"but the Olympics should be purer than that. It should be run for the benefit of the people, to encourage international cooperation and promote sport."
I suppose it's less about the Olympics in particular changing and more about the nature of professional (more or less) sports in general. There is a lot of money to be made in sports, and everybody wants their piece of the pie. About the only way the Olympics could be about the notions you put forward would be if there were no audience.
Yeah, when are we going to deport Canadians who entered this country illegally, like Neil Young?
Oh, wait, it's only objectionable when they're brown and have an obvious accent. I suspect everybody would be in for a big surprise if better IDs made it easy to distinguish between US citizens and illegal Canadians.
"or cramming gratuitous violence down people's throats?"
But cramming sex is OK?
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in recent decades there has been this new development called "the remote control." If you are displeased with the content you are seeing, it lets you change the channel or even turn off the television without leaving the comfort of your sofa! Brilliant!
And, again, there is the ratings system and the V-Chip. If you don't like certain kinds of content, you can block those shows from being displayed on your television even if you're just flipping through, using that marvelous invention.
I'm against cramming content of any kind, but this simply isn't cramming.
"by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching'
Ten, fifteen years ago I might have agreed with this. But we have TV ratings now, and we have V-Chips that can cut off content based on that rating. So long as the ratings accurately describe potentially objectionable content in a program, of what possible use is rescheduling it as well?
I can also foresee some sort of chilling effect: I seem to be under the impression that, after hours, broadcast television can show practically anything up to hardcore pornography, but even after midnight you'd be hard pressed to find a bare female breast, and then only on basic cable or some European import on PBS. Of course, I can agree that perhaps we do want a chilling effect on violence, but there's still the First Amendment and all.
"I think it's telling that every time the public finds out that a school board tried to undermine science education via an attack on mainstream scientific theories, the public votes them out immediately."
Is it that the people don't agree with these representatives, or that they're simply embarrassed by all the scrutiny they're getting because of it?
You mean it would only apply to video games, not movies or television?
We had the famous "wardrobe malfunction" not too long ago, and yet we still don't have legislation enforcing "truth in ratings" in television shows (everybody knows the Super Bowl is supposed to be about violence, not sex!).
I'm beginning to suspect that politicians don't yet realize just how many gamers are of voting age now.
Granting powers to Congress isn't the same as denying those powers to the states, otherwise there'd be no need for most of Section 10 of the same article. So long as it's not an impost or duty on imports or exports, it's fair game for the state legislatures.
"Let's reduce our emissions now, before I have to go and paint my roof bright white."
If you do it now anyway, your air conditioning bill in the summer will be lower. And depending on how you get your electricity, painting your roof white would, in fact, reduce emissions.
Why the bias in favor of strict controls over individual actions?
"If you want to bring morals into it, how would you weigh the loss of the millions of jobs that would disappear if we took that industry out of the equation?"
Compared to perpetuating something that has the demonstrable effect of eroding one of the basic pillars of human society? Not much. My friendly neighborhood crack dealer has done less harm (he only sells crack, not my personal information). Despite what others have said in this topic, cynicism is neither good nor desirable. Skepticism, yes, but not cynicism.
"Proof that there is good viral marketing."
Only insofar as you conveniently define "good" as "commercially effective." I'm sure the Manson Family did wonders for "getting the word out" about the White Album, which would be "good" according to you.
"I'd say it was extremely successful as target audience response to it was very positive"
Which outweighs the fact that various laws concerning littering and dumping were violated in this effort? So long as the income is larger than the fines, it's "good?" What if the Beatles had paid Charles Manson to do his thing?
"You mean he'll become the head of the Democratic National Committee? That ain't so bad."
It also leaves us with yet another also-ran, giving the Democratic ticket to another yawner and/or someone that convinces Republicans to go out and vote, guaranteeing us 8 years of (e. g.) President Rice.
"People love to bash it but do not realize how absolutely necessary it is for our economy."
If the economy of the southern states can manage to do without slavery, I think we could figure out a way for the Republic to survive without marketing. If you're going to try to defend something like this, you need to do it on its own moral terms, rather than the "But it's making us money!" scapegoat.
"What about all the GOOD viral marketing that you've seen and gone "oh, cool, thats entertaining"."
Seeing the words "good" and "viral" together like that didn't tip you off that, perhaps, there is no such thing as a good viral marketing campaign?
"Case in point, I wonder how many slashdotters read about this Aqua Teen Hunger Force campaign and thought it was awesome, not necessarily the whole hoopla that it caused, but the actual LED moonenite thing. Yeah, that's what I thought."
It is possible to hold both the guerrilla advertising campaign and the overzealous reaction to it in contempt. It's where the Eighth Amendment came from.
Slashdot Mirror
"I really didn't miss having to run around the house changing the clocks twice a year"
This is the Twenty-First Century. Use radio-controlled timepieces.
""You lose an hour of sleep tonight"...well...no I don't"
Being woken up earlier by an earlier sunrise doesn't count?
At what point in my lengthy post did I mention Microsoft?
"bug fixes and patches"
For $600, the bitches better get it right the first time.
"but the Olympics should be purer than that. It should be run for the benefit of the people, to encourage international cooperation and promote sport."
You're funny. They're actually for the benefit of the organizers, to encourage nationalism and promote athletes.
"When did things change?"
I suppose it's less about the Olympics in particular changing and more about the nature of professional (more or less) sports in general. There is a lot of money to be made in sports, and everybody wants their piece of the pie. About the only way the Olympics could be about the notions you put forward would be if there were no audience.
"but they do understand sports."
No they don't, but they do understand kickbacks.
"In this world, people do nothing, and only us geeks get up in arms."
Because everybody loves the Olympics. Even Doctor Who, apparently.
"People are going with Microsoft's solution assuming that it is the best one"
Actually, because it's cheapest. $40 retail for av and firewall for 3 PCs for one year.
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car!
Yeah, when are we going to deport Canadians who entered this country illegally, like Neil Young?
Oh, wait, it's only objectionable when they're brown and have an obvious accent. I suspect everybody would be in for a big surprise if better IDs made it easy to distinguish between US citizens and illegal Canadians.
"It leaves me unimpressed, though."
Iwata and Miyamoto will drop by your house to apologize on their way to make their next bank deposit.
"Where did the post mention sex as okay?"
When they singled out cramming violence in particular rather than content in general.
"or cramming gratuitous violence down people's throats?"
But cramming sex is OK?
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in recent decades there has been this new development called "the remote control." If you are displeased with the content you are seeing, it lets you change the channel or even turn off the television without leaving the comfort of your sofa! Brilliant!
And, again, there is the ratings system and the V-Chip. If you don't like certain kinds of content, you can block those shows from being displayed on your television even if you're just flipping through, using that marvelous invention.
I'm against cramming content of any kind, but this simply isn't cramming.
"by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching'
Ten, fifteen years ago I might have agreed with this. But we have TV ratings now, and we have V-Chips that can cut off content based on that rating. So long as the ratings accurately describe potentially objectionable content in a program, of what possible use is rescheduling it as well?
I can also foresee some sort of chilling effect: I seem to be under the impression that, after hours, broadcast television can show practically anything up to hardcore pornography, but even after midnight you'd be hard pressed to find a bare female breast, and then only on basic cable or some European import on PBS. Of course, I can agree that perhaps we do want a chilling effect on violence, but there's still the First Amendment and all.
Whose side has tripods?
Oh, war of words. Nevermind.
"I think it's telling that every time the public finds out that a school board tried to undermine science education via an attack on mainstream scientific theories, the public votes them out immediately."
Is it that the people don't agree with these representatives, or that they're simply embarrassed by all the scrutiny they're getting because of it?
"i'd rather stick to my free pc"
Tux Racing on a keyboard is good enough for anybody!
You mean it would only apply to video games, not movies or television?
We had the famous "wardrobe malfunction" not too long ago, and yet we still don't have legislation enforcing "truth in ratings" in television shows (everybody knows the Super Bowl is supposed to be about violence, not sex!).
I'm beginning to suspect that politicians don't yet realize just how many gamers are of voting age now.
"Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:"
Granting powers to Congress isn't the same as denying those powers to the states, otherwise there'd be no need for most of Section 10 of the same article. So long as it's not an impost or duty on imports or exports, it's fair game for the state legislatures.
"Let's reduce our emissions now, before I have to go and paint my roof bright white."
If you do it now anyway, your air conditioning bill in the summer will be lower. And depending on how you get your electricity, painting your roof white would, in fact, reduce emissions.
Why the bias in favor of strict controls over individual actions?
"If you want to bring morals into it, how would you weigh the loss of the millions of jobs that would disappear if we took that industry out of the equation?"
Compared to perpetuating something that has the demonstrable effect of eroding one of the basic pillars of human society? Not much. My friendly neighborhood crack dealer has done less harm (he only sells crack, not my personal information). Despite what others have said in this topic, cynicism is neither good nor desirable. Skepticism, yes, but not cynicism.
"Proof that there is good viral marketing."
Only insofar as you conveniently define "good" as "commercially effective." I'm sure the Manson Family did wonders for "getting the word out" about the White Album, which would be "good" according to you.
"I'd say it was extremely successful as target audience response to it was very positive"
Which outweighs the fact that various laws concerning littering and dumping were violated in this effort? So long as the income is larger than the fines, it's "good?" What if the Beatles had paid Charles Manson to do his thing?
"You mean he'll become the head of the Democratic National Committee? That ain't so bad."
It also leaves us with yet another also-ran, giving the Democratic ticket to another yawner and/or someone that convinces Republicans to go out and vote, guaranteeing us 8 years of (e. g.) President Rice.
"People love to bash it but do not realize how absolutely necessary it is for our economy."
If the economy of the southern states can manage to do without slavery, I think we could figure out a way for the Republic to survive without marketing. If you're going to try to defend something like this, you need to do it on its own moral terms, rather than the "But it's making us money!" scapegoat.
"What about all the GOOD viral marketing that you've seen and gone "oh, cool, thats entertaining"."
Seeing the words "good" and "viral" together like that didn't tip you off that, perhaps, there is no such thing as a good viral marketing campaign?
"Case in point, I wonder how many slashdotters read about this Aqua Teen Hunger Force campaign and thought it was awesome, not necessarily the whole hoopla that it caused, but the actual LED moonenite thing. Yeah, that's what I thought."
It is possible to hold both the guerrilla advertising campaign and the overzealous reaction to it in contempt. It's where the Eighth Amendment came from.
You're the second one so far. Apparently my joke was too subtle for both responders and moderators.
woosh
and the title is still true.
When will the nation learn that we cannot abide with marketing in this post-9/11 world?