I agree it is pretty high, but how stupid is it spending 2 million for 30 seconds to advertise a.com address during the SuperBowl, by the way I forget almost all of those stupid.com commercials 30 minutes after the SuperBowl was over with, what a waste of money. I did remember that e*trade one with the Monkey and the Bud one with the Dog, but besides those, a waste, in fact if almost all those.com commercials had put their money together we probabley could of almost launched another shiny metallic thing in space(sarcasm;). )
Re:It's all in the article...
on
Geeks vs. Nerds
·
· Score: 1
I am curious to find out why so many/.'s or Nerds accept without question what one news media article says. For now since I have read nothing that would argue otherwise, the history behind the terms "geek" and "nerd" can be contributed to the research the writer did, however do we know how accurate this research is. I have a couple of buddies who work as journalist and I can verify that many writers do half-a** on verifing the information they recieve from individuals or the initial research they do for an article. I mean if you read the article you would see she only quoted two/three individuals in an industry with thousands+, and one web site was used to support some very broad statements. Basically on the thoughts of these few people, it appears many are just accepting these terms. I would just like to Mention one little problem with this article, (Slashdot News for NERDS----) I think its funny that what I consider a website with a very broad range of information on technology is contributed to Nerd, yet the article and so many sheep follow that the term should be geek.
Ohhh I see, so basically if we don't critize the Republican party its not a valid source of information, thats a good argument, I really wish I had posted that one. Regardless of the fact that Readers Digest may not be the best source, doesn't mean its not a viable source of information. If you really wanted to get started, lets start talking about sources of information. You know the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and CNN are just the best sources out there. They never lie do they? Of course they rarley critize the Democratic Party so hey its not valid right? Most sources have a bias but it doesn't always mean that that particular source is not a legitimate source to use. Your logic of course would basically consider all news in the world invalid because you know they just don't critize a particular group enough.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree it is pretty high, but how stupid is it spending 2 million for 30 seconds to advertise a .com address during the SuperBowl, by the way I forget almost all of those stupid .com commercials 30 minutes after the SuperBowl was over with, what a waste of money. I did remember that e*trade one with the Monkey and the Bud one with the Dog, but besides those, a waste, in fact if almost all those .com commercials had put their money together we probabley could of almost launched another shiny metallic thing in space(sarcasm ;). )
I am curious to find out why so many /.'s or Nerds accept without question what one news media article says. For now since I have read nothing that would argue otherwise, the history behind the terms "geek" and "nerd" can be contributed to the research the writer did, however do we know how accurate this research is. I have a couple of buddies who work as journalist and I can verify that many writers do half-a** on verifing the information they recieve from individuals or the initial research they do for an article. I mean if you read the article you would see she only quoted two/three individuals in an industry with thousands+, and one web site was used to support some very broad statements. Basically on the thoughts of these few people, it appears many are just accepting these terms. I would just like to Mention one little problem with this article, (Slashdot News for NERDS----) I think its funny that what I consider a website with a very broad range of information on technology is contributed to Nerd, yet the article and so many sheep follow that the term should be geek.
Ohhh I see, so basically if we don't critize the Republican party its not a valid source of information, thats a good argument, I really wish I had posted that one. Regardless of the fact that Readers Digest may not be the best source, doesn't mean its not a viable source of information. If you really wanted to get started, lets start talking about sources of information. You know the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and CNN are just the best sources out there. They never lie do they? Of course they rarley critize the Democratic Party so hey its not valid right? Most sources have a bias but it doesn't always mean that that particular source is not a legitimate source to use. Your logic of course would basically consider all news in the world invalid because you know they just don't critize a particular group enough.