Heinz did a similar thing a few years back, IIRC. They said they were going to drop Salad Cream in the UK, claiming that it was losing ground to more exotic dressings. It got a ton of news coverage before the company decided to "change their minds" and keep on selling it. Thankfully. It's delicious!
I actually fell for it too, I started buying it more frequently after that episode. It's one of those things you don't think of because it's been around for so long, and the thought of "what would life be like without it" is sometimes a great way to stoke any lapsed interest. Kinda like suggesting to your GF that you split up, it's a great way to put a spark back into the bedroom and make sure you get a full service.
The media just reflects what is acceptable to society
No it doesn't. The media reflects what sells. Any correlation with social values is purely coincidental.
One thing you have to keep in mind, when reading the OP, is that this is the perspective of someone who watches a lot of TV, and hangs out with other people who watch a lot of TV.
No, the censors are the ones who determine what appears before the audience and what does not. The MPAA is an unaccountable body that considers views of the sex act, or even references to it, to be less acceptable than views of someone getting his head blown off. What the market actually wants has very little to do with it.
I'm not so sure if swearing is a universal trait. I don't know if this is true in any other languages, but in Irish Gaelic there is no such thing as profanity. (Some people use the translation of 'kiss my ass' but that only uses the anatomically correct word for buttocks, so it's not really a swear word.) So it's interesting that after we became Anglophone we embraced swearing so vigorously. As an Irishman I have to say I'm a bit embarrassed when I hear my countrymen using the F word as an adjective for every noun.
Passengers most likely won't even know the chutes are there, they'll be made far more aware of the life jackets and oxygen masks.
If you're not going to advertise the fact that your planes are fitted with parachutes, why would you install them?
Same reason they don't advertise the fact that the planes have an ILS, radar, backup electrical systems etc. The point of having them is to save lives in the event of an emergency.
This is highly unlikely to actually happen. As bobjakiewicz noted, it would greatly increase the number of people suffering from motion sickness and other related problems.
Huh? I thought motion sickness was caused by being moved while deprived of the visual cue of what's causing the motion, hence sea sickness when you're in the cabin but not feeling so bad once you go out on deck and look at the horizon. Alternatively, you might not be moving at all but you might be getting visual cues that make you think you are, and when your ears don't pick up on the motion that they're expecting based on what the eyes are saying, you get nauseous, like I used to get when looking at the overdone shaky camera work of NYPD Blue.
I would have thought that better awareness of the external surroundings would make you less prone to motion sickness, not more.
Plus you're more likely to scare people off by doing so than gain new passengers; who wants to fly on an airline which is so scared of their planes crashing that they fit parachutes to them?
Me.
Bit of a silly argument, that. It's like asking who wants to use a mode of transport that's so scared of their planes crashing that they use air traffic control, radar, preventive maintenance, life jackets, safety briefings before every flight, and a host of other safety measures. Passengers most likely won't even know the chutes are there, they'll be made far more aware of the life jackets and oxygen masks.
To end the confusion, here's what TFAhas to say about it:
Several hundred Netflix members have rated more than 50,000 filmed entertainment programs. 50,000! To watch all those at a pace of one movie or TV show per day, it would take 136 years.
But those users are just the extreme end of a broader behavioral pattern. About a tenth of one percent (0.07%) of Netflix users -- more than 10,000 people -- have rated more than 20,000 items. And a full one percent, or nearly 150,000 Netflixers, have rated more than 5,000 movies. By contrast, only 60 percent of Netflix users rate any movies at all, and the typical person only gives out 200 starred grades.
I think what he's getting at is that in countries where the cost of health care is picked up by the taxpayer, governments are more inclined to push preventive measures that stop people getting injured in the first place in order to keep the health care bill, and hence the tax bill, to a minimum. It's the same reason that food safety, road safety and other health-related regulations tend to be more stringent in the EU than the USA.
Why can't these guys do the right thing and stop making this evil stuff? Playing a shell game with the facts does not change reality.
Because Iowa hold their caucuses early in the presidential election cycle and a lot of candidates like to use that as a chance to get their campaign's momentum going. Many areas of public policy, particularly anything affecting corn farming, are dictated by the feelings of the corn farmers of Iowa.
Yup. Although on the plus side it is probably a good thing that people who actually contribute to society and progress are being talked about with such interest. Pity such attention is usually focused on people who sing songs and abuse substances but still manage to get paid huge sums for their dubious efforts.
Yeaaah! Then we'll be able to claim we're right, even when we're wrong! woo!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it actually the right wing and their petrochemical backers who popularized the phrase "climate change" to squeeze the words "global warming" out of the debate?
What's that got to do with the price of fish? GE doesn't own a conservative activist TV station that purports to be "fair and balanced".
Fox is pretty much unchanged
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
When W was President, everything the president did (even if it was something as stupid as petting a horse at a rodeo) was portrayed as more evidence of his heroism, and everything the president said was sacrosanct because you can't criticise the president in a time of war.
Since the black dude got elected, Fox says it's our patriotic duty to shit on everything the president does, war or no war.
Oh I read it all right. If the "1984 here we come! This is absolutely outrageous" part was sarcastic, maybe you should have said "but seriously" afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Ex pats living in Silicon Valley (where there's a low concentration of females) and unaccustomed to US dating rituals may find this useful: http://loveengineer.com/21/the-ex-pat-guys-guide-to-american-dating-rituals/
Hard to describe. You just gotta try it. It's a lot more flavourful than Miracle Whip. In fact even Mayo is tasteless by comparison to Salad Cream.
Miracle whip tastes nothing like salad cream. I'm not surprised nobody eats it.
Heinz did a similar thing a few years back, IIRC. They said they were going to drop Salad Cream in the UK, claiming that it was losing ground to more exotic dressings. It got a ton of news coverage before the company decided to "change their minds" and keep on selling it. Thankfully. It's delicious!
I actually fell for it too, I started buying it more frequently after that episode. It's one of those things you don't think of because it's been around for so long, and the thought of "what would life be like without it" is sometimes a great way to stoke any lapsed interest. Kinda like suggesting to your GF that you split up, it's a great way to put a spark back into the bedroom and make sure you get a full service.
The media just reflects what is acceptable to society
No it doesn't. The media reflects what sells. Any correlation with social values is purely coincidental.
One thing you have to keep in mind, when reading the OP, is that this is the perspective of someone who watches a lot of TV, and hangs out with other people who watch a lot of TV.
No, the censors are the ones who determine what appears before the audience and what does not. The MPAA is an unaccountable body that considers views of the sex act, or even references to it, to be less acceptable than views of someone getting his head blown off. What the market actually wants has very little to do with it.
I'm not so sure if swearing is a universal trait. I don't know if this is true in any other languages, but in Irish Gaelic there is no such thing as profanity. (Some people use the translation of 'kiss my ass' but that only uses the anatomically correct word for buttocks, so it's not really a swear word.) So it's interesting that after we became Anglophone we embraced swearing so vigorously. As an Irishman I have to say I'm a bit embarrassed when I hear my countrymen using the F word as an adjective for every noun.
Passengers most likely won't even know the chutes are there, they'll be made far more aware of the life jackets and oxygen masks.
If you're not going to advertise the fact that your planes are fitted with parachutes, why would you install them?
Same reason they don't advertise the fact that the planes have an ILS, radar, backup electrical systems etc. The point of having them is to save lives in the event of an emergency.
This is highly unlikely to actually happen. As bobjakiewicz noted, it would greatly increase the number of people suffering from motion sickness and other related problems.
Huh? I thought motion sickness was caused by being moved while deprived of the visual cue of what's causing the motion, hence sea sickness when you're in the cabin but not feeling so bad once you go out on deck and look at the horizon. Alternatively, you might not be moving at all but you might be getting visual cues that make you think you are, and when your ears don't pick up on the motion that they're expecting based on what the eyes are saying, you get nauseous, like I used to get when looking at the overdone shaky camera work of NYPD Blue.
I would have thought that better awareness of the external surroundings would make you less prone to motion sickness, not more.
Plus you're more likely to scare people off by doing so than gain new passengers; who wants to fly on an airline which is so scared of their planes crashing that they fit parachutes to them?
Me.
Bit of a silly argument, that. It's like asking who wants to use a mode of transport that's so scared of their planes crashing that they use air traffic control, radar, preventive maintenance, life jackets, safety briefings before every flight, and a host of other safety measures. Passengers most likely won't even know the chutes are there, they'll be made far more aware of the life jackets and oxygen masks.
And Honda spelled Dr. Asimov's name wrong!
Advanced Step in Innovative MObility
It seems like with this machine, you are just one software bug away from castration.
Yes, it's just you.
There is confusion. People are posting asking if it's 5,000 or 50,000, hence they are confused, hence there is confusion.
To end the confusion, here's what TFAhas to say about it:
Several hundred Netflix members have rated more than 50,000 filmed entertainment programs. 50,000! To watch all those at a pace of one movie or TV show per day, it would take 136 years.
But those users are just the extreme end of a broader behavioral pattern. About a tenth of one percent (0.07%) of Netflix users -- more than 10,000 people -- have rated more than 20,000 items. And a full one percent, or nearly 150,000 Netflixers, have rated more than 5,000 movies. By contrast, only 60 percent of Netflix users rate any movies at all, and the typical person only gives out 200 starred grades.
I think what he's getting at is that in countries where the cost of health care is picked up by the taxpayer, governments are more inclined to push preventive measures that stop people getting injured in the first place in order to keep the health care bill, and hence the tax bill, to a minimum. It's the same reason that food safety, road safety and other health-related regulations tend to be more stringent in the EU than the USA.
The story at Wired has pictures.
"Two other car makers will split $2.5 million each"
What does that mean? Does it mean they get $2.5 million each or is it split between them?
Why can't these guys do the right thing and stop making this evil stuff? Playing a shell game with the facts does not change reality.
Because Iowa hold their caucuses early in the presidential election cycle and a lot of candidates like to use that as a chance to get their campaign's momentum going. Many areas of public policy, particularly anything affecting corn farming, are dictated by the feelings of the corn farmers of Iowa.
Yup. Although on the plus side it is probably a good thing that people who actually contribute to society and progress are being talked about with such interest. Pity such attention is usually focused on people who sing songs and abuse substances but still manage to get paid huge sums for their dubious efforts.
It's his own business.
... let's deport the tea party, half the GOP, and the staff at Fox News.
Oh, and is Rupert Murdoch allowed to enter the US?
Quick! Change the name!
CLIMATE CHANGE!
Yeaaah! Then we'll be able to claim we're right, even when we're wrong! woo!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it actually the right wing and their petrochemical backers who popularized the phrase "climate change" to squeeze the words "global warming" out of the debate?
And GE donates to the Democrats (and Republicans)
What's that got to do with the price of fish? GE doesn't own a conservative activist TV station that purports to be "fair and balanced".
Fox is pretty much unchanged
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
When W was President, everything the president did (even if it was something as stupid as petting a horse at a rodeo) was portrayed as more evidence of his heroism, and everything the president said was sacrosanct because you can't criticise the president in a time of war.
Since the black dude got elected, Fox says it's our patriotic duty to shit on everything the president does, war or no war.
"Asshole" indeed!
So I was right then. You're one of these "slippery slope fallacy" merchants. Better school nutrition policy = Totalitarianism.
So when you tell your kids to eat their oatmeal, you want them to give a Nazi salute?
Oh I read it all right. If the "1984 here we come! This is absolutely outrageous" part was sarcastic, maybe you should have said "but seriously" afterwards.