Slashdot Mirror


Sky Deutschland Considering Using Bone Conduction To Force Ads On Train Riders

KindMind writes "Sky Deutschland is considering a proposal to use bone conduction to broadcast ads to train riders. The idea is that the riders rest their heads against a part of the train, like the train window, and then bone conduction would broadcast ads directly into their ears."

205 comments

  1. lolwut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats about as cool as a train company called "sky..."

    i guess Lufthansa was already taken.

    1. Re:lolwut by Jetra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seems that the world is turning into Futurama. Where are our hypnotoads and drunken robots burping fire?

    2. Re:lolwut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sky is a pay-TV company, not a train company...

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

      Where are they? My place, around midnight tomorrow night. Know the secret handshake or don't bother showing up.

    4. Re:lolwut by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Sky is a pay-TV company, not a train company..."

      It will never happen anyway. The German Railway Company is even unable to keep the air conditioning working in summer nor the heating in winter, much less such a sophisticated advertisement method.
      It's a running joke that ain't funny anymore, because it happens every fucking year.

    5. Re:lolwut by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      McDonalds, man: I've got your Slurm right here! Hell, for an even more eery and nautious resemblence to the word, there was that time back in '93 (I believe it was) that one of the employees of the busiest Taco Bell in Santa Fe got caught jacking-off into the pinto beans (that, by the way, is how you know they made their beans from scratch and not just from a powdered mix, as many had assumed).

    6. Re:lolwut by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!

    7. Re:lolwut by Kam+Solusar · · Score: 2

      It will never happen anyway. The German Railway Company is even unable to keep the air conditioning working in summer nor the heating in winter, much less such a sophisticated advertisement method. It's a running joke that ain't funny anymore, because it happens every fucking year.

      Though to be fair, they do occasionally manage to have the heating running on full power in the summer and the air conditioning in the middle of winter...

      --
      The Angels have the Phone Box
    8. Re:lolwut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...they did so well for the first half of the last century getting millions of people to their final destination.

      Maybe English isn't your native language, but that makes it sound like *those* trains were running for 50 years, which is a bit of an exaggeration. Perhaps you meant to say "in the first half of the last century"?

    9. Re:lolwut by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      Part of me is pleased by the fact that German trains can be as shit as UK ones. DB (technically DB Netze, I guess) seems to be better at maintaining infrastructure than Network Rail, at least.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

  2. Nein, bitte. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    n/t

    1. Re:Nein, bitte. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, please?

    2. Re:Nein, bitte. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, thank you.

    3. Re:Nein, bitte. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      danke = thank you
      bitte = please

    4. Re: Nein, bitte. by ackthpt · · Score: 0

      I'm feelin' dank.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Nein, bitte. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      To say "No, Thank You" in Germany, you say "Nein, Bitte". Yes, bitte is please, but that is not how it works in German. Another common saying in German is "Wie Bitte?" which literally means "How Please?" It is used for "What did you say?" or "What was that again?"

    6. Re:Nein, bitte. by Golden_Rider · · Score: 1

      To say "No, Thank You" in Germany, you say "Nein, Bitte". Yes, bitte is please, but that is not how it works in German. Another common saying in German is "Wie Bitte?" which literally means "How Please?" It is used for "What did you say?" or "What was that again?"

      Actually "no, thank you" in German is "Nein, danke". Nobody say "Nein bitte" around here.

    7. Re:Nein, bitte. by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      Regional usage, perhaps? Although foreign language teaching outside of Germany being hugely out of step with modern usage wouldn't surprise me.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    8. Re:Nein, bitte. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, there is a way to say "Nein. Bitte." with the meaning of "No. This is utterly ridiculous." but it involves a quite specific use of timing and inflection. Not something easily taught to foreigners. While you can do the same in English with "No. Please.", it's not done in quite the same way and also is harder to pull off really well.

    9. Re:Nein, bitte. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To say "No, Thank You" in Germany, you say "Nein, Bitte". Yes, bitte is please, but that is not how it works in German. Another common saying in German is "Wie Bitte?" which literally means "How Please?" It is used for "What did you say?" or "What was that again?"

      Actually "no, thank you" in German is "Nein, danke". Nobody say "Nein bitte" around here.

      Unless they are about to get killed. The OP probably watched too many Nazi movies.

    10. Re:Nein, bitte. by rioki · · Score: 1

      Regional? Hm... Well I would say that it would be considered wrong to say "Nein, bitte." from the Alps to the North See and from the Rhein to the Oder... I would not know of what region you are talking about.

  3. Using bone conduction, what a coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was thinking of using bone fragmentation to help my local railway planners understand how I feel about their ossified asininity.

    1. Re:Using bone conduction, what a coincidence by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Looks like we're all done here.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  4. ...and in others news... by raydobbs · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the incident of violent vandalism aboard trams and trains rose exponentially after the introduction of technology that, to paraphrase a gibbering offender led away in a straight jacket, '...puts goddamn voices in your head..." Advertisers are calling it a new age in advertising and psychotropic drug manufacturers report a boom in sales. More at 11...

  5. We need a new right... by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need a new right - the right NOT to be advertised to.

    I'm sick of being a product.. I mean, ok the old model of Television and Radio where you the viewer gets something of value (the programming/entertainment) without directly paying for it, then it's a reasonable tradeoff that it's paid for by advertising

    However, when you're paying for a train fare, you've paid for the transit... it's not like you're given the option of "pay full price to not be subjected to adversising, or get a discount for being advertised to"

    I know I'm unrealistic, but damnit I'm sick of being monetized against my will.

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
    1. Re:We need a new right... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean the television that you have to pay a monthly fee to watch? THAT television?

    2. Re:We need a new right... by calzones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like this idea.

      Advertising is becoming increasingly intrusive in our day-to-day activities. Billboards are bad enough, then it became the sides of busses and tops of taxis, and then gigantic LED displays that blind you at night. Now it's while you're sitting in the theater, broadcast in public areas, it's at the gas pump and the urinal stall, they come up when you press pause on a blu-ray... enough.

      Specifically, advertising needs to be prohibited from all situations where a person has paid for access or entrance to something. More ideally, it would also be prohibited from any context where the person hasn't explicitly agreed to be subjected to ads in exchange to some product or service.

      --
      Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
    3. Re:We need a new right... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'd be shocked to see anything useful at a legal level; but I'd encourage everyone to do their part by heaping scorn and vitriol upon the people who help make advertising possible.

      There are real people(and a lot of them) who work on churning out ads, 'concepts' like this, various social media flimflam, etc, etc. If admitting that you were one of them were treated more like admitting that you have a thing for puppy sodomy, it might help, and it would, at least, decrease their quality of life and increase their turnover rate.

    4. Re:We need a new right... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      I'm sure trains would be exempt; they are government owned and operated anyway, and the government can do anything it likes.

    5. Re:We need a new right... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm radically anti-advertising, I firmly believe that advertising is actually economically damaging to society, since it represents a deviation from what a person would believe their own best interests were without the advertising present. The degree to which mentally unhealthy con-games and brainwashing are used also potentially represents a mass damage to the human psyche.

      I understand that free-speech is valuable and not to be trod on lightly, but if you're paying for it, it's not really free speech anyways. I'd like to see what a paid-ad free post industrial society is like.

    6. Re:We need a new right... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Specifically, advertising needs to be prohibited from all situations...

      Let's complete the job and prohibit all speech. I mean, what the hell, right? It's all just a bunch of noise. I demand silence!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:We need a new right... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2

      No, the over the air rabbit ears HDTV that I don't have to pay monthly for. That is free to me, and the cost is advertising.

      At this point, the consumer sees cable or satellite TV service as something you pay for - not to defray advertising costs, but to have a range of 200+ channels to choose from. You pay the man in the middle for convenience. People are not buying ad-free TV service because it does not exist outside of specific premium channels, where that's exactly what you buy - on top of the service.

      GP point still stands - if you buy a service unrelated to media, you should have a right to not suffer advertising that, unless you remove your skeleton, you cannot avoid.

      And you object on the triviality that cable companies found out how to milk both ends of the cow? Shame on you. Premium ad-free TV exists, it's just not what you assumed it was.

    8. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not your train. It's not your transportation. It's not your land.

      Slave, you are way out of line. Step back into the line NOW!

    9. Re: We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree. The huge amount of ads everywhere nowadays strike me as an example of a stupid zero-sum game with my attention. I understand that a certain amount of ads might actually genuinely help people become aware of certain products, but then oneself could also seek for the desired product without someone blasting into your ear that 'it exists and you need it'. I guess that when new ways of advertising stop to be invented, the whole idea of consumerism will crash, and with it, the economy.

    10. Re:We need a new right... by calzones · · Score: 1

      If I have to pay you to say something, it's not free speech.

      If someone wants to stand on a street corner and not get paid to tell everyone they should go out and buy the latest and greatest gizmo, well that's their right. But if someone is paying them to do it, that's a whole different story.

      --
      Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
    11. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the future of free news on the internet will be advertisements and pr pronouncements. All the useful news will be put behind paywalls and most people wont notice until the process is nearly complete. Already it appears that yahoo's science articles are provided by some kind of pr media spin content creation company.

    12. Re:We need a new right... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      We need a new right - the right NOT to be advertised to.

      Yea! Nuts to free speech! I want a right NOT to hear what others have to say, and an implicit right to gag any speech that bothers me!

      Any thoughts as to why a "right not to be advertised to" might have one or two bothersome side-effects?

    13. Re:We need a new right... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Over the air HDTV... lucky SOB. I don't even have over the air TV, period.

    14. Re:We need a new right... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Specifically, advertising needs to be prohibited from all situations where a person has paid for access or entrance to something. More ideally, it would also be prohibited from any context where the person hasn't explicitly agreed to be subjected to ads in exchange to some product or service.

      What would that ball game cost if all advertising was eliminated from inside the stadium? Could the fans afford it?
      Could the team afford to fly to their next game, or would they all be taking the train?

      Most likely these things drive the inflated contracts we pay athletes these days.

      Is a train, or an airplane or even a bus is a different proposition?

      Major airlines don't seem to advertise anything, except themselves.
      Every city bus I've ever been in has advertising. (Some of it left over from the Pleistocene.)
      New York Subways have always had advertising in the trains. Seattle light rail, none. (Although the cars are configured for advertising, it appears not to be in use yet).

      You can close your eyes, or read your book, listen to your music and shut out all the ads, but bone conduction seems a little over the top.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    15. Re:We need a new right... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      At this point, the consumer sees cable or satellite TV service as something you pay for

      In Germany, you don't pay for satellite (you do for cable, though).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    16. Re:We need a new right... by Wookact · · Score: 1

      YES! This. If I want to force people to listen to me via bone conduction then that is my right of free speech! Just like purchasing.. ohh I mean lobbying politicians is FREE SPEECH.

      Oh but protesting is not free speech, cant we get rid of those protesters, or relegate them to a corner somewhere?

      I am actually tired of the free speech argument, in todays world it is only free speech if you have the money to pay for it. Perhaps if they expanded the definition to include all people we might be able to talk.

    17. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would that ball game cost if all advertising was eliminated from inside the stadium? Could the fans afford it?
      Could the team afford to fly to their next game, or would they all be taking the train?

      Who gives a flying fuck? What would that ball game cost if all the players were paid something closer to an average wage?

      (Heh. Captcha: apathy)

    18. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the players weren't so fucking overpaid to play games, then advertising wouldn't be necessary at all. Of course, it would still exist as it is profitable to the stadium owner.

    19. Re:We need a new right... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Who (besides soccer moms) would watch (even for free) a team fat fat out of shape largely incompetent pretty much clueless players? In any sport? In any country?

      Even as comedy, that fails.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    20. Re:We need a new right... by chihowa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not just economically damaging, it damages our trust in the intrinsic human properties that hold our society together. Advertising increasingly co-opts the signals that humans use to indicate familiarity and trustworthiness and uses them to deceive people for profit.

      A smile from someone you don't know now puts you on your guard. I almost threw out a handwritten letter the other day because so much junk mail uses fake "handwritten" fonts to try to trick people into opening them. There are countless examples of this and our society suffers as a result of this trusted interpersonal interaction breakdown.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    21. Re:We need a new right... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Go watch the second episode of the BBC series "Black Mirror".

      That is our future.

    22. Re:We need a new right... by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      same here, but, hilariously, the local box store (Alco) stocks(and sells) the new digital over the air rabbit ears. I really wonder just how pissed people get when they buy the antenna, hook it up, and NOTHING HAPPENS.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    23. Re:We need a new right... by Flammon · · Score: 4, Informative

      We can't really let this thread go on without mentioning São Paulo. Looks like the experiment is going well too.

      Five years later, São Paulo continues to exist without advertisements. But instead of causing economic ruin and deteriorating aesthetics, 70 percent of city residents find the ban beneficial, according to a 2011 survey. Unexpectedly, the removal of logos and slogans exposed previously overlooked architecture, revealing a rich urban beauty that had been long hidden.

      http://www.newdream.org/resources/sao-paolo-ad-ban

    24. Re:We need a new right... by jythie · · Score: 1

      Or at minimal it would be really nice if there were some restrictions on advertising to captive audiences. TVs in the gas pumps are difficult to avoid but possible... but TVs on trains are getting really difficult to ignore.

      Heh, here is where we might be able to pull in one of the disability acts or something. Neurotypicals just get frustrated, but people with odder wiring can really suffer from such systems.

    25. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry to intrude on this discussion with a bit of reality, but there's one thing that Sky Deutschland doesn't have: trains. It's a media company, not a train company. It can patent all the technology it wants, it can consider using those patents all it wants, but until it has some trains to install it in, this is all just some random idea with no basis in reality. British tabloid reporting at its finest.

    26. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enforcement?

    27. Re:We need a new right... by RDW · · Score: 1

      I'm sick of being a product.. I mean, ok the old model of Television and Radio where you the viewer gets something of value (the programming/entertainment) without directly paying for it, then it's a reasonable tradeoff that it's paid for by advertising

      How about the new model, where an ad agency comes up with a viral marketing campaign featuring a ludicrous idea about adverts supposedly conducted through train windows (but is really a meta-advert for their client's TV app) which is then picked up by a national newspaper and further distributed by the uncritical editors of a popular technology blog..?

    28. Re:We need a new right... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and in this case the advertising definitely came first. Players didn't start demanding more money until advertisers started getting involved; it's not like the horrible ol' player's union went to the owners and forced them to make an alliance with Gatorade and Nike to be able to meet the players' demands. The reason the players are overpaid is because advertising pays so damn much, and the players take take their cut of that revenue. Or would you prefer it all went to the owners?

      Do you also begrudge A-list actors making $20 million per film? Shit, movies are increasingly becoming nothing but a 90 minute product placement. (Thanks Apple and GM)

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    29. Re:We need a new right... by bonehead · · Score: 1

      If you do it, you're fair game for anyone to punch in the face.

    30. Re:We need a new right... by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      I know right- without a multi-million dollar salary who would bother to stay in shape or enjoy sports?

    31. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I have to pay you to say something, it's not free speech.

      Context- pay attention. This discussion is about freedom of speech, as in "unfettered", not "without cost".

    32. Re:We need a new right... by bonehead · · Score: 1

      If the players weren't so fucking overpaid to play games, then advertising wouldn't be necessary at all. Of course, it would still exist as it is profitable to the stadium owner.

      As you mentioned, advertising would still exist because it is profitable.

      And the salaries are what they are because they can demand that much, and the business brings in enough revenue that it makes financial sense for the owners to pay it.

    33. Re:We need a new right... by pla · · Score: 1

      Let's complete the job and prohibit all speech. I mean, what the hell, right? It's all just a bunch of noise. I demand silence!

      No, no, not all speech - Just corporate speech. Big difference there.

      I'll accept that corporations have HUMAN rights when they can reflect on the death of their "children" in a Bhopal-like disaster, while rotting away inside a cage for "life". Until then, yes, I do demand silence from them.

    34. Re:We need a new right... by spasm · · Score: 1

      "Specifically, advertising needs to be prohibited from all situations where a person has paid for access or entrance to something."

      The poor have rights too.

    35. Re:We need a new right... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      And even worse, every penny put into advertising is a penny that product costs more.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    36. Re:We need a new right... by calzones · · Score: 1

      dumbass troll - pay attention

      The right to free speech is about the right to not be silenced no matter what you feel like you want to say. Your incentive to speak must be from within however. If you are being paid to say something, then that is not YOUR speech anymore, that is someone or something else's message and you have been bought to relay their message. THAT is what should be regulated and it would have no impact at all on people's freedom to speak their minds.

      --
      Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
    37. Re:We need a new right... by camperdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Free speech is about being allowed to speak out against the government. It has nothing to do with advertising whatsoever.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    38. Re:We need a new right... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      And even worse, every penny put into advertising is a penny that product costs more.

      Not true. If they advertise more, they sell more. In order to sell more, they need to make more. In order to make more, they need to buy more raw materials. The raw materials may cost less (per unit) because they are now being bought in bulk. An increase in sales can result in a decrease in per unit costs of production.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    39. Re:We need a new right... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      dumbass troll - pay attention

      The right to free speech is about the right to not be silenced no matter what you feel like you want to say.

      No. The right to free speech is about the right to not be silenced by the government no matter what you feel like you want to say.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    40. Re:We need a new right... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Oh but protesting is not free speech, cant we get rid of those protesters, or relegate them to a corner somewhere?

      That is not my argument, and I do not agree with it.

      It is in fact for that reason that I would oppose a "right not to be advertised to"; it opens the door to further justification of random curtailment of free speech in the name of "I dont like it". Unless you are ready to start putting the nails in the coffin of free political speech, you want to be real careful before you start objecting to speech simply because it is unpleasant to you.

    41. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US at least, it's a little more broad, no one can infringe on your ability to speak your mind. In other words, if you want to get up on a sopabox in the park and speak your mind, no other citizen has the right to shut me up unless I'm disturbing the peace. If you want to fund your own fringe "newspaper" with whatever opinions you hold dear and publish it, no one can stop you.

      This freedom does not extend to speaking in private however. If I'm in someone's home, some work setting, or using their mediums (say a forum on the internet) then whatever they wish to allow me to say or not is 100% within their right and not mine. I'm always free to leave their domain and speak my mind in public however.

      But calzones' proposition is different from both those... as I understand it:
      If money or value is exchanged from party A to party B to incentivize party B to make available their resources to party A so as to broadcast some communication that party A wants disseminated, then that that should no longer be automatically/blindly protected as free speech.

    42. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still have to pay GEZ (a tax for public prodcasters)

    43. Re:We need a new right... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      They could have put that money into improving quality, or decreasing price, both of which would increase sales. Advertising merely steals some dumber customers from the competition, without doing anything productive.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    44. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe vandalism of advertising should be permitted as a sort of implicit market.

      If you don't want to spend the money to keep repainting your shitty ads, maybe you should consider putting up something more tasteful. Or nothing at all.

    45. Re:We need a new right... by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      I think people would be more willing to pay for it if it played music as well. The problem with a lot of advertising is they forget that they have to offer you some sort of value. If the government tightened down on ads so they could only be informaitonal(reviews) I think people would like them more.

    46. Re:We need a new right... by dissy · · Score: 1

      I'm sick of being a product.. I mean, ok the old model of Television and Radio where you the viewer gets something of value (the programming/entertainment) without directly paying for it, then it's a reasonable tradeoff that it's paid for by advertising

      When TV first started becoming popular, the actors felt that they were being /invited/ into other peoples homes, and to act rudely would bring about mobs and pitchforks. Actual pitchforks!

      However, when you're paying for a train fare, you've paid for the transit... it's not like you're given the option of "pay full price to not be subjected to adversising, or get a discount for being advertised to"

      Cable TV was initially sold as "Television with a monthly fee, so you won't need to ever see another commercial again". Notice the amount of ads on cable TV these days?
      I don't believe for a second those greedy bastards won't rush as fast as possible to ads with over-charging you at the same time.

      (Insert Futurama - Lightspeed Briefs spot here)

    47. Re:We need a new right... by calzones · · Score: 1

      Commercial speech should not be protected as free speech.

      Financial incentives are what motivate commercial speech. This is vastly different from you having the freedom to speak your mind.

      In fact, I could bribe you with $5M to NOT speak your mind and instead speak mine.

      Thus, commercial speech has the potential to squelch the true free speech of an individual. More than the potential, it does this frequently already. How's that for putting the nails in the coffin of free political speech?

      --
      Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
    48. Re:We need a new right... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Why do they need to sell more in the first place? It's all junk. The advertisers almost never try to sell me stuff that's useful. It's almost always fluff.

    49. Re:We need a new right... by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but, as in many topics, you can't draw a straight line. Let's say we ban advertising. You develop a product and you want to sell it. How do you do it? Do you go up to your family and friends and talk about your new product? That's advertising. You sell them your product and you ask them to tell their friends? That's more advertising. Is the church bell ringing on Sundays? Is the mullah on the minaret yelling a prayer? Advertising (and pretty intrusive, too).

    50. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they advertise more, they sell more.

      And somebody else sells less. Almost all advertising today is simply an arms race to get mindshare. Everybody loses except for the arms dealers.

    51. Re:We need a new right... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Hell, even actual handwritten notes can be fake.

      I recently received two identical hand written notes from the same car dealership obviously written by the same person, but with two different names signed on it. Both were begging me to trade in my car to them for a new one. (apparently my car has very good bluebook value for its age due to it no longer being produced)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    52. Re:We need a new right... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      So I don't have the right to set up a loudspeaker tied to a noise cancelling system right next to the soapbox?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    53. Re:We need a new right... by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Never-mind what you think, or what you've experienced personally. We are here to let you know that:

      Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
      Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
      Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
      Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
      Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.

      Come election day, you will vote for Senator Smitty, and even if you don't, we'll have made sure 51% of everyone else has voted against their own interests.

    54. Re:We need a new right... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that's independent of how you receive your TV. If you watch cable TV, you pay the cable in addition to the GEZ fee, the cable fee doesn't include it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    55. Re:We need a new right... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      prodcasters

      I don't know whether that was deliberate, but I doff my souvenir devil horns "Riga Is Fun As Hell!" baseball cap and bow down before you, sir. Or Ma'am. Fido. Whatever.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    56. Re:We need a new right... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      It's bloody Kafka-esque, that's what it is.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    57. Re:We need a new right... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      1 medium, 2 media.

      It's not that hard, people.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    58. Re:We need a new right... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Not true. If they advertise more, they sell more.

      But the competition advertises as well, and thus in the vast majority of cases the only true effect is that you have increased cost on all products. It's a typical case of prisoner's dilemma: The single company is always better off advertising than not advertising, but on a whole, everyone advertising is worse than everyone not advertising.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    59. Re:We need a new right... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Go watch the second episode of the BBC series "Black Mirror".

      That is our future.

      First or second series? (I'm downloading both seasons right now.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    60. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm radically anti-advertising, I firmly believe that advertising is actually economically damaging to society, since it represents a deviation from what a person would believe their own best interests were without the advertising present.

      Uh no? In the last 200 years, due to technological advances and powered by mostly non-replaceable natural resources, the per-capita productivity has risen about tenthousandfold, quality of life has quadrupled, life work time has halved. Those numbers don't add up.

      If we don't want a distribution and boredom and/or unemployment problem, we need products that break down and/or get out of fashion all the time and a vapid population that is trained to strive for short-lived junk. You don't get there without advertising. It's the most vital industry for providing political and economic stability.

      Until we've burnt through our planet. Then we need to think of something else. If we can find someone capable of thinking any more, that is.

    61. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree, except that as some commentators on the story have noted, there doesn't seem to be any data on a potential economic impact.

      It simply says "businesses expected to lose $X", 70% of residents liked the change."

      It's a pretty poor argument towards proving the advertising can be removed without affecting the economy to simply not address whether it had any effect.

    62. Re:We need a new right... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      No. Free speech is about being allowed to speak about whatever the hell you want (with a few limitations).

    63. Re:We need a new right... by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      Maybe prevent people from creating advertisements that literally talk into your skull as you're trying to nap?

    64. Re:We need a new right... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I always figured that if something was any good they wouldn't have to advertise it.

      Yes, they have to tell you about radical NEW products but the more advertising you see for established products (eg. cars, beers, ...), the more mediocre those products must be. If they really are better than the competition (as claimed), they'd be selling themselves.

      --
      No sig today...
    65. Re:We need a new right... by devent · · Score: 1

      Oh I think it will have a negative economic effect, on the ads firms.
      But that is a broken window fallacy. If the ads firms do not contribute to economic growth in the first place, then money spend on them is wasted money, just like the military spending. So the money spend useless on the ads firms is now spend for more productive use.

      I don't know anyhow how that logic is suppose to work. "We remove ads, it causes $X economic harm" No, because the $X that is not spend on ads is spend somewhere else. It's not like the city major of Sau Paulo is going to burn the $X moneys that was spend on ads.

      An economic is a closed system. Money that was not spend on A is either saved or it is spend on B. It is not gone.
      Maybe ads are really useless and are really a drag on the economy, like copyrights and patent trolls.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    66. Re:We need a new right... by devent · · Score: 1

      OMG I love Sao Paulo, I wish I would live there.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    67. Re:We need a new right... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Complain, and keep track of products that are advertised obnoxiously and never buy them.

      I remember shaking my head a while ago when flying in the US and hearing the crew make credit card sales pitches. Last time I was there they had stopped doing that. Somebody must have figured out it was a stupid idea.

      The reason advertising is so prevalent is because somebody thinks it works.

    68. Re:We need a new right... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. As someone else said, advertising is (at least ultimately) a zero-sum game. An individual company might sell more by advertising, except that their competitors ALSO advertise. You end up with an arms race of advertising, but the customers are still only going to buy so much beer.

    69. Re:We need a new right... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "What would that ball game cost if all advertising was eliminated from inside the stadium? Could the fans afford it?
      Could the team afford to fly to their next game, or would they all be taking the train?"

      The ball game might cost more, but all those products would cost less. Personally, I'm not really interested in subsidizing people who want to watch baseball with my purchases.

    70. Re:We need a new right... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Zero sum game? By what metric? Zero sum means that any gain by one party is matched by a corresponding loss by the other parties. If I buy a beer from company A, it does not mean that company B has less customers. It does not mean that company B has fewer sales. It does not mean that company B has less revenue.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    71. Re:We need a new right... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      the biggest problem is i can see a bunch of problems with not being able to OPT OUT

      1 folks with bone/teeth problems being put in agonizing pain
      2 what if somebody does not want the distraction (because they need to grab a couple minutes of sleep because they are currently 9 hours short on sleep)
      3 folks that are already unstable being proved RIGHT (there are Voices In My Head!!!)
      4 somebody hacking the feed to do X (from subliminal programing to triggering seizures or worse)
      5 THEM using the feed to pass messages
      6 kids getting ads for Adult Products

      i think i could go on but...

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    72. Re:We need a new right... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Remembering that our eyes and ears are the product being sold TO advertisers -- I'd be good with it *provided* I was paid a commission.

      As it stands, we're being farmed for harvest and sale to those advertisers, and have about as much say in the matter as livestock at the feedlot.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    73. Re:We need a new right... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      If it were true that "free speech is about being allowed to speak out against the government. It has nothing to do with advertising whatsoever", then it could follow that you'd have no right to speak out against advertising.

      Be careful what you wish for.

      Free speech is free speech regardless of what it's about. However, no one has the right to hold you captive and pour their speech into your ears. If your choice in transit is basically these trains, or shank's mare, you're effectively a captive audience, being forced to listen. And there's the problem.

      Given their plans, I suggest counterspeech (which would be equally free, if you have that right): a noise generator that when pressed up against the train's frame, negates the advertising for the whole car.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    74. Re:We need a new right... by sfled · · Score: 1

      True. I cut Cable TV because a) the programming was rank and; b) the ad time has grown to nearly 16 - 18 minutes per hour* of "show". So, yesterday I turned the radio on and went off NPR (US public radio), every station bar none was playing an ad.

      I use Firefox with AdBlock Plus, NoScript, BetterPrivacy, et. al.

      I don't mind ads I just hate being carpet bombed.

      *Official old guy here: Eight minutes of commercials back in the day.

      --
      I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
    75. Re:We need a new right... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Governments are probably only going to be interested in silencing you when you're speaking out against them. That's primarily what the First Ammendment protection is about. However, you're right. It's not just about being able to speak out against the government, but about being able to speak without government interference.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    76. Re:We need a new right... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      True enough, but I think the Founders understood that today's miscreants may be tomorrow's government, hence made no restrictions.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    77. Re:We need a new right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could have put that money into improving quality, or decreasing price, both of which would increase sales.

      How would people even know about those changes without advertising?

    78. Re:We need a new right... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Not true. If they advertise more, they sell more.

      But the competition advertises as well, and thus in the vast majority of cases the only true effect is that you have increased cost on all products.

      But in this case there is no competition - Sky Germany (formerly Premiere) is the only Pay TV provider in Germany. And it's not really making money.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    79. Re:We need a new right... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Here are 2 cent, now shut the fuck up.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    80. Re:We need a new right... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      We can't really let this thread go on without mentioning São Paulo. Looks like the experiment is going well too.

      Five years later, São Paulo continues to exist without advertisements. But instead of causing economic ruin and deteriorating aesthetics, 70 percent of city residents find the ban beneficial, according to a 2011 survey. Unexpectedly, the removal of logos and slogans exposed previously overlooked architecture, revealing a rich urban beauty that had been long hidden.

      http://www.newdream.org/resources/sao-paolo-ad-ban

      http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/opinion/blogs/lucy-handley/sao-paulo-ad-ban-makes-marketers-more-creative/4003461.article

      Brazilian city Sao Paulo banned all outdoor ads six years ago. But what is interesting for now is that the city is allowing graffiti art – and the US conglomerate and Olympic sponsor GE has taken advantage of this.

      It has commissioned three huge graffiti murals which appear on the sides of tall buildings, artworks that try to get across what it is that GE does – whether that be in energy, technology or infrastructure. GE’s logo appears on them, but it is really the murals themselves that are eye catching and they don’t look like advertising.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    81. Re:We need a new right... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Gotta love people speaking out against advertising - and putting the URL of their company website in the sig.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    82. Re:We need a new right... by devent · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    83. Re:We need a new right... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I'm speaking about the competition between the companies who advertise (or let advertise) their products. That is, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Microsoft, McDonald's etc.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    84. Re:We need a new right... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If you buy beer from company A then you didn't buy beer from company B. If you've got infinite beer money, please share.

    85. Re:We need a new right... by camperdave · · Score: 1
      Um... no. My buying beer from Company A in response to their ads does not mathematically prevent me from buying my regular beer from company B. It's not like there are only a fixed number of customers, or a fixed number of beer purchases that can be shared between the beer companies.

      Many economic situations are not zero-sum, since valuable goods and services can be created, destroyed, or badly allocated in a number of ways, and any of these will create a net gain or loss of utility to numerous stakeholders. Specifically, all trade is by definition positive sum, because when two parties agree to an exchange each party must consider the goods it is receiving to be more valuable than the goods it is delivering. In fact, all economic exchanges must benefit both parties to the point that each party can overcome its transaction costs, or the transaction would simply not take place.

      Wikipedia

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    86. Re:We need a new right... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There aren't a fixed number of customers, hey? You'd make a good economist....

      Your quote from Wikipedia is inapplicable. First, it says *many* situations are not zero sum. Second, the only close to applicable part is talking about both parties in a transaction thinking they've come out ahead. We're not talking about a two party trade, we're talking about a customer deciding to buy one product over another due to advertising. Presumably the customer and the winning producer will both feel good (although the customer may not if he feels he's been mislead by the advertising) but the losing producer won't.

      In most circumstances, and certainly when you consider the economy as a whole, a customer's decision to buy product A will mean him deciding NOT to buy product B, which may or may not be a direct competitor to A, simply because most people have a finite amount of money. I'm going to buy some beer. If I buy beer A, I won't be buying beer B. If I decide to go to the movies I might not buy beer A OR B. Or maybe I decide to blow all my discretionary cash and go to the movies AND buy beer... but then I won't be buying something else tomorrow.

      Advertising doesn't produce anything. It doesn't add wealth to the system, so advertising is a zero sum game. If I convince customers to buy my product, it's at the expense of something else they would have bought. The exception is when the advertising actually informs customers about a product they want to buy but didn't know existed. A basic level of informative advertising CAN add value by adding information and making the economy more efficient. But most advertising seems to be convincing, not informative.

  6. Bone Conduction, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got some bone conduction for Sky Deutschland... I got some messages I'd like to send 'em...

  7. The voices in my head by kammat · · Score: 1

    When the voices in your head are trying to sell you something, there might be bigger problems.

    1. Re:The voices in my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like those tee shirts that say "The voices aren't real but they have some good deals".

  8. Whoa??? by zero.kalvin · · Score: 0

    What the heck is that ??

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

    DAFUQ MAN. What planet do these marketing asshats live on? You think a rider trying to rest their head want's to hear an ad?

  10. I'm holding out for by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

    treppaning.

    1. Re:I'm holding out for by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny

      treppaning.

      If anyone ever figures out how telepathy can work, I predict WW III will be between advertisers and a very angry public.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:I'm holding out for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough, text messaging is already pretty close to targeted telepathy. You have an idea and you want to share it with your friend no matter where they are. At some point later, your friend has received your idea and they can respond to it... usually by writing "lol".

      On second thought, telepathy is a terrible idea.

    3. Re: I'm holding out for by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      as if that wouldn't be bad enough, but you would have the RIAA and MPAA charging you for thinking of a song or rememberinga scene from a movie.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  11. No wonder the Germans get murderous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They get exposed to these sorts of things! Imagine trying to get some rest, leaning your head against something, and hearing advertising.

    Yikes. This is a recipe for World War III.

  12. Feet? Butt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can conduct through the feet or the butt, they'll get a wider audience!

    1. Re:Feet? Butt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting advertisement from your ass, now thats a great idea.

    2. Re:Feet? Butt? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. Feet and butt tend to be not only softer tissue but also (by law or regulation) covered by clothing.

    3. Re:Feet? Butt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in non-religious-fundamentalist-extremist countries.
      It's perfectly legal to be naked in Germany. You only get into trouble if you're harassing people.
      And if you just cover your primary sexual organ, nobody will ever feel sexually harassed by a otherwise naked body. (Even though there's no difference, since it's not the sexual organ but the horniness plus the not-leaving-somebody-alone that is the actual harassment.)
      They just might not like you making their seats dirty with your sweaty non-bidet-washed ass. (Understandably.)

      And I ride trains barefoot all the time. (Feet are *made* to be used naked by the way. No, pathogens and dirt don't just pass though a mile of tough-like-leather skin. And we Germans generally keep our streets cleaner. For the rest you have these amazing things called "eyes"... and an immune system, provided you don't only eat raw shit [aka chicken nuggets, fries and fried mars bars]. Duh.)

    4. Re:Feet? Butt? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      If they can conduct through the feet or the butt, they'll get a wider audience!

      Personally, I'm tired enough of people talking out of their asses.
      The last thing I need is for them to start talking into mine!

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    5. Re:Feet? Butt? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Feet are *made* to be used naked by the way.

      Feet are not made to be used on asphalt or metal floors.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:Feet? Butt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sometimes, it's okay to go ass-to-mouth."

  13. Get all the ladies with a strai(gh)t jacket by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny

    to paraphrase a gibbering offender led away in a straight jacket

    As opposed to a gay jacket?

  14. Oops by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    I guess they will have to outlaw pillows or rolling up your sweater to use as a headrest.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Oops by ancientt · · Score: 1

      This was kind of what I thought of immediately... you mean all you have do in order to avoid the ads is not lay your head against the broadcasting part? Hurray! I can do that.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    2. Re:Oops by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      If people would just stop complaining about potholes and put their effort into dodging them, we wouldn't have to repair our roads. We can all do that!

      Seriously, there's gotta be a line between acceptable (signs, TV commercials) and unacceptable (TV commercials playing on your windshield while you drive) levels of intrusiveness for advertising. That the ads can be defeated is not the point. That maybe we shouldn't have to do so in the first place is.

  15. Look at the positive side of this.. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    once someone figures out how to hack into the ad server all kinds of chaos and hilarity can ensue, Ja?

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:Look at the positive side of this.. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Better yet, figure out a way to send targeted individuals subliminal messages - then all you need to do is sit down next to attractive women...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  16. Little different from newspapers by tepples · · Score: 1

    However, when you're paying for a train fare, you've paid for the transit

    No, you've paid for half the transit. Advertisers paid for the other half. It's little different from newspapers or pay television.

    1. Re:Little different from newspapers by gQuigs · · Score: 1

      Nope, advertisers don't really put that much money into the system.

      Excercpt from PATCO's budget (local transit authority):
      Net Passenger Revenue: 23,900,000
      Advertising: 600,000

      Now, they are still operating at a loss, but that's mass transit, they have a huge positive externality.

    2. Re:Little different from newspapers by sjames · · Score: 1

      The other half gets paid for with interest when you buy the product whose price is padded to cover the advertising. If you don't buy that product, you still pay when the competing brand you bought has to advertise to keep up in the ad wars.

      Amusingly, when cigarette ads were banned from most places in the U.S., the tobacco companies became more profitable than ever due to being relieved of the costs.

      All totaled, consumer prices would be lower if the ads went away.

    3. Re:Little different from newspapers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amusingly, when cigarette ads were banned from most places in the U.S., the tobacco companies became more profitable than ever due to being relieved of the costs.

      Is that true? I'm not disbelieving you, but I'd love a citation I could give people.

      Didn't a similar thing happen to the pharmaceutical companies, except in reverse? That is, their prices jumped through the roof once the regulations on their advertisements were removed (all those TV ads are expensive!).

    4. Re:Little different from newspapers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Excercpt from PATCO's budget (local transit authority):
      Net Passenger Revenue: 23,900,000
      Advertising: 600,000

      And, most likely:
      Cost of installing and maintaining bone-conducting advertisment technology: $3,000,000
      (numbers pulled out of ass, of course, but I reckon it'll end up something like that).

    5. Re:Little different from newspapers by icebike · · Score: 2

      However, when you're paying for a train fare, you've paid for the transit

      No, you've paid for half the transit. Advertisers paid for the other half. It's little different from newspapers or pay television.

      Tax payers paid for the other half. Interior advertising pays very little on a train, or bus. (The outside of buses bring in some revenue, but not as much as you might think).

      So between fares and Tax Money, virtually ALL of the cost of train, subway, bus transport is paid by the users, or taxpayers in the appropriate jurisdiction.

      If fares went down, or service improved with more routes and frequency, advertising on trains might be warranted. But I still don't want bone conduction or loudspeaker advertising that I can't shut out.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Little different from newspapers by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I heard that quite some time ago when there was no web. I have no idea where that was now.

    7. Re:Little different from newspapers by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      No, you've paid for *all* of the transit.

      You paid for the half (or whatever portion not covered by advertising) when you paid your train fare.

      Then you paid the portion covered by advertising by covering the cost of advertising in every damn thing you buy.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    8. Re:Little different from newspapers by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Actually, how much you pay for the transit depends on how much from the companies who do the advertising. I see quite some advertising for Microsoft. I know that I paid not a single cent for that, because the last time I bought a Microsoft product is more than a decade ago.

      Well, thinking about it: I still pay for it through tax money spent on Microsoft products used in the government.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  17. This is why I take a pillow on trains by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    Ah, trains, a safe haven for travelers for decades, now the science of pushing crap on people who don't want it has invaded your vestibules.

    I road on Amtrak years ago and could not for the life of me understand why the bar car had an announcer, who broadcast throughout the train, in a voice not unlike a Harley Davidson exhaust tube by your ear, what wonderful deals they still had on drinks ... at 10 PM.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:This is why I take a pillow on trains by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not unlike the damn TVs they stuck on the back seats of some cabs in Boston. I just want a moment of peace in a cab (even chatting with the driver would be better) not be forced to watch news about the latest disaster or murder. News is like finding pennies, it is available everywhere and you'll get it eventually. I don't need it shoved at me in every venue. Fortunately I was able to turn it off. I'm sure someday they will remove that option.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    2. Re:This is why I take a pillow on trains by sjames · · Score: 1

      As long as you have your fist or a black magic marker, they can never fully remove that option but they can force you to remove the on option for the next passenger.

    3. Re:This is why I take a pillow on trains by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Not unlike the damn TVs they stuck on the back seats of some cabs in Boston. I just want a moment of peace in a cab (even chatting with the driver would be better) not be forced to watch news about the latest disaster or murder. News is like finding pennies, it is available everywhere and you'll get it eventually. I don't need it shoved at me in every venue. Fortunately I was able to turn it off. I'm sure someday they will remove that option.

      I was fueling up a rental car somewhere in northern Michigan, at a Shell station IIRC, and suddenly I hear this horribly loud obnoxious music. I figure some ass-hat just pulled up and is sharing his/her lack of musical taste with the world. I turn around and see it is actually a speaker on the gas pump blaring out the offending racket, which transitions into a load of advertising, "... come into the store and find wonderful crap you can buy to further your enjoyment of this visit to Shell Hell ..." I spent the last five minutes (slowest pump in the world and by design I reckon) with my hands clamped over the speaker and humming loudly.

      Do that in my home town and you can bet that's one gas station I would never return to.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:This is why I take a pillow on trains by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      As long as you have your fist or a black magic marker, they can never fully remove that option but they can force you to remove the on option for the next passenger.

      The cabbie probably has a mirror or camera to record would be vandals. Better to just bring a roll of duct tape and piece of cardboard with you.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:This is why I take a pillow on trains by mynamestolen · · Score: 0

      I see you haven't travelled on trains in communist china for a while.

      --
      work in progress
  18. The train operators merely saw the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "bone" followed by "conductor" and hoped right on board with the proposal.

    Hello German train passengers we are sinking, I repeat we are sinking.
    Vell.... vhat are you seenking about????

  19. just taking musical roads to the logical extension by slew · · Score: 1
  20. World War III was the Cold War by tepples · · Score: 0

    This is a recipe for World War III.

    World War III was fought and decided. The commies lost the first match (Korea), won the second (Vietnam), but lost the rubber (DDR was absorbed into Germany and USSR broke up). We're in World War IV now.

  21. Emergency hammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conveniently DB trains are equipped with hammers for braking the windows in case of perceived emergency. Let's see if the ads pay for the window replacement costs.

  22. Why stop there by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just go full Clockwork Orange and strap us down and pry our eyes open and force us to watch ads?

    Ironically any product forced on me using this bone conduction method will just piss me off so much that it will leave me deliberately avoiding that product.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:Why stop there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just go full Clockwork Orange and strap us down and pry our eyes open and force us to watch ads?

      Please don't give them ideas!

    2. Re:Why stop there by bestalexguy · · Score: 1

      Ironically any product forced on me using this bone conduction method will just piss me off so much that it will leave me deliberately avoiding that product.

      I'm afraid you belong in a negligible minority of people who don't love ads. Reluctant people like you will require more aggressive techniques. Just be patient and enjoy your current freedom.

  23. Mediated Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to know how to fight advertising? Personal Mediated Reality. When you can choose what you experience in your day to day life you will be free of all this nonsense. I can't wait for the technology to evolve to a point where it is feasible.

  24. Geordi's torture by ichthus · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of this scene from TNG.

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Geordi's torture by mynamestolen · · Score: 0

      oh no, not another amtrak ad

      --
      work in progress
  25. Better idea: Cancel engine noise by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what would be great, is if leaning my head against a window in a plane (or train) would, the fullest extent possible, emit a nose canceling signal that would cancel out engine noise from whatever I was traveling in.

    Just throwing the idea out there in case some company would like positive, instead of negative, PR.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Better idea: Cancel engine noise by geek · · Score: 1

      emit a nose canceling signal

      Plastic surgeons everywhere will be terrified

    2. Re:Better idea: Cancel engine noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nose canceling signal

      Your idea stinks.

    3. Re:Better idea: Cancel engine noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the train stinks, that's why you have the nose canceling signal

    4. Re:Better idea: Cancel engine noise by RaccoonBandit · · Score: 1

      Even that would get hijacked by advertising:

      "The following two minutes of silence are brought to you by Sky Deutschland."

    5. Re:Better idea: Cancel engine noise by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Seriously, it's like he's never ridden a train or a plane in summer... :-)

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:Better idea: Cancel engine noise by postglock · · Score: 1

      That's not really technically possible. Noise-cancelling headphones work by detecting the incoming sound at the position of your ears, then broadcasting the out-of-phase version of this sound into your ears (i.e. "anti-noise"). Passengers in a plane or train would each experience slightly different noise, with slightly different phases. This makes it impossible to broadcast a single sound that would cancel noise for all passengers.

  26. There is a reason we sleep on trains.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know that after a long day at the factory (air-conditioned office), I occasionally like to nod off on the train.

    Not only would this be a great annoyance, and kill my after-work nap, it seems like a massive invasion of privacy and personal space. I hate advertisements as much as the next bloke, but I do understand the reasoning behind it. But this just seems to cross a line that we don't want to cross. Not to go all 1984-paranoid here, but transmitting messages via bone conduction right into our heads is a bit concerning. Not to mention a great trigger device for paranoid schizophrenia....

    Bad idea.

  27. Pillows by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

    Time to use pillows.

    1. Re:Pillows by geek · · Score: 1

      Time to use pillows.

      I hear pillows are pretty good for smothering people to death. I think the advertisers should be very afraid.

  28. only one reaction is appropriate here by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    *BARF

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:only one reaction is appropriate here by sjames · · Score: 1

      preferably on an ad.

  29. simple solution by stenvar · · Score: 1

    Scissors or a pocket knife, snip, and ... quiet.

    1. Re:simple solution by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I'm a mohel you insensitive clod!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the Swiss invented Victorinox knives.

  30. Bring our own speakers to place against walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about putting our own speakers against walls and transferring somewhat obscene lyrics. Enough people will complain and they'll stop that experiment very quickly.

  31. Obligatory Futurama by QilessQi · · Score: 2

    Fry: So you're telling me they broadcast commercials into people's dreams?

    Leela: Of course.

    Fry: But, how is that possible?

    Farnsworth: It's very simple. The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg. [He holds up an egg and injects it with liquid. The egg explodes, covering him and Leela in yolk.] Although, in reality, it's not liquid, but gamma radiation.

    Fry: That's awful. It's like brainwashing.

    Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 20th century?

    Fry: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games, on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!

    1. Re:Obligatory Futurama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even closer: Obligatory Onion News Network

      Onion Talks - Loudness Equals Power
      Published on Oct 24, 2012
      Every day we interact with thousands of incredibly loud people, but Barry Buchwalter doesn't think we should limit ourselves to current volumes. With his innovative new device, anyone can be as loud as anyone, and then they can be even louder.

  32. Someone hasn't thought this through by wolfemi1 · · Score: 1

    So I guess the operating idea here is that the people you WANT to be broadcasting ads to are the ones who are demonstrably trying to get some sleep?

    Do they think that doing so will make people MORE likely to buy their advertised products? They may be in for a rude shock.

    1. Re:Someone hasn't thought this through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't motivated for business reasons. They are motivated by schadenfreude.

    2. Re:Someone hasn't thought this through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as bad publicity.

      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to call someone to repair the front window that just received some customer feedback.

  33. The best thing for crazy people... by istartedi · · Score: 2

    It's the best thing for crazy people since Blue Tooth headsets. Those allowed us to assume that you're talking to another person, even if you're talking to the elves who shine your shoes.

    Now when you hear voices on the train, that'll be perfectly normal too.

    I can't wait to have Monsters Inc (C) projected onto my retinas at inopportune times. Then spontaneous startled reactions and screaming for no apparent reason will be socially acceptable behavior.

    I believe this is all part of some UN Convention and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act. It's a conspiracy and if you don't believe that you're a sheeple. Yep. The Internet's part of it too. This paragraph is perfectly normal on the Internet. 2nd best thing for crazy people, ever.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:The best thing for crazy people... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, at some time in the future they'll put you into psychiatry for not showing such reactions from time to time, because you're clearly not normal ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:The best thing for crazy people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then spontaneous startled reactions and screaming for no apparent reason will be socially acceptable behavior.

      I believe this is all part of some UN Convention and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act.

      News flash: "Harrison Bergeron" from Kurt Vonnegut was published in 1961.

  34. Obligitory Futurama Quotation by eieken · · Score: 1

    Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"

    Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.

    --
    Meet new people, and kill them.
  35. Nice by lapm · · Score: 1

    I remember time when i you heard voices in your head, men with white coats came and locked you away for treatment. I wonder now if those were just government conspiracy to remove unwanted individuals from public.

  36. Response by fnj · · Score: 1

    How do you say "conduct THIS" in nazi?

  37. No, TFA is incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they're considering is a plan to give boners to train conductors.

  38. spamming device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cant wait to build a spamming device to override their signal and broadcast spam in peoples ears :D

  39. They still advertise? by scotts13 · · Score: 2

    In all seriousness, I haven't paid active attention to advertising in any form for years - I tune it right out. I fast forward past TV ads, I block most internet ads and don't click the ones that get past. When I want to buy something, I'll go look at products in stores. When an ad DOES come to my attention, it's almost always because its loud, visually jarring, or just obnoxiously stupid. In that case, I put that brand on the "never buy" list. Overall effectiveness of the ads is therefore in the negative numbers, and I'm sure I'm not the only person with this perception.

    To me, advertising is like the cold war: Everyone is afraid to stop building H-bombs (or running ads) for fear the other side will get ahead. Stop it all, and a parasitic drain on society ends.

  40. Holy Shitty Headlines, Batman! by Bieeanda · · Score: 1
    So the headline says 'force', but the summary says listeners have to rest their head against whatever is broadcasting the signal. Do they equip seats with oversized obstetrics foreceps? Does a man in jackboots march up and down the aisle, threatening people who do not keep their heads against the walls and windows?

    And as for bone conduction, has anyone seriously looked into this? I mean, seriously-seriously, because this tech came and went with mood rings, because at best the sound is muddier than a stereotypical airport PA system.

  41. Lightspeed briefs by fox171171 · · Score: 1

    I'm going to assume a lot of us thought of Futurama when we read (skimmed) that article summary.

  42. Clean windows by GrahamCox · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a great scheme for keeping the train windows clean from people's greasy hair.

  43. "That was a Boneheaded move..." by dskoll · · Score: 1

    ... apparently means "Brilliant!" if your a marketer....

    1. Re:"That was a Boneheaded move..." by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Ugh. I can't believe I wrote "your" instead of "you're".

      Oh, the shame....

  44. Intersting but creepy... how about stop notices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So your ad demographic is sleepy commuters and homeless people trying to stay warm and relatively safe by sleeping on the trains? Considering the sad proportion of homeless who are mentally ill people that our society has no reall love for (or they would be cared for rather than discarded), perhaps putting "real" voices in people's heads is unwise? Are they attempting to speak to us in our dreams? Now wouldn't that be some valuable advertising space... (Now there's a voice in my head wildly screaming "nooooo!") Screw the tired mass-transiteers; let them have no rest? Or to be kind, maybe it would be better to play alarm clock noises as each stop approches so people don't miss them.

    Technology myopically marches on... ;-)

  45. Don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think many would consider that an attack on their person, and would consider retaliation to be fair game.

  46. Brilliant idea! by PPH · · Score: 1
    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  47. Sit in the front seat by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    Sit in the front seat.

    --
    I come here for the love
  48. The voices made me do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The voices made me do it.

  49. Why not possible? Engine noise fixed over time. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Passengers in a plane or train would each experience slightly different noise, with slightly different phases.

    I know how noise canceling devices work. But the engine vibrations occur at a known spot at a fixed distance from every seat and are essentially constant for long periods. You could easily calculate for each window the exact offset wave required, a much simpler job than normal noise-cancelling devices have (which have to deal with any potential noise from all over that does not come from a steady source). Then you just feed the wave required for each window, which are isolated. It's not like they don't have to do the same thing with the ads, each pane requires a separate source.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  50. Re:Why not possible? Engine noise fixed over time. by postglock · · Score: 1

    But the engine vibrations occur at a known spot at a fixed distance from every seat and are essentially constant for long periods.

    That's a good point. I imagine that could work for gross cancellation of noise, especially at lower frequencies, but I still think there'd be too much variability at higher frequencies. For example, at 2 kHz, the wavelength is about 17 cm. Hence, if you are 9 cm away from the 'optimal' position, you'd be totally out of phase, and the noise would be worse. Obviously this precision is even more important for higher frequencies.

  51. Re:Why not possible? Engine noise fixed over time. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    True enough. But if you calculated it for the rear edge of every window, it would work really well I think on an airplane (since your head would be resting against the window and sliding back until the rear of the window well held your head up)

    I agree whole-scale cancellation of noise that way is not feasible, but just a general reduction of the constant engine noise would be a boon.

    Train track noise would I guess probably be too irregular for this to work, now that I think about it...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  52. Re:Why not possible? Engine noise fixed over time. by postglock · · Score: 1

    Also, now I think about it a bit more, I think the phase difference between ears is also enough to make this unfeasible for higher frequencies. But yes, I agree that it should be possible (and useful) to cancel the low-frequency engine noise.

    Okay, so we've a got a proposal. Where do we pitch it?

  53. Toilet break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When ads come on the TV I usually go for a toilet break ... hop they don't mind me going to the toilet on the train every time I hear an ad.