It'll probably get slashdotted quickly, but for those who remember ANSI Art groups like iCE and ACiD I am in the process of creating a library of their packs viewable online. http://ansi.idledreams.net for the actual site and http://idledreams.net/ansi/ for news about it.
That's taking me back about 10 years. Oh shit, I'm 16 and I can't get a fucking date! AAaaaah!
Glad I'm really 26 and married. Oh, wait - AAaaahhh!!!
If the goal is really fighting rights abuses, EFF sounds like the better recipient.
Irrelevant commercials - Miller!
on
Recycling TV Ads
·
· Score: 1
Makes you realize just how little the ads actually have to do with their products. The Simpsons episode with the artsy-fartsy commerical for Mr. Plow skewered this nicely.
My favorite recent example is an art-school-looking commercial for a beer company. You see people falling like dominoes all over the city, which goes on for 20 seconds. Then, they fall into a bar, where the guy at the bar steps away, not falling with the masses. The idea, of course, is that this guy is an independent thinker. The narrator goes on to say that this man, like the viewer, does not drink the swill generated by your typical brewer. He asks for something more.
The funny part? The ad is for MILLER. Right, Miller, they of "Lite" beer, the originators of the genre. Basically the ad asks you not to drink their beer, as anyone who drinks good beer will laugh at that ad.
My only question is who that ad was originally made for, because it's a horrible fit. Laughed my ass off the first time I saw it.
Or is it maybe that most of Microsofts targets are running Linux that also makes them targets of SCO?
Probably. That's a big part of it, I have no doubt (assuming there's anything to the conspiracy). But why google, among all the companies running linux? Could be because MS have targeted them as one of their new opponents, as MS is attempting to go head-to-head with google by developing a new portal.
So the only question is if your family counts as "consumers" (which I think they do).
This is going to be a fun one and I hope it gets tested. Had the phrase included "customer" instead of "consumer," then it would be very clear that you would have to sell the services to have any rights under the law. But "consumer" can simply mean "user," and at that point my cat, who likes my screensavers, is a consumer of my computer (if not my internet connection).
Methinks they worded the law in a way they didn't intend, but which is actually more favorable for us. But wait, we hate loopholes, right? Not this time? OK!;)
This isn't so far fetched... Remember that Microsoft made a sizeable investment in SCO a little while back. With a server farm the size of Google's, this could cause considerable harm to their operations.
I hate to fan the MS conspiracy flames, but it is getting coincidental how SCO goes after what could be construed as MS targets. That and the whole speculation about giving rebates to companies who switch to closed-source (read: MS), makes it suspicious.
Maybe. But that's not what GW Bush wanted. He wanted a war. He didn't want to "resolve" the situation- he wanted to invade Iraq and kill Saddam. Finishing "family business" had been a goal ever since his election.
That's possible, certainly. Note that I didn't defend Bush here - but I really believe France deserves as much culpability. I think that if France had gotten behind inspections, Bush never would have had a real reason to invade, not enough to sell to America.
The US would've gotten international assistance if they'd taken the approach "We need to solve the Iraq problem".
For what it's worth, we tried for 10 years and the entire world wanted to pretend the problem didn't exist. That's no excuse for the outcome, necessarily, but it certainly mitigates. Honestly, France was trying to get sanctions *lifted*, it would have meant billions to them.
I think that the main problem is that no country save the US takes any responsibility for the global political situation, and it's reflected by countries like North Korea who beg us to get involved even when we try to ignore them. They know we're the only ones active in anything that happens outside our borders. And when you have one country unilaterally implementing solutions, they'll screw up a lot.
The world would be a better place if Europe and the stronger parts of Asia would take such responsibilities more seriously, instead of trying to flex their political muscle in the UN to prove how tough they are.
I kinda wonder when Germany will stop getting shit for the wars.
Never.;) Actually, it's not so much the Holocaust that the g'parent was mentioning - more respect for Germany's war abilities, like winning a war with France as soon as it even existed as a unified nation.;)
Americans are just tweaked at france cuz it didn't fall in line like Britain did.
Not the case - if that were true, you wouldn't find a littany of France jokes before 2001. But you do, because France has been a military joke for the last 200 years, approx. It's also the massive ingratitude following WWII displayed by France that tweaked Americans, combined with France's complete military ineptitude.
It's not France's not supporting the war that angers Americans so, at least me. It's the fact that they were more interested in playing politics simply to get revenge with America for some perceived slight, which prompted the move they made. That and France was trying to become a friend of Sadaam, trying to get sanctions lifted so they could trade with Sadaam, etc. I truly think that with France's support early on, the whole scenario could and would have been resolved without a war.
On the other hand, most american folks are OK with Japan these days... odd
I would say it's the way that Japan, in the wake of getting nuked, turned into a very peaceful, hard-working society. Hard not to respect that a bit.
After 15 years of marriage I am well aware of "No means No" !
There are a lot of things that mean "No" in a marriage...
10. "No,"
9. "Maybe,"
8. "I have a headache,"
7. "It's that time of the month,"
6. "It's your turn to change diapers,"
5. "My mother's coming to the house tomorrow,"
4. "Did you take out the trash?,"
3. "I just want to cuddle,"
2. "Could you give me a backrub?,"
1. "Yeah, that's what we need, another kid,"
You can't deny this about individual Republicans: they're enterprising. And so, history shows, have been the Democrats. It's not a conspiracy theory that's the problem here, it's the notion that history has been repealed and our current vote counters are angels.
Wow, you don't have many/.'ers who will admit that the 1960 election was a fraud. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT supporting internet voting or any such thing (guess I should have made that clearer) In fact, I agree, there are about 2.5 politicians in the country who wouldn't rig an election, given the opportunity. Fraud could have happened on both sides in FL - we just don't have any real *proof* of it.
I really think we're attacking the same problem from different angles. I completely grant everything you said - which is why it's important to not go nuts over every election in which we backed the loser. Because if people are claiming fraud on every election, it kind of takes the sting out of it if we really DO have evidence of clear malfeasance (like 1960). Case in point being the guy who I originally responded to - that isn't helping.
It's not much more reassuring to think that there is no conspiracy at all- and the machines make random, unpredictable errors in the amount of 16,000 votes. For all we know, they did just that in precinct(s) with a population of 100,000 and no one caught it because it wasn't blatantly obvious.
Great point. Let me clarify for sure, my first post wasn't a defense of the proposed electronic scheme, as I don't trust anything without audit possibilities. These electronic voting schemes aren't ready for prime-time, methinks.
I still don't find that to be an acceptable voting tabulation method, even given the large assumption that no one is guiding the 'errors'.
Right, the lack of intent here is actually less comforting - if it were fraud, we could potentially add security, or oversight, or whatever. If it's code screwups - well, who the hell knows where that is, eh?
On this issue, I go with my motto of "Never attribute to malignance what can be explained by incompetence."
They aren't conspiracy theories. There is plenty of evidence about the Bush-Diebold connection.
Read your link and missed anything that could be construed as evidence. The only fact is that there was a technical glitch. Everything else is complete speculation.
I mean, even think about it: if they were going to rig 16,000 votes, where would they do it - in a precint with a population of 600, or a population of 100,000? Which would make more sense? There's no way they "get away" with it the way it went down, and it was so blatant that there's no way it would have even had the presumably desired effect.
I'm not saying to believe everything "the man" says, but fuming over evidently nothing denies credibility to real causes.
Has anyone considered a class action countersuit on behalf of p2p users for harrassment and extortion by the RIAA. This sort of thing was being done by SmartCard readers recently harrassed by DirecTV.
Last I'd heard none of the smart card people have won anything against DirecTV - a few lucky ones have negotiated their way out of it, after convincing the kind DirecTV people that they do, in fact, have the legal right to pursue activities that involve smart cards.
But in court, I've only heard of them losing massively on the extortion angle. Did I miss my mandatory/. DirecTV story, or are they still getting pounded?
I think the comment that they aren't a software company anymore is very much to the point. If SCO wins they will get paid for each copy of Linux in use. Why continue to develop and sell SCO Unix? If I was using SCO's products I'd be planning on to change on the assumption they won't be supported any more win or lose.
Why do even that when you can just send out press releases every day about how you're going to sue everybody, drive the stock price sky-high, cash out, and then never go to court or bother with collecting payment from anyone?
I expected that inane comeback. Look at Sutter's voting record, appointed by Bush I and votes the Dem party line most times. Judges may be appointed by politicians, but assuming they're on the take when there's no evidence to that effect is irresponsible and uninformative.
not even 5 minutes after being posted and it's already/.ed Mirrors anyone?
Slashdot owners don't own mirrors. The pathology arising from exposure to their uniquely pathetic visages would likely induce elevated rates of auto-termination in the subject group.
But what I can't figure out is why they think SCO is a software company . ..
Analysts are required to maintain some degree of objectivity and avoid controversial statements. That said, if you read between the lines, he basically said just what we've all been saying.
From Gartner:
We believe that these moves compromise SCO's mission as a software company.
If he thought SCO was still a software company, he would have said "We believe that these moves compromise SCO's ability to remain profitable." He's stating, quite clearly, that because these moves make it impossible to remain profitable as a software company, they only make sense for SCO as a litigation manufacturing company. In other words, they're changing their "mission," as he puts it.
He can't say that SCO are a bunch of litigation-happy jackasses that deserve to be sued into the stone age (at least in print). But he can, and did, say things that readers can translate as such.
All in all, it sounds like he completely gets it, if you read between the lines a tad.
Slashdot Mirror
That's taking me back about 10 years. Oh shit, I'm 16 and I can't get a fucking date! AAaaaah!
Glad I'm really 26 and married. Oh, wait - AAaaahhh!!!
Seriously, thanks for posting the stuff.
If the goal is really fighting rights abuses, EFF sounds like the better recipient.
My favorite recent example is an art-school-looking commercial for a beer company. You see people falling like dominoes all over the city, which goes on for 20 seconds. Then, they fall into a bar, where the guy at the bar steps away, not falling with the masses. The idea, of course, is that this guy is an independent thinker. The narrator goes on to say that this man, like the viewer, does not drink the swill generated by your typical brewer. He asks for something more.
The funny part? The ad is for MILLER. Right, Miller, they of "Lite" beer, the originators of the genre. Basically the ad asks you not to drink their beer, as anyone who drinks good beer will laugh at that ad.
My only question is who that ad was originally made for, because it's a horrible fit. Laughed my ass off the first time I saw it.
You're confusing socialism and communism there. Socialism is a social theory, communism became the real-world totalitarian, centralized version of it.
You should have locked down the boxes for them. Perhaps a BIOS and Admin password? After setting the home page to goatse, of course. ;)
Probably. That's a big part of it, I have no doubt (assuming there's anything to the conspiracy). But why google, among all the companies running linux? Could be because MS have targeted them as one of their new opponents, as MS is attempting to go head-to-head with google by developing a new portal.
This is going to be a fun one and I hope it gets tested. Had the phrase included "customer" instead of "consumer," then it would be very clear that you would have to sell the services to have any rights under the law. But "consumer" can simply mean "user," and at that point my cat, who likes my screensavers, is a consumer of my computer (if not my internet connection).
Methinks they worded the law in a way they didn't intend, but which is actually more favorable for us. But wait, we hate loopholes, right? Not this time? OK! ;)
I hate to fan the MS conspiracy flames, but it is getting coincidental how SCO goes after what could be construed as MS targets. That and the whole speculation about giving rebates to companies who switch to closed-source (read: MS), makes it suspicious.
Should be fun to watch.
That should have been "scoatse.cx" and "219.88.106.80" respectively. Guess I'm so used to typing "goatse.cx"...I mean...nevermind.
Okay, who's called dibbs on scoatse.cx?
Evidently...
...does.
Doesn't seem to be live though.
That's possible, certainly. Note that I didn't defend Bush here - but I really believe France deserves as much culpability. I think that if France had gotten behind inspections, Bush never would have had a real reason to invade, not enough to sell to America.
The US would've gotten international assistance if they'd taken the approach "We need to solve the Iraq problem".
For what it's worth, we tried for 10 years and the entire world wanted to pretend the problem didn't exist. That's no excuse for the outcome, necessarily, but it certainly mitigates. Honestly, France was trying to get sanctions *lifted*, it would have meant billions to them.
I think that the main problem is that no country save the US takes any responsibility for the global political situation, and it's reflected by countries like North Korea who beg us to get involved even when we try to ignore them. They know we're the only ones active in anything that happens outside our borders. And when you have one country unilaterally implementing solutions, they'll screw up a lot.
The world would be a better place if Europe and the stronger parts of Asia would take such responsibilities more seriously, instead of trying to flex their political muscle in the UN to prove how tough they are.
And no, this isn't a troll, just an observation.
Not really. "I'm feeling lucky" that I, unlike the gentleman in the picture, do not have a 6" diameter asshole.
Never. ;) Actually, it's not so much the Holocaust that the g'parent was mentioning - more respect for Germany's war abilities, like winning a war with France as soon as it even existed as a unified nation. ;)
Americans are just tweaked at france cuz it didn't fall in line like Britain did.
Not the case - if that were true, you wouldn't find a littany of France jokes before 2001. But you do, because France has been a military joke for the last 200 years, approx. It's also the massive ingratitude following WWII displayed by France that tweaked Americans, combined with France's complete military ineptitude.
It's not France's not supporting the war that angers Americans so, at least me. It's the fact that they were more interested in playing politics simply to get revenge with America for some perceived slight, which prompted the move they made. That and France was trying to become a friend of Sadaam, trying to get sanctions lifted so they could trade with Sadaam, etc. I truly think that with France's support early on, the whole scenario could and would have been resolved without a war.
On the other hand, most american folks are OK with Japan these days... odd
I would say it's the way that Japan, in the wake of getting nuked, turned into a very peaceful, hard-working society. Hard not to respect that a bit.
I figured he was an actor in, how should I say, "Adult Entertainment?"
There are a lot of things that mean "No" in a marriage...
10. "No,"
9. "Maybe,"
8. "I have a headache,"
7. "It's that time of the month,"
6. "It's your turn to change diapers,"
5. "My mother's coming to the house tomorrow,"
4. "Did you take out the trash?,"
3. "I just want to cuddle,"
2. "Could you give me a backrub?,"
1. "Yeah, that's what we need, another kid,"
Wow, you don't have many /.'ers who will admit that the 1960 election was a fraud. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT supporting internet voting or any such thing (guess I should have made that clearer) In fact, I agree, there are about 2.5 politicians in the country who wouldn't rig an election, given the opportunity. Fraud could have happened on both sides in FL - we just don't have any real *proof* of it.
I really think we're attacking the same problem from different angles. I completely grant everything you said - which is why it's important to not go nuts over every election in which we backed the loser. Because if people are claiming fraud on every election, it kind of takes the sting out of it if we really DO have evidence of clear malfeasance (like 1960). Case in point being the guy who I originally responded to - that isn't helping.
You're the proof that slashdot is gay? Well, congratulations...I guess...
Great point. Let me clarify for sure, my first post wasn't a defense of the proposed electronic scheme, as I don't trust anything without audit possibilities. These electronic voting schemes aren't ready for prime-time, methinks.
I still don't find that to be an acceptable voting tabulation method, even given the large assumption that no one is guiding the 'errors'.
Right, the lack of intent here is actually less comforting - if it were fraud, we could potentially add security, or oversight, or whatever. If it's code screwups - well, who the hell knows where that is, eh?
On this issue, I go with my motto of "Never attribute to malignance what can be explained by incompetence."
Read your link and missed anything that could be construed as evidence. The only fact is that there was a technical glitch. Everything else is complete speculation.
I mean, even think about it: if they were going to rig 16,000 votes, where would they do it - in a precint with a population of 600, or a population of 100,000? Which would make more sense? There's no way they "get away" with it the way it went down, and it was so blatant that there's no way it would have even had the presumably desired effect.
I'm not saying to believe everything "the man" says, but fuming over evidently nothing denies credibility to real causes.
Last I'd heard none of the smart card people have won anything against DirecTV - a few lucky ones have negotiated their way out of it, after convincing the kind DirecTV people that they do, in fact, have the legal right to pursue activities that involve smart cards.
But in court, I've only heard of them losing massively on the extortion angle. Did I miss my mandatory /. DirecTV story, or are they still getting pounded?
Why do even that when you can just send out press releases every day about how you're going to sue everybody, drive the stock price sky-high, cash out, and then never go to court or bother with collecting payment from anyone?
I expected that inane comeback. Look at Sutter's voting record, appointed by Bush I and votes the Dem party line most times. Judges may be appointed by politicians, but assuming they're on the take when there's no evidence to that effect is irresponsible and uninformative.
Mods:Score:0, Troll
Come on, guys. A post isn't a troll just because the poster doesn't refer to RMS as "Our Father, who art in FSF..."
Of course, I suppose a post isn't NOT a troll just because the poster says it's not, either...
Slashdot owners don't own mirrors. The pathology arising from exposure to their uniquely pathetic visages would likely induce elevated rates of auto-termination in the subject group.
Analysts are required to maintain some degree of objectivity and avoid controversial statements. That said, if you read between the lines, he basically said just what we've all been saying.
From Gartner:
If he thought SCO was still a software company, he would have said "We believe that these moves compromise SCO's ability to remain profitable." He's stating, quite clearly, that because these moves make it impossible to remain profitable as a software company, they only make sense for SCO as a litigation manufacturing company. In other words, they're changing their "mission," as he puts it.
He can't say that SCO are a bunch of litigation-happy jackasses that deserve to be sued into the stone age (at least in print). But he can, and did, say things that readers can translate as such.
All in all, it sounds like he completely gets it, if you read between the lines a tad.