Hah, not had riots for several years? I'm a student in Boulder, and as I recall, there was a mini-riot around Halloween in '99. ..I actually saw a group of kids on the Hill attempting to overturn a parked van (near one of the sorority houses). As my friends and I made a quick escape, I saw Boulder police putting on riot gear in a nearby parking lot.
After some couches were burned in the middle of the street, some cars were overturned, and some people hurt, there was talk of instuting a "riot fee" for all University students. HAH! Just what I need, more fees. I'm all for electronic surveillance. If those kids (and yes, the majority that I saw were, in fact, CU students) feel that they can afford to damage property that way, let them (or their parents) pay for it.
You're absolutely right. The candidates know exactly who they're targeting and what they're saying. Computer-literate, but non-voting 18 to 24-year-olds are not really the main market here.
However, there is something here that isn't being considered: what exactly are we voting for? President, yes, obviously, but the president doesn't have a heck of a lot of power. But the president is the guy who is going to be appointing some new Supreme Court justices, and that's how we SHOULD be voting. If the majority of the voting public understood this and its implications, issues like "How will the gene map be used, and will it be commercialized by bio-tech industries?" would HAVE to be debated.
If people really thought about who was influencing their freedoms, they would probably at least vote for their own senators and representatives, and possibly even their local governments. But then, the right not to choose is what made America (or was that China?) great.
Many people don't understand the value of advertising in our society, which is the reason I posted in the first place. It's obvious that advertising, because of its pervasiveness, is the single most influential force on American culture. Advertising can be, and often is, much more entertaining than the product it is selling. How often has a preview for a movie been more entertaining than the movie itself? As for television, yes, networks are free, but you must have a TV to watch them on. Also, the people who view ONLY network TV and do not pay for cable make up a small percentage of the viewing public. As for newspaper subscriptions, you can subscribe to a newspaper for a couple of bucks a month these days, and you're mainly paying for the priviledge of having it delivered to the door rather than going out to pick it up yourself. The bottom line is, advertising is a necessity. If it's entertaining, then it's worth your time. If not, the product probably won't sell well and the advertising won't last long, anyway. If everyone was so offended by everything advertised, it wouldn't be very effective, and people would let the advertisers know. And yes, some things annoy me that appeal immensely to a lot of other people, which is something to take into consideration. I'm sure you've heard people shouting "WHAZZZUP!" at each other.
As an advertising major, I can say that you're right about the motives of advertising: it IS to get the consumer's attention. However, you might reconsider your position on advertising. Do you work for a company? Or are you just independently wealthy? Absolutely every person who produces anything must advertise. Think I'm wrong? If you produce a component that another company uses in manufacturing a product, you advertised to bring that component to the attention of that manufacturer.
The media that runs the advertising the final consumer sees was advertised to by the companies the advertising is for. Without advertising, you would probably find it difficult to buy what you wanted to buy.
Without that Red Hat, Linux wouldn't be as mainstream as it's becoming, because it wouldn't be as accessible as it is.
The main concern is where the revenue from this advertising is going. For newspapers and magazines, it's going back into the production of the media. Subscriptions aren't obscene, and neither are they a way for the media to support itself directly. Subscriptions only serve to give the media a means of stable circulation, which in turn enables them to sell advertising.
Until we all become psychic, or completely self-sufficient, advertising is an integral part of life. If you don't like it, you should probably stop working and live in a tent.
Slashdot Mirror
After some couches were burned in the middle of the street, some cars were overturned, and some people hurt, there was talk of instuting a "riot fee" for all University students. HAH! Just what I need, more fees. I'm all for electronic surveillance. If those kids (and yes, the majority that I saw were, in fact, CU students) feel that they can afford to damage property that way, let them (or their parents) pay for it.
However, there is something here that isn't being considered: what exactly are we voting for? President, yes, obviously, but the president doesn't have a heck of a lot of power. But the president is the guy who is going to be appointing some new Supreme Court justices, and that's how we SHOULD be voting. If the majority of the voting public understood this and its implications, issues like "How will the gene map be used, and will it be commercialized by bio-tech industries?" would HAVE to be debated.
If people really thought about who was influencing their freedoms, they would probably at least vote for their own senators and representatives, and possibly even their local governments. But then, the right not to choose is what made America (or was that China?) great.
Many people don't understand the value of advertising in our society, which is the reason I posted in the first place. It's obvious that advertising, because of its pervasiveness, is the single most influential force on American culture. Advertising can be, and often is, much more entertaining than the product it is selling. How often has a preview for a movie been more entertaining than the movie itself? As for television, yes, networks are free, but you must have a TV to watch them on. Also, the people who view ONLY network TV and do not pay for cable make up a small percentage of the viewing public. As for newspaper subscriptions, you can subscribe to a newspaper for a couple of bucks a month these days, and you're mainly paying for the priviledge of having it delivered to the door rather than going out to pick it up yourself. The bottom line is, advertising is a necessity. If it's entertaining, then it's worth your time. If not, the product probably won't sell well and the advertising won't last long, anyway. If everyone was so offended by everything advertised, it wouldn't be very effective, and people would let the advertisers know. And yes, some things annoy me that appeal immensely to a lot of other people, which is something to take into consideration. I'm sure you've heard people shouting "WHAZZZUP!" at each other.
As an advertising major, I can say that you're right about the motives of advertising: it IS to get the consumer's attention. However, you might reconsider your position on advertising. Do you work for a company? Or are you just independently wealthy? Absolutely every person who produces anything must advertise. Think I'm wrong? If you produce a component that another company uses in manufacturing a product, you advertised to bring that component to the attention of that manufacturer. The media that runs the advertising the final consumer sees was advertised to by the companies the advertising is for. Without advertising, you would probably find it difficult to buy what you wanted to buy. Without that Red Hat, Linux wouldn't be as mainstream as it's becoming, because it wouldn't be as accessible as it is. The main concern is where the revenue from this advertising is going. For newspapers and magazines, it's going back into the production of the media. Subscriptions aren't obscene, and neither are they a way for the media to support itself directly. Subscriptions only serve to give the media a means of stable circulation, which in turn enables them to sell advertising. Until we all become psychic, or completely self-sufficient, advertising is an integral part of life. If you don't like it, you should probably stop working and live in a tent.