtime which is not recorded because it's unscheduled). That said, I didn't catch up quite as quickly during the superbowl since I watched halftime and some of the ads (by choice).

    2. Re:A view from Europe by Hucko · · Score: 1

      There is no atmosphere until there are cheerleaders... do you seriously think I watch sport to watch blokes running around? sheesh.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    3. Re:A view from Europe by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Thank you, thank you.
      So I'm not he only one who does this.
      30-second-skip button also covers the play clock.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  82. so my question is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was this a hack?

  83. Where Do I claim my $10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This incident deeply upset me, I missed it.

  84. Personally... by jd · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't mind the nationalization of American TV. Anything with ads is stuff you're paying for (whether you watch it or not), because the ads don't pay for themselves. Anything without conspicuous ads is likely paid for by sponsorship (which you end up paying for), the cost of the channel merely goes towards the channel boss' yacht fleet. So you end up paying for thousands of channels of drivel, even if you don't even own a TV.

    So what's the difference between that and a nationalized channel?

    Well, those countries with national TV stations (such as the BBC) generally produce better shows with higher intellectual content, have mentally and physically healthier populations (fewer couch potatoes) and a higher concentration span.

    Paying one thousandth as much for some content worth watching seems a damn good exchange to me. Ok, I'm elitist, I make a rotten capitalist and I prefer the UK version of Max Headroom: 20 Minutes Into The Future, but I reject utterly the idea that corporate America television is capable of producing a quality program worthy of my time.

    Even in game shows, I'll take The Krypton Factor, Treasure Hunt, The Crystal Maze (O'Brien era) and The Adventure Game over Family Feuds, The Price Is Right, American Gladiators and Hollywood Squares.

    Having thousands of times the options, where each option is one thousandth as good, is a net loss, not a net gain. Choice for choice's sake, means nothing if your choices are all bull.

    One of the great things about Max Headroom and Year of the Sex Olympics was that they predicted - quite correctly - the results of excessive corporate media. One of the amusing things about American TV audiences is that they followed the scripts better than the actors did.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Personally... by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Have you SEEN the sense of humor that the assholes running the USA have? I'd take Fox's newest reality shows over that any day.

    2. Re:Personally... by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, this should be put in a historical context, naturally, as Professor Lewis explains.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  85. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Cable company pays you for porn.

  86. But did he score or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was it a fumble and an incomplete pass?

  87. Not the First Time by cloffin · · Score: 1

    This is not the first time they accidentally aired porn on a regular channel in Tucson. I seriously doubt it was a malicious act like they claim. Their screwing up on the superbowl made it the huge story.

  88. I'm completely offended, but in lieue of $10. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    Comcast can just give me a free month of Playboy channel. . .

  89. Comcast distrust their email too by aitikin · · Score: 1

    I think it's priceless that Comcast set up their email address for feedback on this topic through gmail. Freaking great that they can't trust their own equipment enough, they have to go to Google. Makes me very glad that I've never treated my Comcast email as a personal or proper email address, only used to sign up for possible spam things and newsletters.

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  90. Last penis by Ostracus · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Who here that has a penis ISN'T interested in inserting it everywhere?"

    But does it blend? Oh wait!

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  91. Is there a disease? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Exposure to sex isn't harmful to children. I have no idea why some people think it is."

    AIDS.

    1. Re:Is there a disease? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      "Exposure to sex isn't harmful to children. I have no idea why some people think it is."

      AIDS.

      Holy shit! First you can get aids from just KISSING a girl[0], now just from LOOKING at pictures?

      We're fucked.

      [0]Yes, my middle school tried to convince us of that. Thank the gods my parents were actually nurses with clue.

  92. HA IMBECILES! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    In France, to see porn, customers pay YOU!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  93. Will no-one think of the children? by Kittenman · · Score: 1
    Just thought it needed to be said.

    BTW wasn't it just a few years ago when everyone in the States got upset about a "wardrobe malfunction" with a certain Ms Jackson's costume?

    Have the democrats loosened morals that much, that fast?

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  94. Finally! A Reason to Switch to Comcast! by Udigs · · Score: 1

    They must know my demographic!

  95. Happens all the time by Ice+Station+Zebra · · Score: 1

    I was sitting in a hotel suite, waiting from some friends to get ready and go to dinner on Saturday evening. One of the guys was surfing the cable channels and I mentioned that, "You never know when the free porn will be on." Not 5 minutes later he hit a channel and suddenly, porn. 5 minutes later it was gone.

    Somebody hit the wrong switch...

  96. What about the other 30 minutes of porn? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    That being Larry Fitzgerald raping the Steelers d-backs in the second half. And I say that as a literally card-carrying Steelers fan.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  97. Preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will teach them to watch porn in the preview monitor.

  98. I'm also affected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I don't subscribe to Comcast but my pirated version had the blip, gimme my ten bucks!

  99. Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you really worked for a CATV operator you would know exactly what happened. The engineer(s) were watching porn on one of the monitors, like they do CONSTANTLY, and when it came time to transfer to the feed of whatever local POS commercial they were supposed to air in that slot they switched to the porn. It wasn't malicious, it was just carelessness.

    I don't understand why this is such a mystery. Everyone in the place, and everyone who has ever pulled a graveyard shift in the control room knows what happened. And how did I manage to get this far in the thread without someone else posting this? Are there so few ./ readers of my vintage left? Or did they just go to bed early after a long day of yelling at kids to get off the lawn...

  100. I don't remember any of this happening by dukeofurl01 · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I watched the Superbowl, I have Comcast, I don't remember any of this happening.

  101. thank you, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know what I'm buying with my $10....prOn!

  102. Drugs ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Because you just can't blame everything at alcohol ...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  103. YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steelers Victory + $10 + Free Porn = BEST SUPERBOWL EVER!

  104. porn for free and want more?!? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Comcast's viral ad has reaped seeds! oh it wasn't an ad ?

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  105. Re: by Slayer · · Score: 1

    Only those with 4 digit IDs :)

  106. Who did it.? The solution is obvious. by Teddy+Beartuzzi · · Score: 1
  107. Injecting signals into cable TV by Skapare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although the tap to each home attenuates the signal quite a bit, it is possible for people to inject signals into the cable system. It won't go beyond the first amplifier unless its frequency is in the uplink band and that signal won't be redistributed. But it does mean people can distribute weak signals around their neighborhood. On frequencies the cable company isn't using, it won't take a lot of signal to communicate with your neighbors. For example you could run your own neighborhood LAN over the cable wires.

    It would take a LOT of signal power to take over an existing signal. You'd have to boost it as much as the attenuator tap reduces it, plus the additional amount to take over the signal on that channel. But it would be possible. So what I'm curious about is just how widespread this porn was seen in Tuscon.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  108. It's true .. you don't see that every day ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    It's not every day you see a cock flying on television ;))

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  109. How's the employment rate overthere ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Because I see no further steps needed for profit ;)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  110. $10 /REFUND/? by garry_g · · Score: 1

    Would have expected a $10 bill for Pay-per-view Pr0n ...

  111. Real Victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the porn company is getting screwed here (pun intended). Their copyrighted work was broadcast to thousands of televisions. Using RIAA logic that is equivalent to every television buying the porn. I think Comcast owes the porn company roughly $24.99 for every TV watching the Super Bowl in Tucson.

  112. Re: by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

    I have about 4 and third digits in my UID, so I'm close. I've been married for 16 years and have four kids.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  113. A Superbowl broadcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with Blackjack! And Hookers!!

    Ah! Forget the Blackjack!