You are paid by a company to compare their product to the competition, and, what a surprise, you end up with the conclusion that your employer's product is superior.
Who's the target audience for that marketing speech?
On one forum that I hang out on, someone a while ago did a Google search for "black people." Sure enough, the Ebay ad came up - "Buy, sell, and trade black people on ebay!"
I use Firefox which has a built in pop-up blocker, I rarely see pop-up ads, but recently they've started to show up more often. The arms race is still going on. I just upgraded to FF 1.5RC3 because I hope it does a better job of blocking this new kind of pop-ups. At this point the advertisers know that users despise these tactics, but some are still willing to keep up with the war. So I do my part and use Flashblock and Adblock all other ads on sight. If the sites go under due to lack of funds, so be it; I'm tired of their crap.
The new pop up/under are javascripts. I use adBlock to ban the entire sites that use them (not the site to which I was trying to get the content, but the evil adverstiser's). I'm already blocking pop-ups from normal channels, if these fuckers can't get a clue, I'm happy to block ALL their info, they are obviously dishonest and not to be trusted.
Sure, I still get a pop-up every few weeks, but instead of blocking the way they do it, I block the guys that do it, so that the next new weapon in the spammer's arsenal won't be used to peddle THEIR crap on me.
But whatabout all the new ones which cover the page (Fox is a major offender here), or noisy ads
Block them, and write to the website operator to let them what you are blocking and why.
When I do so, I make a point to mention that I still see the google text ads, since they don't SCREECH in my ears or get in the way of what I'm trying to read.
The behaviour of these ads would get you punched in the face if you did it in person, do it on the web and you get blocked. Deal. (you might want to be more polite, less confrontational than this in the emails, but it's the jist of it).
NO advertisers would make a deal with us. They insisted on banner or popup ads only.
There's this myth that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Clearly, the publicist that came up with that one must be worshipped by his peers, but frankly, there are a number of businesses that will never get a dime of my money because they believed that lie, and they harassed me with bad publicity.
I've seen a rash of annoying pop-up and "peel-back" ads. Anything that covers existing content without me explicly asking it to do so is by definition annoying.
Google ads are some of the few I don't block: They aren't annoying, in fact, sometimes they're even interresting.
But anything that flashes, moves, makes sound, pops up or under, or worse: Loads VIDEO in a banner, freezing my browser and all it's tabs while doing so, is blocked. That last one is what pushed me over the ethical conundrum of wanting the websites to make money but not wanting to have an epilepsy attack when I visit, freezing my browser to force me to see and hear an ad for something I'm not interrested in went too far, now I adBlock their site and I will forever boycott that product that was pushing itself on me so forcibly.
Saw that too. Good quality PC graphics, seems like both humans and king Kong are playable. Aside from that, it looks like your run of the mill movie game, recreating the scenes within the confines of the movie's storyline... that rarely ends up being much fun to play. I lost interest rather quickly.
Slightly better graphics seemed like the only thing it has to offer.
Personally, I approve of the controls on selling violent games to minors. [...] Do we really want liability for companies who make violent movies?
There's a thing about US cartoons that has been annoying me for years. There seems to be a law that no real guns should ever be shown in kid's show (remember how G.I. Joe and Cobra used to shoot lasers out of their M16s and AK47s?), that a hero on a motorcycle shoud ALWAYS wear a helmet (wolverine with a helmet, or worse, spiderman, gets on a hog, pulls a helmet out of his ass, puts it on, and when he jumps off the bike to start freefalling off tall buildings while being shot at with heat seeking missiles, THEN he takes off the helmet!), or the worse: THE WORST of all: No consequences. Ever.
When G.I. Joe's army is shooting at Cobra's army, from 15 feet away, with automatic weapons, NO ONE EVER GETS HURT.
This is dangerous. Much more dangerous than watching violence: It's watching violence without consequences. I'm sure this comes from the "thik of the children!" censorship mentality: That watching violence would breed violence (hit: Being the victim of violence is what makes you violent, duh). And it's counter-productive. It does not a dress the real cause, but it creates a sense that vilence has no consequences. That's scary wrong.
The old japanese anime show would have deaths... watch UFO Robot Grandizer: When the giant robots fight in a city, people die! Children are orphaned! But never in a US show: No consequences. And less and less in jap shows, since their market extends to the states now, they're starting to censor at creation rather than let the maniac censors of america butcher their shows when they're sold overseas (like that is gonna stop 'em... check out gamepolitics.com for Jack Thompson's stance on japanese culture corrupting American Youth).
In fact, if you can ever get your hand on the Earthworm Jim cartoon plot episode, they do a great joke on this (jim throws a were-puppy monster at a bus full of orphans, and then draws attention to the fact that none of the kids were hurt).
Stop treating kids as if they were stupid: They are young, ignorant, not necessarily stupid (although, obviously, some are). Teach them that violence makes victims, not that violence has no consequences. Stop trying to shield them from the reality of the world, because the world isn't as safe as you'd like to pretend it is, and it will hit them hard if they are unprepared.
Although there are things I'd like to see remade... Logan's Run has been mentioned by Brian Singer a few times, that would be nice. The idea was good, but badly executed.
The Prisoner, however, was well done. It doesn't need to be remade.
Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R. MD), proposes that the US debt claimed by the UN is erroneous due to unreimbursed expenses of $4.7 billion for peacekeeping services incurred by the United States during the years 1992 - 1995.
Ah. The US wants to be paid by the UN for peacekeeping expenses during the Rwandan massacre period.
I'm not familiar with the incident you're citing, but I'd like to know what stopped the other nations in the U.N. from acting if the United States failed to do so. The U.N. isn't there as a "request U.S. aid" board. You cannot place fault solely on the U.S. for failing to act when an international council was approached, the fault lies with every member of the U.N. who was capable but failed to act.
That is correct. The US weren't solely responsible. They just led the way. France was also disgustingly disinterrested, but they have a history of colonial shenanigans in Africa, so it's not... surprising. However, France isn't trying to destroy the UN, the US is, so that's why I didn't mention them, nor Russia, nor China, nor Belgium, who has a big responsibility since it's one of their former colonies, and they implemented the screwed up racial divide that culminated in that massacre. Canada, however, tried real hard to help out.
In April 1994, the plane carrying Habyarimana and the President of Burundi was shot down. The event triggered the notorious genocide. Extremist Hutu militia aided by the Rwandan army launched systematic massacres against Tutsis. Despite reports of mass killings, the UN failed to take immediate action to stop the massacres, due to opposition from France and the US. Around 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed within 100 days, and over three million people fled to neighboring countries.
they are trying to get the US to renovate the UN building in NYC and expecting to spend about a billion extra to do so (American Tax Dollars).
I hadn't read any details about the renovation project, so I checked it out. That billion "American Tax Dollars" you talked about? It's a loan, with 5.54 per cent interest!
the United States Congress had approved the loan offer of $1.2 billion to finance the costs of the project.
they are trying to get the US to renovate the UN building in NYC and expecting to spend about a billion extra to do so (American Tax Dollars)
For more than a decade the United States has been seriously delinquent in paying its 25 percent share of dues to the United Nations. It currently owes more than $1 billion. While most of the world body's 185 member states are current, Congress has held up U.S. dues
That was in 1997. STFU until you pay your debts, deadbeat.
Since the United States has given up official control of Okinawa, U.S. military personnel have committed 22 murders, 354 robberies and 110 rapes on the island
Most infamous of which is the gang rape of a japanese schoolgirl in the 90's, which so outraged the population that the base is being relocated.
They may feed starving people, but when those people are being massacred [rwanda], they look the other way.
The U.N. general from Canada motioned to intervene. The U.S. refused. From your link:
UNAMIR's Force Commander General Dallaire became aware of plans for the genocide in January of 1994. He sent a cable to U.N. headquarters in N.Y. asking for permission to confiscate weapons. Throughout January, Februrary and March, he pleaded for reinforcements and logistical support. The UN Security Council refused. The United States refused to provide requested material aid
The U.N. itself cannot do anything: It's a place for the member nations to talk. If the biggest member decides that a genocide is not worth the risk of potential military casualties, then the fault for inaction is not with the U.N. for trying, but for the member nation for refusing to act.
think RFID rechnology is just inherently evil without regard to whose using it and what purpose it is for, and yet say that P2P technologies like Bittorrent are great [...] It's just another example of hypocrisy.
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not;
It's a goddamned NAME BADGE! It's not the Illuminadi, it's not the "Pentaveret" or whatever the hell secret society you think is covering up UFO's. It's to identify which doors he should be able to unlock and which he shouldn't have access to.
And they wouldn't let him leave the room! RTFA, he showed his badge whenever he had to get access to anything, he covered it up when he wasn't doing that, and they freaked.
Tell me again why you don't think there's something more to their insistance on invisible, easily tracked mandatory ID? Remind me how it will be impossible for anyone with bad intentions to get access to the traces?
Slashdot Mirror
You are paid by a company to compare their product to the competition, and, what a surprise, you end up with the conclusion that your employer's product is superior.
Who's the target audience for that marketing speech?
On one forum that I hang out on, someone a while ago did a Google search for "black people." Sure enough, the Ebay ad came up - "Buy, sell, and trade black people on ebay!"
That's hilarious!
I hope they kept a screenshot.
CSI:Miami, a TV-show with violent content, is going to go up against violent content in the video game industry?
They already had a gametester killing another last year, too.
No, he and the others want to pretend that Fair Use doesn't exist.
He reminds me of a little kid crying "It's not faiiiiiir" when denied something.
"But I WANT to charge them everytime they hear it! AND to force them to hear it! It's not fair that they won't let me!"
yeah, eBay ads for ANYTHING you tye are stupid, but they're just sitting there, on the side.
They aren't flashing, moving, sounding off or pretending to be a legitimate search result.
They're easily ignored, and kinda funny in their absurdity.
I use Firefox which has a built in pop-up blocker, I rarely see pop-up ads, but recently they've started to show up more often. The arms race is still going on. I just upgraded to FF 1.5RC3 because I hope it does a better job of blocking this new kind of pop-ups. At this point the advertisers know that users despise these tactics, but some are still willing to keep up with the war. So I do my part and use Flashblock and Adblock all other ads on sight. If the sites go under due to lack of funds, so be it; I'm tired of their crap.
The new pop up/under are javascripts. I use adBlock to ban the entire sites that use them (not the site to which I was trying to get the content, but the evil adverstiser's).
I'm already blocking pop-ups from normal channels, if these fuckers can't get a clue, I'm happy to block ALL their info, they are obviously dishonest and not to be trusted.
Sure, I still get a pop-up every few weeks, but instead of blocking the way they do it, I block the guys that do it, so that the next new weapon in the spammer's arsenal won't be used to peddle THEIR crap on me.
But whatabout all the new ones which cover the page (Fox is a major offender here), or noisy ads
Block them, and write to the website operator to let them what you are blocking and why.
When I do so, I make a point to mention that I still see the google text ads, since they don't SCREECH in my ears or get in the way of what I'm trying to read.
The behaviour of these ads would get you punched in the face if you did it in person, do it on the web and you get blocked. Deal. (you might want to be more polite, less confrontational than this in the emails, but it's the jist of it).
NO advertisers would make a deal with us. They insisted on banner or popup ads only.
There's this myth that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Clearly, the publicist that came up with that one must be worshipped by his peers, but frankly, there are a number of businesses that will never get a dime of my money because they believed that lie, and they harassed me with bad publicity.
I've seen a rash of annoying pop-up and "peel-back" ads. Anything that covers existing content without me explicly asking it to do so is by definition annoying.
AdBlock.
Google ads are some of the few I don't block: They aren't annoying, in fact, sometimes they're even interresting.
But anything that flashes, moves, makes sound, pops up or under, or worse: Loads VIDEO in a banner, freezing my browser and all it's tabs while doing so, is blocked. That last one is what pushed me over the ethical conundrum of wanting the websites to make money but not wanting to have an epilepsy attack when I visit, freezing my browser to force me to see and hear an ad for something I'm not interrested in went too far, now I adBlock their site and I will forever boycott that product that was pushing itself on me so forcibly.
I saw the King Kong demo on a 360
Saw that too. Good quality PC graphics, seems like both humans and king Kong are playable. Aside from that, it looks like your run of the mill movie game, recreating the scenes within the confines of the movie's storyline... that rarely ends up being much fun to play. I lost interest rather quickly.
Slightly better graphics seemed like the only thing it has to offer.
Personally, I approve of the controls on selling violent games to minors.
[...]
Do we really want liability for companies who make violent movies?
There's a thing about US cartoons that has been annoying me for years.
There seems to be a law that no real guns should ever be shown in kid's show (remember how G.I. Joe and Cobra used to shoot lasers out of their M16s and AK47s?), that a hero on a motorcycle shoud ALWAYS wear a helmet (wolverine with a helmet, or worse, spiderman, gets on a hog, pulls a helmet out of his ass, puts it on, and when he jumps off the bike to start freefalling off tall buildings while being shot at with heat seeking missiles, THEN he takes off the helmet!), or the worse: THE WORST of all: No consequences. Ever.
When G.I. Joe's army is shooting at Cobra's army, from 15 feet away, with automatic weapons, NO ONE EVER GETS HURT.
This is dangerous. Much more dangerous than watching violence: It's watching violence without consequences.
I'm sure this comes from the "thik of the children!" censorship mentality: That watching violence would breed violence (hit: Being the victim of violence is what makes you violent, duh). And it's counter-productive. It does not a dress the real cause, but it creates a sense that vilence has no consequences. That's scary wrong.
The old japanese anime show would have deaths... watch UFO Robot Grandizer: When the giant robots fight in a city, people die! Children are orphaned!
But never in a US show: No consequences. And less and less in jap shows, since their market extends to the states now, they're starting to censor at creation rather than let the maniac censors of america butcher their shows when they're sold overseas (like that is gonna stop 'em... check out gamepolitics.com for Jack Thompson's stance on japanese culture corrupting American Youth).
In fact, if you can ever get your hand on the Earthworm Jim cartoon plot episode, they do a great joke on this (jim throws a were-puppy monster at a bus full of orphans, and then draws attention to the fact that none of the kids were hurt).
Stop treating kids as if they were stupid: They are young, ignorant, not necessarily stupid (although, obviously, some are). Teach them that violence makes victims, not that violence has no consequences. Stop trying to shield them from the reality of the world, because the world isn't as safe as you'd like to pretend it is, and it will hit them hard if they are unprepared.
Suppose a man wishes to have sexual intercourse with a video game CD, and proceeds to place his penis into the hole in the centre.
Dude, if your weiner is small enough to fit in there, you are at best, a boy. Not a man.
Sorry ; )
They allege Jack has no facts and they provide no facts to back that up.
Thompson claim: Violent videogames turn people into violence zombies.
Fact: Violent crime rates have gone down while violent videogame sales have gone up.
Columbine featured kids strolling into school and opening fire almost exactly as Neo did in the elevator scene in the Matrix.
They were summersaulting and running up on walls while being shot at by a dozen heavily armed SWAT guys?
No? Oh, you meant, they were wearing trenchcoats, like they'd been doig for years, and that movie ALSO had the trendy coats. I see.
the original fun will be downright annoying to the reality-tv generation.
Sweet! Payback.
Why do we constantly need a remake of everything?
Dunno, I find this one odd.
Although there are things I'd like to see remade... Logan's Run has been mentioned by Brian Singer a few times, that would be nice. The idea was good, but badly executed.
The Prisoner, however, was well done. It doesn't need to be remade.
How often did Trump go bankrupt?
You're fired!
1994 - The Rwandan Genocide begins
Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R. MD), proposes that the US debt claimed by the UN is erroneous due to unreimbursed expenses of $4.7 billion for peacekeeping services incurred by the United States during the years 1992 - 1995.
Ah. The US wants to be paid by the UN for peacekeeping expenses during the Rwandan massacre period.
Wow.
That is correct. The US weren't solely responsible. They just led the way.
France was also disgustingly disinterrested, but they have a history of colonial shenanigans in Africa, so it's not... surprising. However, France isn't trying to destroy the UN, the US is, so that's why I didn't mention them, nor Russia, nor China, nor Belgium, who has a big responsibility since it's one of their former colonies, and they implemented the screwed up racial divide that culminated in that massacre.
Canada, however, tried real hard to help out.
I hadn't read any details about the renovation project, so I checked it out. That billion "American Tax Dollars" you talked about? It's a loan, with 5.54 per cent interest!
That was in 1997. STFU until you pay your debts, deadbeat.
mentioning the child rapes
Seriously, STFU.
Most infamous of which is the gang rape of a japanese schoolgirl in the 90's, which so outraged the population that the base is being relocated.
The U.N. general from Canada motioned to intervene. The U.S. refused. From your link:
The U.N. itself cannot do anything: It's a place for the member nations to talk. If the biggest member decides that a genocide is not worth the risk of potential military casualties, then the fault for inaction is not with the U.N. for trying, but for the member nation for refusing to act.
[...]
It's just another example of hypocrisy.
No, Alanis, it's not.
It's a goddamned NAME BADGE! It's not the Illuminadi, it's not the "Pentaveret" or whatever the hell secret society you think is covering up UFO's. It's to identify which doors he should be able to unlock and which he shouldn't have access to.
And they wouldn't let him leave the room!
RTFA, he showed his badge whenever he had to get access to anything, he covered it up when he wasn't doing that, and they freaked.
Tell me again why you don't think there's something more to their insistance on invisible, easily tracked mandatory ID? Remind me how it will be impossible for anyone with bad intentions to get access to the traces?