Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that entertainment should be someone's sole point to living, but rather that without entertainment of some sort, life becomes dreary and not worth living. If you don't believe me, try doing without any entertainment in your life --- no computers, reading, watching T.V., games, you name it. See how long it lasts.
Sure it is. If your entire time in this world is spent working just to meet the bare minimum essentials for survival, then what, pray tell, is the point to living at all? Entertainment is as much a necessity for life as eating and sleeping.
Says you. The government may take a different stance --- after all, there is an income which is taken to be poverty level. There is a difference between being poor and being on the brink of starvation living in a cardboard box.
This is an awesome movie --- twisted and hilarious. Maybe you would have a finer appreciation of it if you just shoot up some 'bug powder' and watch it again.
Personally, I have rarely found work to be anything more than drudgery. I think I speak for the majority when I say this. Do you think that someone flipping a hamburger at McDonalds is fulfilling their ambitions? Do they think they are making a positive contribution to the world? Or are they just watching the clock, waiting to get the hell out of there? IMHO "a good work ethic", is a bill of goods sold to the poor in order to inspire them work harder. Alas, hard work is rewarded with more hard work, and generally NOT an increase in pay. I have known people who are not happy unless they are working their asses off. Good for them --- they are in the minority.
For me, all the joy was sucked out of driving YEARS AGO. Look at all the maniacs on the road today. It's not uncommon to see some jackass wait until you are 2 feet from the intersection before jumping into traffic, causing you to slam your brakes, only to pull into a gas station on the other side of the street to get a pack of smokes (or whatever.) I absolutely HATE driving anymore -- it is a bloody chore to me, and I dread it each and every day. Unfortunately, the available alternatives aren't much better:
Bicycles? You gotta be kidding me. At least with a car, I'm armored.
On foot? I tried that for a few years while attending college. Discounting the fact that it's a monumental pain-in-the-ass to lug 3 bags of groceries home from a store 12 blocks away, you STILL have to play "dodge the automobiles." One time I was about to head East across an intersection. A West-bound car was at stopped at the opposite side. Lights turn green, car has no blinkers on, I enter the crosswalk, car proceeds to accelerate and TURN LEFT nearly turning me into a hood ornament! Then the guy parks about 15 feet down the street. So, I go up and bang on his window -- and he looks up from his MAP with a startled expression on his face!
Aside from the danger -- bear in mind that in the U.S. automobile accidents are the #1 killer of people in the age groups 15-44 -- there are the costs of payments, insurance, fuel, and repair, not to mention the much higher environmental costs of pollution.
Automobile ownership is HIGHLY HIGHLY OVERRATED. If I could get by without one, I would. I welcome mass transit with open arms.
I have and will continue to. I wouldn't take a Disney DVD, video tape, T-shirt, etc. if Walt himself came down from heaven with a glowing halo and offered me $1000 to do it. FUCK Disney!!!
the Federally Uncontrolled Corporate Kabal -- or FUCK for short. Your e-mail is being monitored. If you dare to say or even THINK anything that might cause a $0.0000001 loss in profit, you will be publicly executed, the next eight generations of your family will be enslaved, your house will be auctioned on ebay, and your family name dragged through the mud. Have a nice day, and ya'll come back now, Y'heah?
You just contradicted yourself. Raising brand awareness equates with getting the viewer to make a purchase down the road. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't currently block banner ads, but I wouldn't feel guilty about doing it. And as far as equating ad-blockers with stealing content from the website, that's absolute baloney.
Slashdot, the home of 700,000 definitions of the word "steal".
The argument is EXACTLY about buying something. Why else does Sony shell out money to run an ad if they anticipate that no one will buy their product? They want a return on their investment. In the end, Sony doesn't get money from me viewing their ad, nor clicking their ad. They get money from me purchasing a dvd player. If I don't buy one, then their ad generates no revenue from me, whether I view the ad or not. So, what the apologists are REALLY saying is not "You'd better leave the ads, or the site will go down" but "You'd better buy the products advertised, or the site will go down."
I understand advertising just fine. Consider this astounding logical error: If no one buys the product advertised, then there is no reason to put the ad up, right? Hence, it will be removed. If the ads are pulled, then the money dries up, and the site goes down, correct? I mean that's the point of this thread. Am I with you so far? Now, no matter whether an ad pops up, pops under, is displayed in a banner or a flash animation, I WILL NOT BUY THE PRODUCT. Get it?
With the exception of ads for new movies, I don't remember the last time I ran out and bought something because I saw an ad for it. If I want something to eat, or wear, or play video games on, etc. I go to the store or Amazon and look in the aisles to see what they have. I may search reviews in magazines or on the web to find the product that works for me.
Now, I set my browser to block pop-ups. Banner ads don't bother me that much -- my eyes are trained to ignore their presence. I hate flash animation ads, because they distract me from what I came to the site for -- to read the content. Now it being a given that I ignore the ads, and that even when they are in my face, I won't buy the product anyway, what the hell is the difference between doing what I do now, and blocking them all? Hmmm? I guess I'm just a thief.
Great, an Insightful advertising apologist. Will wonders never cease? As a couple others have pointed out, you are then obligated to watch all the commercials while your TV is on. Also, you really should read each and every advertisement in the magazines you buy, because without them, the price of the magazine would be higher. Every once in a while, while reading Linux Journal, you could even buy a Linux cluster. That way, the advertisers know that their ads are working, and that you love them. I'm not sure what billboard advertisements pay for (undoubtedly something useful) so you probably should try to read each one while your driving... and make sure not to turn the dial on the radio when the annoying ad comes on! Just listen to it and be happy. Fehh.
This probably comes under aggravating shit, but fuck endurance tests. FFX comes to mind: dodging lightning bolts for an hour. Or playing the crummy 8-bit video games in the arcade in FFVII. What is it with this crap!?!
... not able to make your own Mickey Mouse cartoon
Why the hell not? Disney has been sucking on the teat of the public domain for decades. How many movies would they have made without Grimms' Fairy Tales among others. It's time for them to give something back, instead of just take, take, take.
All right, make me dig up the facts. Here the claim is 60mg of Nicotine is estimated to do the trick. And NIDA claims that a typical cigarette contains 10mg (or more). So, if those figures are correct, my statement should be revised to reflect that 6 cigarettes administered orally constitutes a lethal dose. I had read somewhere that 1 was sufficient, although I can't recall the source. I didn't pull that number out of my ass -- I pulled it out of someone else's ass;) Thanks!
All for a drug which by all accounts is potentially deadly after long-term use but is comparatively benign.
Whoah, whoah, whoah! Comparatively BENIGN? Nicotine is a virulent toxin. One cigarrette contains a lethal dose, if administered orally. According to the CDC:
Tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing more than 440,000 deaths each year and resulting in an annual cost of more than $75 billion in direct medical costs.
I don't see how by any stretch of the word that benign could be applied to the use of tobacco.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that entertainment should be someone's sole point to living, but rather that without entertainment of some sort, life becomes dreary and not worth living. If you don't believe me, try doing without any entertainment in your life --- no computers, reading, watching T.V., games, you name it. See how long it lasts.
Sure it is. If your entire time in this world is spent working just to meet the bare minimum essentials for survival, then what, pray tell, is the point to living at all? Entertainment is as much a necessity for life as eating and sleeping.
The hungry neighbors rush in and devour your corpse.
Says you. The government may take a different stance --- after all, there is an income which is taken to be poverty level. There is a difference between being poor and being on the brink of starvation living in a cardboard box.
I've boycotted NBC,ABC, and CBS for years! You mean to tell me they're still around?!? Dammit!
I have to say that I've seen &c in print several times, though it isn't common.
This is an awesome movie --- twisted and hilarious. Maybe you would have a finer appreciation of it if you just shoot up some 'bug powder' and watch it again.
Personally, I have rarely found work to be anything more than drudgery. I think I speak for the majority when I say this. Do you think that someone flipping a hamburger at McDonalds is fulfilling their ambitions? Do they think they are making a positive contribution to the world? Or are they just watching the clock, waiting to get the hell out of there? IMHO "a good work ethic", is a bill of goods sold to the poor in order to inspire them work harder. Alas, hard work is rewarded with more hard work, and generally NOT an increase in pay. I have known people who are not happy unless they are working their asses off. Good for them --- they are in the minority.
You mean crank, don't you?
For me, all the joy was sucked out of driving YEARS AGO. Look at all the maniacs on the road today. It's not uncommon to see some jackass wait until you are 2 feet from the intersection before jumping into traffic, causing you to slam your brakes, only to pull into a gas station on the other side of the street to get a pack of smokes (or whatever.) I absolutely HATE driving anymore -- it is a bloody chore to me, and I dread it each and every day. Unfortunately, the available alternatives aren't much better:
Bicycles? You gotta be kidding me. At least with a car, I'm armored.
On foot? I tried that for a few years while attending college. Discounting the fact that it's a monumental pain-in-the-ass to lug 3 bags of groceries home from a store 12 blocks away, you STILL have to play "dodge the automobiles." One time I was about to head East across an intersection. A West-bound car was at stopped at the opposite side. Lights turn green, car has no blinkers on, I enter the crosswalk, car proceeds to accelerate and TURN LEFT nearly turning me into a hood ornament! Then the guy parks about 15 feet down the street. So, I go up and bang on his window -- and he looks up from his MAP with a startled expression on his face!
Aside from the danger -- bear in mind that in the U.S. automobile accidents are the #1 killer of people in the age groups 15-44 -- there are the costs of payments, insurance, fuel, and repair, not to mention the much higher environmental costs of pollution.
Automobile ownership is HIGHLY HIGHLY OVERRATED. If I could get by without one, I would. I welcome mass transit with open arms.
That should be revised to read "terrorist conspiracy". Get with the times, man!
Sorry, ran out of mod points yesterday :(
Interesting links.
I have and will continue to. I wouldn't take a Disney DVD, video tape, T-shirt, etc. if Walt himself came down from heaven with a glowing halo and offered me $1000 to do it. FUCK Disney!!!
the Federally Uncontrolled Corporate Kabal -- or FUCK for short. Your e-mail is being monitored. If you dare to say or even THINK anything that might cause a $0.0000001 loss in profit, you will be publicly executed, the next eight generations of your family will be enslaved, your house will be auctioned on ebay, and your family name dragged through the mud. Have a nice day, and ya'll come back now, Y'heah?
You just contradicted yourself. Raising brand awareness equates with getting the viewer to make a purchase down the road. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't currently block banner ads, but I wouldn't feel guilty about doing it. And as far as equating ad-blockers with stealing content from the website, that's absolute baloney.
Slashdot, the home of 700,000 definitions of the word "steal".
The argument is EXACTLY about buying something. Why else does Sony shell out money to run an ad if they anticipate that no one will buy their product? They want a return on their investment. In the end, Sony doesn't get money from me viewing their ad, nor clicking their ad. They get money from me purchasing a dvd player. If I don't buy one, then their ad generates no revenue from me, whether I view the ad or not. So, what the apologists are REALLY saying is not "You'd better leave the ads, or the site will go down" but "You'd better buy the products advertised, or the site will go down."
I understand advertising just fine. Consider this astounding logical error: If no one buys the product advertised, then there is no reason to put the ad up, right? Hence, it will be removed. If the ads are pulled, then the money dries up, and the site goes down, correct? I mean that's the point of this thread. Am I with you so far? Now, no matter whether an ad pops up, pops under, is displayed in a banner or a flash animation, I WILL NOT BUY THE PRODUCT. Get it?
With the exception of ads for new movies, I don't remember the last time I ran out and bought something because I saw an ad for it. If I want something to eat, or wear, or play video games on, etc. I go to the store or Amazon and look in the aisles to see what they have. I may search reviews in magazines or on the web to find the product that works for me.
Now, I set my browser to block pop-ups. Banner ads don't bother me that much -- my eyes are trained to ignore their presence. I hate flash animation ads, because they distract me from what I came to the site for -- to read the content. Now it being a given that I ignore the ads, and that even when they are in my face, I won't buy the product anyway, what the hell is the difference between doing what I do now, and blocking them all? Hmmm? I guess I'm just a thief.
Oh, just you wait until you get to hell. Mmwahahaha!
Great, an Insightful advertising apologist. Will wonders never cease? As a couple others have pointed out, you are then obligated to watch all the commercials while your TV is on. Also, you really should read each and every advertisement in the magazines you buy, because without them, the price of the magazine would be higher. Every once in a while, while reading Linux Journal, you could even buy a Linux cluster. That way, the advertisers know that their ads are working, and that you love them. I'm not sure what billboard advertisements pay for (undoubtedly something useful) so you probably should try to read each one while your driving ... and make sure not to turn the dial on the radio when the annoying ad comes on! Just listen to it and be happy. Fehh.
This probably comes under aggravating shit, but fuck endurance tests. FFX comes to mind: dodging lightning bolts for an hour. Or playing the crummy 8-bit video games in the arcade in FFVII. What is it with this crap!?!
... not able to make your own Mickey Mouse cartoon
Why the hell not? Disney has been sucking on the teat of the public domain for decades. How many movies would they have made without Grimms' Fairy Tales among others. It's time for them to give something back, instead of just take, take, take.
All right, make me dig up the facts. Here the claim is 60mg of Nicotine is estimated to do the trick. And NIDA claims that a typical cigarette contains 10mg (or more). So, if those figures are correct, my statement should be revised to reflect that 6 cigarettes administered orally constitutes a lethal dose. I had read somewhere that 1 was sufficient, although I can't recall the source. I didn't pull that number out of my ass -- I pulled it out of someone else's ass ;) Thanks!
All for a drug which by all accounts is potentially deadly after long-term use but is comparatively benign.
Whoah, whoah, whoah! Comparatively BENIGN? Nicotine is a virulent toxin. One cigarrette contains a lethal dose, if administered orally. According to the CDC:
Tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing more than 440,000 deaths each year and resulting in an annual cost of more than $75 billion in direct medical costs.
I don't see how by any stretch of the word that benign could be applied to the use of tobacco.
And they never do ... at first.
The Two Commandments for the Molecular Age
Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow men.
Thou shalt not prevent thy fellow man from altering his or her own consciousness.