Non-slut homos are no more at risk than non-slut heteros.
Nor does it have anything to do with whether you are married or not... HIV ignores wedding rings, apparently.
Nice attempt at trollbashing, but pegging me as a biblethumper was the wrong call. Go sit in the corner.
As for "unprotected sex just once your at risk", this is stupid propaganda, at most. If you want to get technical, being alive means "you are at risk". Ever had a blood transfusion? Ever had someone bleed on you? Let's talk about reasonable risk factors, and knowing someone well enough to be able to trust them to tell the truth when you ask how many people they've fucked.
Let's say you've only had two sex partners, one was a virgin at the time (so were you), and another one claimed to have only ever had one previously. And she claims that that guy doesn't fuck around all that much. Well, assuming she is telling the truth. And you meet another girl, whose history is much like your own... is she more of a risk, than the IV drug-using prostitute that looks like she's seeing whether being beaten by pimps or OD will kill her first?
Now, the nice girl you've met... drop her history even lower, and yours. Are you both safer?
Thank you for reading this Public Service Announcement, and remember kids, don't fuck around like rabbits, you'll live longer!
But you are overlooking one of the safeguard effects of mortality.
Until now, no matter how evil a person(s) is, they will die someday. Unfortunately the decent ones need to die too, because mortality isn't very picky. But what happens with the next Hitler, the next Stalin? Or god help us, Jeffrey Dahmer? That sounds dumb at first, but what happens when a 300 yr old serial criminal has enough practice to avoid detection no matter what?
And it's truly shitty luck on our part, that the Hitlers and Stalins are likely to be the first to benefit from such technology.
This is something I don't want to see happen, ever. At least not until humanity collectively learns how not to be such shitheads.
For non-sluts, the chances of getting it are far lower than they are for others. Especially when they keep the number of their sexual partners low, and keep it in their pants long enough to determine if those partners are indeed non-sluts too.
There's always some astronomical chance that AIDS will slip through in some blood transfusion or similar, so it's not perfect. But it does tend to help alot. Too bad it's a little too late for you to become a non-slut too, isn't it?
It's self-destructive in a fundamental way. Whether there is a cure for this disease or that doesn't change the fact that there will be another one sometime in history, and unless you're psychic you can't predict when or where or whom.
It's socially harmful, because even though you deserve to die for being a slut (man or woman, I'm not sexist), you'll likely spread it to others, some of which will no doubt be... true victims. People that were being decent, and doing nothing that they might have avoided with a few morals or even enlightened self-interest. Heroin junkies, next time you shoot up, remember that you helped and did your part in killing the little babies born with AIDS. It's a team effort, and even if you didn't score one, they couldn't have done it without you!
As for promiscuity, well, what can I say? Apparently, there are ways to even minimize the risks you'd be dealing with. But if the statistics say anything, they say that most sluts are generally too stupid or apathetic to even do this. Of course you have the right to fuck around, but when it comes back to you 10 years later, and bites you in the ass, don't wimp out and cry when I laugh at you. I only hope that you managed to destroy your own life, and not those of the other people around you.
THere doesn't exist any global system to prevent public health epidemics.
Wow, I say something about a really simply concept generally described as "not fucking around" and you think I refer to some health departmentesque goverment sponsored bureaucracy.
you are referring to homosexuality
No, I'm referrring to promiscuity in general. Far from being a bible thumper, I don't care if you're celibate or not, married or not, or even queer. If you could keep the number of sex partners in the single digit count, you'd be doing better than most. Even gays, which I don't care for, lose more points with me for being sluts, than they do for being gay.
if by this you mean drug use
Not in particular, but this is a component. If it were the only component, we could have solved your "epidemic" and the IV drug problem in one fell swoop. I'm sorry, being a victim really sucks. But some people try too damn hard to be a victim, for me to have much sympathy. For fucks sake, if you want to ruin your life injecting heroin, is it gonna take too damn long to bleach a needle first? Who cares whether they end up in the ER with an overdose 30 seconds late?
Blaming AIDS on any one practice, or group
This is actually somewhat intelligent, so I almost feel bad pointing out that you are wrong. The one group that I can blame it on, is humanity, and its entire culture as a whole. We were supposed to have evolved in the last few million years, it's time to quit acting like monkeys for fucks sake.
AIDS is now largely a heterosexual
Which only proves my earlier point that it's a promiscuity problem, not a homosexual problem. Go find a person that you feel like screwing for most, if not all of your life. If it doesn't work out, sit back and think about why, before searching for another. If it's more than one, it's no big deal, but if you can't keep count, or someone asks and you have to sit and think about it for 10 minutes before answering, you have a serious problem.
and developing nation phenomena related to poverty.
Hehe. Those poor people are too poor to not be retarded. Aww. Can't we spend $1500 per month, so that they can live longer and have even more opportunities to infect the few that aren't already showing fullblown AIDS symptoms?
Give me a goddamn break. You should hear some of the sexual practices these people have. We don't need morals to prove it wrong, survival of the fittest is likely to show how good an idea it really is. But no, we'll wait for western science to bail out cultures that don't deserve to survive, and are incapable of finding a cure on their own. And before you go calling me racist, let me assure you that I'm only discriminating against what goes on in their collective heads, not how much pigment is in their skin. Nor would I hold any of them ill will, if by some chance they woke up and had some sense. A racist would continue to try and punish them even after they started behaving, or would overlook that even retards with the same skin color as my own are pulling the same idiotic stunts in my own nation.
There are some true victims out there. Babies born with the disease, people infected through tainted blood supplies. Unfortunately, it will continue to happen, as long as people continue to behave as they do. Hell, there are even some true problems in Africa, and other places, that I think we should try to help them with... but instead, we're wasting money and effort treating a what is, or at least was, a preventable "epidemic". Those are dollars and hours that could have been going toward a cure or vaccine for the next ebola... a disease that will kill africans first, and for which they have no reasonable way of preventing. I'd much rather be spending money on things like that, and if you had any sense, you'd rather that be the case too.
So next time, you decide to trollbash, look first and wonder a bit if maybe the opinion isn't so farfetched, or unfair. I'm generally pretty reasonable, and in this case, there are reasons for beinig less than politically correct on the topic.
Wow, I can't wait til science comes up with a cure for something that could have been contained or prevented, so that I can continue with my self-destructive and socially harmful behavior!!!
Ironic that if laws were passed to criminalize flag-burning, that you might actually have a legitimate reason for such a protest.
Anyone that values a meaningless symbol more than the thing that the symbol stands for, is at the nadir of shallowness.
Re:Apples and Oranges
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yes, because there is no such thing as body language. Or emphatic gestures. And deaf/mutes, that sign language isn't speech either.
And if you pose for a camera, that's not speech, nor is letting your words be recorded on videotape. Speak all you like, but if the words end up in a fixed format, then damn you, you seditious criminal.
And if you want to wear a black armband to school during wartime, as a peaceful non-disruptive protest, then that "expression" is surely a crime too, and I hope you burn in hell.
Language and communication aren't limited to vocal sounds. As long as the action is without doubt, communication only, who are you to claim it's not protected?
Burning the US flag might be wrong, but only because it's the one country in the world where you are guaranteed the right to do it.
Haha. Mind you, I wish you were right. let's examine your examples more closely.
A) DIVX
Ahead of its time. They needed to wait until technology made the concept a little smoother, a little slicker. They needed 3 more years, to sign on the hardware manufacturers, so that more DVD players were divx compatible. If everyone had a divx player, the fact that divx movies had a price tag lower, complete with some of the fancier tricks they were playing...
Consumers didn't reject it, so much as it was immature and the marketing campaign was less than 100%. I cringe even thinking about it, but this monster will be far stronger in its second incarnation...
B) 1980's era copy protection.
Well, the software companies had to back off, to be sure. They even paid lip service awhile, to the opinion that excessive copy protection was a bad idea. However, DRM is about to get going well, and the software companies can hem and haw, pretending that they're against it while they put up a token struggle against the MPAA. You did hear that M$ is getting into the act? Even when morons claimed that "no matter how evil they are, at least they're against this". I tried to point out that they were just biding time til they could figure out how to exploit it the most, and everyone booed and hissed. Wait and see how difficult it will be to avoid it, when all the hardware manufacturers are marching in lockstep.
Yes, because everyone should know that effective boycotts are easily possible, since most consumers are intelligent and informed enough to tell which is which, and they're never apathetic about such restrictions.
Please forgive me for being a fool.
Sometimes I wonder if you people even deserve to not get shit on all the time. Even now, you seem to think your "rights" are worth anything, when circumstances are engineered so that they are impossible to exercise, without committing or condoming "crimes" as defined by the DMCA. Even now, the twit that you are, is here defending another twit, basically telling me "if you really wanted, you could back them up, but they don't have to make it possible, and if you don't like it, do without". WTF kind of answer is that?
So Corporate America doesn't mind us having token rights, as long as Congress makes sure we have no legal avenue to pursue them.
Cool.
Thanks for explaining it to us, Mr. Corporate Asslicker. Did they promise a free chance at a New Playstation 2 if you hang out on slashdot and apologize for them at every opportunity?
Proof that being confident gets more karma than being right.
Shut up your fool mouth, trollboy. WTF does flash have to do with USB?
Whatever the reason it is cheaper, compact flash DOES have an IDE interface. For the price of a cheap converter cable, you could get the flash card and still save money while getting 100 more megs.
If there is any truth in drakon's statement, it may be that the card is a bit slower, after all, some harddrives are faster than others. The flash drive may play a few tricks and buffer it to fast ram, or may even be 16bit data path, versus CF's oldschool 8bit data path. I'd still go with the card though.
No offense, you seem to be an ok guy... but when I invent this method of time travel, rather than resetting it to the past, I'm resetting it so that every human with the exception of myself becomes a rabidly heterosexual super model clone.
And if you invent it before I do, I'll understand if I suddenly cease to exist. No hard feelings.
On a more serious note, particles seem an awful lot like pixels on a huge 3d display. Time is simply a function of how quickly they can switch from off to on. Just wish I knew how to overflow universe* so that I could run some arbitrary code.
I don't drink Pepsi or Coke. And just so I can assure you I'm not sidestepping your example and pealizing you for not psychically knowing a good one... I can't think of any other example that might help make your case.
Shoes? Cars? Fast food?:( There aren't any where advertisement has had much noticeable effect on me.
I think I might have been affected more by them as a kid, but I've grown up. And if I was affected then, I'm slightly ashamed of it.
But to answer the original argument. Left to their own devices, people will search for things they need, and find them in things that are arguably non-advertisement. Finding an article about something they have needed for awhile, but no one bothered to make, a magazine review. Hearing from a friend, doing a search on the net. Stumbling across the storefront, and going "gee, when did they open this store" or "wow, look at that on the shelf!".
And if it is because they see an ad, and bought it 1 day earlier than they would if they'd had a chance to discover it, can the ad take credit? Most business that are healthy could care less if it takes an extra day or week to make that sale.
Random is a bad word. But yes, if it is non-repeating, and non-terminating, that is what I meant. Which means, that all finite sequences will exist within it, at some point. Obviously, not all infinite sequences exist within it. I understand what information is, and the very act of finding either by accident, or design, a finite sequence in Pi that looks like the binary representation of a newspaper from the future, and believing it to be so, would be an act of giving context to it. Whether or not the newspaper articles turn out to be true. And obviously, I mean binary Pi, not decimal.
You're proof against time travel, only proves that it's not time travel. What other people call "time travel" might exist, but proves that it's actually something else. Skipping into a slightly different and time-dilated parallel universe?
Or my favorite, the ability to reset the universe exactly as it was 10 years ago, with the one exception of the "time traveler" himself, that wouldn't violate your observation, since you observed it the first time through. The next version of you, would be in for a shock, though. The question of whether the next version is really you, though, is a good one. Or where the mass the "time traveler" has actually came from, is another.
In this sense, the information the time traveler brings with him, still comes from a point in the "past". The future just happens to look much like it did 10 years ago.
No paradox. It's when people jump to conclusions about something fantasic, that annoys me. Another example of the same kind of thinking, is idiots who believe that because someone might have a memory of something that happened to a confederate soldier 100 yrs ago, that obviously that person is the reincarnation of that confederate. Even if it's not a hoax (unlikely) it only means that memory transfer somehow occured. Whether there is a soul or not, memory doesn't equate with it, or the "you-ness" of you. Sorry to go off on a tangent.
It proves that companies tend to forget, ignore, or do a halfass job of listing themselves in whatever the appropriate directory or index is. It possibly says that the indexes to date are less effective than they should be.
It doesn't say that advertisement should A) exist, B) is a good thing everybody wants, or C) is something that couldn't be replaced with something much more effective that would cease to nauseate the general public.
That companies spend billions on advverrtising, when they could just list themselves in a directory properly... or that commercials could disappear, and as long as no one snitched, corporate executives could go one cluelessly never knowing and never caring... that point is even stronger.
Oh, and Pizza Hut wouldn't lose a sale. Papa John's in my area ignores their online orders, and makes me wait on hold for 30 minutes. And the locals all make pizza that looks like a dog puked it up. Pizza Hut is crap for pizza, but better than the rest in small ways. Making me look it up in the yellow pages would have annoyed me only slightly more, but wouldn't necessarily be their fault. It's an example of a shitty index... phone companies should have been distributing these things on floppy or CD for years. They must enjoy deforestation, is all I can figure.
And if the index is shitty, well, that may not directly be the companies fault, but I'm sure they could have either leaned on the phoneco's to make a better index, or collaborated and built their own. Hell, that would be providing a service to customers though, something they don't do... numerous talking heads and non-existent studies prove that profits from ass-raping customers are almost triple those of treating them properly and giving them something of value for their money.
They seem to think that its a matter of finding a method to force or persuade those that won't buy their product but have the money to, to buy it anyway.
When I want to order pizza, I'm pretty much forced to get Pizza Hut, even though I hate ordering from a national chain like them. But guess what?
It's quicker to dig through the ads from sunday's paper, to find the phone number, than it is to remember where we hid the yellow pages.
How do you know that your "ads" aren't the same thing? An easier way to look you up, than looking in the huge "index" (which would either be the yellow pages, or possibly the internet, either of which requires them to know the exact wording/spelling of company name).
Even for TV, this could hold true, with someone wanting to call, but having to wait for an ad to write down the 800 number.
So, the millions and billions that are wasted on TV advertising campaigns might be better spent if only they'd register with the proper indexes in a way that makes you easy to find. Of course, then how could they spread the religion of Corporation A ?
If it affects your decision, it says a lot more about your brain power than it does about my logic.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, mind you. The only conspiracy is one of stupidity and sheep-like behavior, both for consumers and those making executive decisions in corporate america.
And no, you wouldn't fail. You'd survive, maybe even make a comfortable revenue. You just can't make the outrageous yearly profits that everyone demands, or meet the gov's expectations of economic growth rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Do I believe that there are still a few good things left about the USA?
Yes.
Do I believe that one of them is the fact that you won't be tortured to death for making an ultimately peacful political statement?
Yes.
Am I a troll?
Yes.
Non-slut homos are no more at risk than non-slut heteros.
Nor does it have anything to do with whether you are married or not... HIV ignores wedding rings, apparently.
Nice attempt at trollbashing, but pegging me as a biblethumper was the wrong call. Go sit in the corner.
As for "unprotected sex just once your at risk", this is stupid propaganda, at most. If you want to get technical, being alive means "you are at risk". Ever had a blood transfusion? Ever had someone bleed on you? Let's talk about reasonable risk factors, and knowing someone well enough to be able to trust them to tell the truth when you ask how many people they've fucked.
Let's say you've only had two sex partners, one was a virgin at the time (so were you), and another one claimed to have only ever had one previously. And she claims that that guy doesn't fuck around all that much. Well, assuming she is telling the truth. And you meet another girl, whose history is much like your own... is she more of a risk, than the IV drug-using prostitute that looks like she's seeing whether being beaten by pimps or OD will kill her first?
Now, the nice girl you've met... drop her history even lower, and yours. Are you both safer?
Thank you for reading this Public Service Announcement, and remember kids, don't fuck around like rabbits, you'll live longer!
Even better question, why could limited gene therapy in your bone marrow change this?
Within weeks or is it months, your entire white cell population could be new and improved, invulnerable to AIDS...
Cool ideas.
But you are overlooking one of the safeguard effects of mortality.
Until now, no matter how evil a person(s) is, they will die someday. Unfortunately the decent ones need to die too, because mortality isn't very picky. But what happens with the next Hitler, the next Stalin? Or god help us, Jeffrey Dahmer? That sounds dumb at first, but what happens when a 300 yr old serial criminal has enough practice to avoid detection no matter what?
And it's truly shitty luck on our part, that the Hitlers and Stalins are likely to be the first to benefit from such technology.
This is something I don't want to see happen, ever. At least not until humanity collectively learns how not to be such shitheads.
Nah, he/she is probably just a non-slut.
For non-sluts, the chances of getting it are far lower than they are for others. Especially when they keep the number of their sexual partners low, and keep it in their pants long enough to determine if those partners are indeed non-sluts too.
There's always some astronomical chance that AIDS will slip through in some blood transfusion or similar, so it's not perfect. But it does tend to help alot. Too bad it's a little too late for you to become a non-slut too, isn't it?
It's self-destructive in a fundamental way. Whether there is a cure for this disease or that doesn't change the fact that there will be another one sometime in history, and unless you're psychic you can't predict when or where or whom.
It's socially harmful, because even though you deserve to die for being a slut (man or woman, I'm not sexist), you'll likely spread it to others, some of which will no doubt be... true victims. People that were being decent, and doing nothing that they might have avoided with a few morals or even enlightened self-interest. Heroin junkies, next time you shoot up, remember that you helped and did your part in killing the little babies born with AIDS. It's a team effort, and even if you didn't score one, they couldn't have done it without you!
As for promiscuity, well, what can I say? Apparently, there are ways to even minimize the risks you'd be dealing with. But if the statistics say anything, they say that most sluts are generally too stupid or apathetic to even do this. Of course you have the right to fuck around, but when it comes back to you 10 years later, and bites you in the ass, don't wimp out and cry when I laugh at you. I only hope that you managed to destroy your own life, and not those of the other people around you.
You are stupid, in a very fundamental way.
THere doesn't exist any global system to prevent public health epidemics.
Wow, I say something about a really simply concept generally described as "not fucking around" and you think I refer to some health departmentesque goverment sponsored bureaucracy.
you are referring to homosexuality
No, I'm referrring to promiscuity in general. Far from being a bible thumper, I don't care if you're celibate or not, married or not, or even queer. If you could keep the number of sex partners in the single digit count, you'd be doing better than most. Even gays, which I don't care for, lose more points with me for being sluts, than they do for being gay.
if by this you mean drug use
Not in particular, but this is a component. If it were the only component, we could have solved your "epidemic" and the IV drug problem in one fell swoop. I'm sorry, being a victim really sucks. But some people try too damn hard to be a victim, for me to have much sympathy. For fucks sake, if you want to ruin your life injecting heroin, is it gonna take too damn long to bleach a needle first? Who cares whether they end up in the ER with an overdose 30 seconds late?
Blaming AIDS on any one practice, or group
This is actually somewhat intelligent, so I almost feel bad pointing out that you are wrong. The one group that I can blame it on, is humanity, and its entire culture as a whole. We were supposed to have evolved in the last few million years, it's time to quit acting like monkeys for fucks sake.
AIDS is now largely a heterosexual
Which only proves my earlier point that it's a promiscuity problem, not a homosexual problem. Go find a person that you feel like screwing for most, if not all of your life. If it doesn't work out, sit back and think about why, before searching for another. If it's more than one, it's no big deal, but if you can't keep count, or someone asks and you have to sit and think about it for 10 minutes before answering, you have a serious problem.
and developing nation phenomena related to poverty.
Hehe. Those poor people are too poor to not be retarded. Aww. Can't we spend $1500 per month, so that they can live longer and have even more opportunities to infect the few that aren't already showing fullblown AIDS symptoms?
Give me a goddamn break. You should hear some of the sexual practices these people have. We don't need morals to prove it wrong, survival of the fittest is likely to show how good an idea it really is. But no, we'll wait for western science to bail out cultures that don't deserve to survive, and are incapable of finding a cure on their own. And before you go calling me racist, let me assure you that I'm only discriminating against what goes on in their collective heads, not how much pigment is in their skin. Nor would I hold any of them ill will, if by some chance they woke up and had some sense. A racist would continue to try and punish them even after they started behaving, or would overlook that even retards with the same skin color as my own are pulling the same idiotic stunts in my own nation.
There are some true victims out there. Babies born with the disease, people infected through tainted blood supplies. Unfortunately, it will continue to happen, as long as people continue to behave as they do. Hell, there are even some true problems in Africa, and other places, that I think we should try to help them with... but instead, we're wasting money and effort treating a what is, or at least was, a preventable "epidemic". Those are dollars and hours that could have been going toward a cure or vaccine for the next ebola... a disease that will kill africans first, and for which they have no reasonable way of preventing. I'd much rather be spending money on things like that, and if you had any sense, you'd rather that be the case too.
So next time, you decide to trollbash, look first and wonder a bit if maybe the opinion isn't so farfetched, or unfair. I'm generally pretty reasonable, and in this case, there are reasons for beinig less than politically correct on the topic.
Wow, I can't wait til science comes up with a cure for something that could have been contained or prevented, so that I can continue with my self-destructive and socially harmful behavior!!!
Ironic that if laws were passed to criminalize flag-burning, that you might actually have a legitimate reason for such a protest.
Anyone that values a meaningless symbol more than the thing that the symbol stands for, is at the nadir of shallowness.
Yes, because there is no such thing as body language. Or emphatic gestures. And deaf/mutes, that sign language isn't speech either.
And if you pose for a camera, that's not speech, nor is letting your words be recorded on videotape. Speak all you like, but if the words end up in a fixed format, then damn you, you seditious criminal.
And if you want to wear a black armband to school during wartime, as a peaceful non-disruptive protest, then that "expression" is surely a crime too, and I hope you burn in hell.
Language and communication aren't limited to vocal sounds. As long as the action is without doubt, communication only, who are you to claim it's not protected?
Burning the US flag might be wrong, but only because it's the one country in the world where you are guaranteed the right to do it.
Haha. Mind you, I wish you were right. let's examine your examples more closely.
A) DIVX
Ahead of its time. They needed to wait until technology made the concept a little smoother, a little slicker. They needed 3 more years, to sign on the hardware manufacturers, so that more DVD players were divx compatible. If everyone had a divx player, the fact that divx movies had a price tag lower, complete with some of the fancier tricks they were playing...
Consumers didn't reject it, so much as it was immature and the marketing campaign was less than 100%. I cringe even thinking about it, but this monster will be far stronger in its second incarnation...
B) 1980's era copy protection.
Well, the software companies had to back off, to be sure. They even paid lip service awhile, to the opinion that excessive copy protection was a bad idea. However, DRM is about to get going well, and the software companies can hem and haw, pretending that they're against it while they put up a token struggle against the MPAA. You did hear that M$ is getting into the act? Even when morons claimed that "no matter how evil they are, at least they're against this". I tried to point out that they were just biding time til they could figure out how to exploit it the most, and everyone booed and hissed. Wait and see how difficult it will be to avoid it, when all the hardware manufacturers are marching in lockstep.
Yes, because everyone should know that effective boycotts are easily possible, since most consumers are intelligent and informed enough to tell which is which, and they're never apathetic about such restrictions.
Please forgive me for being a fool.
Sometimes I wonder if you people even deserve to not get shit on all the time. Even now, you seem to think your "rights" are worth anything, when circumstances are engineered so that they are impossible to exercise, without committing or condoming "crimes" as defined by the DMCA. Even now, the twit that you are, is here defending another twit, basically telling me "if you really wanted, you could back them up, but they don't have to make it possible, and if you don't like it, do without". WTF kind of answer is that?
So Corporate America doesn't mind us having token rights, as long as Congress makes sure we have no legal avenue to pursue them.
Cool.
Thanks for explaining it to us, Mr. Corporate Asslicker. Did they promise a free chance at a New Playstation 2 if you hang out on slashdot and apologize for them at every opportunity?
Proof that being confident gets more karma than being right.
Shut up your fool mouth, trollboy. WTF does flash have to do with USB?
Whatever the reason it is cheaper, compact flash DOES have an IDE interface. For the price of a cheap converter cable, you could get the flash card and still save money while getting 100 more megs.
If there is any truth in drakon's statement, it may be that the card is a bit slower, after all, some harddrives are faster than others. The flash drive may play a few tricks and buffer it to fast ram, or may even be 16bit data path, versus CF's oldschool 8bit data path. I'd still go with the card though.
No offense, you seem to be an ok guy... but when I invent this method of time travel, rather than resetting it to the past, I'm resetting it so that every human with the exception of myself becomes a rabidly heterosexual super model clone.
And if you invent it before I do, I'll understand if I suddenly cease to exist. No hard feelings.
On a more serious note, particles seem an awful lot like pixels on a huge 3d display. Time is simply a function of how quickly they can switch from off to on. Just wish I knew how to overflow universe* so that I could run some arbitrary code.
I don't drink Pepsi or Coke. And just so I can assure you I'm not sidestepping your example and pealizing you for not psychically knowing a good one... I can't think of any other example that might help make your case.
:( There aren't any where advertisement has had much noticeable effect on me.
Shoes? Cars? Fast food?
I think I might have been affected more by them as a kid, but I've grown up. And if I was affected then, I'm slightly ashamed of it.
But to answer the original argument. Left to their own devices, people will search for things they need, and find them in things that are arguably non-advertisement. Finding an article about something they have needed for awhile, but no one bothered to make, a magazine review. Hearing from a friend, doing a search on the net. Stumbling across the storefront, and going "gee, when did they open this store" or "wow, look at that on the shelf!".
And if it is because they see an ad, and bought it 1 day earlier than they would if they'd had a chance to discover it, can the ad take credit? Most business that are healthy could care less if it takes an extra day or week to make that sale.
So.. who is jumping to conclusions?
Random is a bad word. But yes, if it is non-repeating, and non-terminating, that is what I meant. Which means, that all finite sequences will exist within it, at some point. Obviously, not all infinite sequences exist within it. I understand what information is, and the very act of finding either by accident, or design, a finite sequence in Pi that looks like the binary representation of a newspaper from the future, and believing it to be so, would be an act of giving context to it. Whether or not the newspaper articles turn out to be true. And obviously, I mean binary Pi, not decimal.
You're proof against time travel, only proves that it's not time travel. What other people call "time travel" might exist, but proves that it's actually something else. Skipping into a slightly different and time-dilated parallel universe?
Or my favorite, the ability to reset the universe exactly as it was 10 years ago, with the one exception of the "time traveler" himself, that wouldn't violate your observation, since you observed it the first time through. The next version of you, would be in for a shock, though. The question of whether the next version is really you, though, is a good one. Or where the mass the "time traveler" has actually came from, is another.
In this sense, the information the time traveler brings with him, still comes from a point in the "past". The future just happens to look much like it did 10 years ago.
No paradox. It's when people jump to conclusions about something fantasic, that annoys me. Another example of the same kind of thinking, is idiots who believe that because someone might have a memory of something that happened to a confederate soldier 100 yrs ago, that obviously that person is the reincarnation of that confederate. Even if it's not a hoax (unlikely) it only means that memory transfer somehow occured. Whether there is a soul or not, memory doesn't equate with it, or the "you-ness" of you. Sorry to go off on a tangent.
How does it prove your point?
It proves that companies tend to forget, ignore, or do a halfass job of listing themselves in whatever the appropriate directory or index is. It possibly says that the indexes to date are less effective than they should be.
It doesn't say that advertisement should A) exist, B) is a good thing everybody wants, or C) is something that couldn't be replaced with something much more effective that would cease to nauseate the general public.
That companies spend billions on advverrtising, when they could just list themselves in a directory properly... or that commercials could disappear, and as long as no one snitched, corporate executives could go one cluelessly never knowing and never caring... that point is even stronger.
Oh, and Pizza Hut wouldn't lose a sale. Papa John's in my area ignores their online orders, and makes me wait on hold for 30 minutes. And the locals all make pizza that looks like a dog puked it up. Pizza Hut is crap for pizza, but better than the rest in small ways. Making me look it up in the yellow pages would have annoyed me only slightly more, but wouldn't necessarily be their fault. It's an example of a shitty index... phone companies should have been distributing these things on floppy or CD for years. They must enjoy deforestation, is all I can figure.
And if the index is shitty, well, that may not directly be the companies fault, but I'm sure they could have either leaned on the phoneco's to make a better index, or collaborated and built their own. Hell, that would be providing a service to customers though, something they don't do... numerous talking heads and non-existent studies prove that profits from ass-raping customers are almost triple those of treating them properly and giving them something of value for their money.
Tell them that, not me.
They seem to think that its a matter of finding a method to force or persuade those that won't buy their product but have the money to, to buy it anyway.
Again, proves very little.
When I want to order pizza, I'm pretty much forced to get Pizza Hut, even though I hate ordering from a national chain like them. But guess what?
It's quicker to dig through the ads from sunday's paper, to find the phone number, than it is to remember where we hid the yellow pages.
How do you know that your "ads" aren't the same thing? An easier way to look you up, than looking in the huge "index" (which would either be the yellow pages, or possibly the internet, either of which requires them to know the exact wording/spelling of company name).
Even for TV, this could hold true, with someone wanting to call, but having to wait for an ad to write down the 800 number.
So, the millions and billions that are wasted on TV advertising campaigns might be better spent if only they'd register with the proper indexes in a way that makes you easy to find. Of course, then how could they spread the religion of Corporation A ?
So the reason we have stupid worthless marketing, is because no one has come up with a non-stupid way to measure its results?
Heh.
Ok, so the reactive anti-rocket armor might be overkill. But once they get a taste of my flamethrower, they may decide to escalate things.
It's good to be prepared...
You have it all wrong.
Their idea is to target those people whom they want to buy their product.
It's not about getting the ad to the right people, but making sure the ad gets seen/heard/read.
If it affects your decision, it says a lot more about your brain power than it does about my logic.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, mind you. The only conspiracy is one of stupidity and sheep-like behavior, both for consumers and those making executive decisions in corporate america.
And no, you wouldn't fail. You'd survive, maybe even make a comfortable revenue. You just can't make the outrageous yearly profits that everyone demands, or meet the gov's expectations of economic growth rate.
Is GM offering it standard or as an option? Those fucking carjackers are in for it now....