I not only don't have a problem with product placement, I think it makes the show more realistic. Look at "My Name Is Earl" and the phony beer. IMO it would have been a lot better if they'd have used the redneck beer of choice, Bud Light. Made-up brands detract from a show, product placement adds to it.
The true tragedy of the commons is that the commons were used by commoners for hundreds of years with no negatives whatever; they took care of it because their livlihoods depended on it. Then nobility came up with the "tragedy of the commons" -- "if we let the commoners use this land they'll ruin it" and then took it by force to keep them from ruining what had been used without being ruined for hundreds of years.
THAT was the tragedy of the commons -- the nobility stole it with a lie called "the tragedy of the commons".
The "one hand on the wheel" isn't what makes phones dangerous. The danger is when you're talking on the phone, all you're thinking about is the telephone conversation. It's how the brain is wired.
Do you really think you need two hands on the wheel of a car with power steering? Hell, back when I was a kid 75% of drivers only had one hand on the (non-power steering) wheel, because a cigarette was in the other hand.
You (and the folks responding with "yeah, and...") haven't glanced at the data, have you? Talking on a cell phone is NOT like talking to a passenger or listening to the radio or thinking about food. When you're on the phone you're less aware of your surroundings than if you were shitfaced drunk (again, look at the studies).
If you get poor cell phone reception in your office building you've seen the mindless dolts with phones to their ears walking into you, completely oblivious to everything around them. Well, they're affected even more badly when driving.
If you're on the interstate and there's no traffic, yeah, answer your phone, say "I'm driving, what do you want?" and make it short. In town and in traffic? That call will wait; when you park, just call whoever wanted to talk back. There's no excuse for you to threaten my life because you're too god damned impatient to wait five minutes for a phone call.
Odd how an anti-science comment like yours gets a "1, insightful" at a nerd site. The studies say you're not only wrong, but stupidly wrong.
Since there's no way of telling who is blocking your ads and why, how can advertisers, site owners, and web designers make good choices about what ads are acceptable to their users and which ones aren't?
Find someone who isn't mentally retarded to look at the site? I swear, I think most folks publishing on the internet are learning-disabled. What kind of idiot thinks that a flashing blinking distracting ad, let alone twenty of them, isn't obtrusive? What kind of idiot puts twenty obtrusive ads on a one paragraph page (twenty pages long) and expects anyone with an IQ of over 50 to ever visit the site again?
I'm not sure I agree that blocking ads is "stealing content".
I'm not sure how anybody could be stupid enough to believe that changing the station in the car when a commercial comes on, or taking a piss when a TV commercial comes on, or using an ad blocker is "stealing content?" People must be incredibly dense for these idiotic ideas to take hold.
That said, I was amazed Sunday when one of the Fox guys actually made a Republican sweat! He was asking about Obama's pointing out that Republicans are ok for raising middle class taxes (payroll tax) but not rich taxes (Bush tax cuts).
It was amazing, I thought I was in Bizarro World.
As to MSNBC, it has MS in it, which makes it lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned. Fox's reporting is what makes its credibility practically zero. But NPR? bashing NPR pegs you as an illiterate who probably didn't graduate high school and probably went there on a short bus.
*Sigh* I wouldn't have had to post this if you hadn't responded to an AC sitting at -1, so please stop it. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
"SyFy" is a rather gay trademark for a really bad "science fiction" TV network that has little science fiction at all, let alone good science fiction.
Giant cockroaches aren't sci-fi, even if Colm Meaney's in that awful movie (hey, he was in Die Hard II, too, and it wasn't sci-fi. And, why does he seem to die in every non-Star Trek movie he's in?)
As you pointed out, elves and trolls aren't sci-fi, either.
Problem: Copyright applies to the recordings, not to the score. Hence why many copies of Bach or Chopin are still under copyright
Incorrect. You can and always have been able to copyright a score; the score for Rhapsody In Blue (George Gershwin) is still under copyright. However, a recorded performance of the out-of-copyright Bach can be copyrighted, but that doesn't transfer copyright of the score, only the recorded performance.
Wrong. PC isn't a brand name, it's an acronym for "personal computer". The brand name was IBM-PC, its successor was IBM-XT. IBM never trademarked "PC" or Compaq wouldn't have been able to call their personal computers "PCs".
Bullshit. I ran three sites for over five years without a single ad or a single penny profit. My web host charged fifteen bucks per year. YEAR! And my sites had no ads whatever. Back then, few sites did have ads; almost the entire internet was completely ad-free and open. IMO it was a lot better back then, even if there was no streaming.
Um, your experience doesn't mirror mine at all. FF crashes on both Linux and Win 7, but only when Flash is running. Open your task list in XP, open TWO (you don't need any more) tabs with Yahoo News and your memory useage is pegged at WAY over a GB; we have IE7 on XP at work and three open yahoo news tabs locks the computer up.
And you know what? I don't believe you're running IE7 because slashdot is almost completely hosed in IE7. Go to slashdot.org/journal.pl?op=list&uid=[your user ID] ande play "catch the moving link". Annoying as hell, it doesn't do that at home. And slashdot isn't the only site with the "hit the moving link" game, buut it's only in IE 7. IE 7 clearly does NOT follow standards (but of course Microsoft thinks it sets the standards).
Konqueror has always been a joke. I'd run IE 6 before I ran Konqueror, that is IMO the suckiest browser out there, and in fact is one of the very few things I dislike about KDE.
Tell that to the bar owner who puts an ad in the paper touting the band that's playing there Friday on Saturday when he's counting record reciepts. The fact is advertising does usually work. I can't buy your product if I don't know you're in business. Hell, George Ranks just reopened, I'd never know it if there wasn't a big sign out front advertising the fact.
Conversely, if they're told they're in great danger they'll believe that, too, which is how the TSA got started. It's the reason so much is spent on security theater in the airports and so little on highway safety.
And then there's the moral issue. If everyone adblocks then websites don't make money, and there's less of a compelling reason to create good content.
Bullshit. There was plenty of good content before the internet was monetized, and a HELL of a lot less dreck. Back in the nineties the most advertising you ever saw was a banner, and people complained about them. Now you have one fucking paragraph with twenty flashy, screaming ads distracting you before you click to the next page full of flashy annoying ads. Perhaps you meant "If everyone adblocks then websites don't make money, and there's less of a compelling reason to create commercial content." You must be one of those folks who think free means worthless.
I'd trade today's internet for 1997's any day, and that even includes having to dial up on 33.3.
If the Universe were to spontaneously disintegrate, that would be Bad.
No, I don't think anyone would complain. You have to die from something, the universe spontaneously ceasing to exist probably wouldn't be a bad way to go considering the alternatives (fire, drowning, cancer...)
Or really for anyone who has a vested interest in the Universe continuing to exist.
From my perspective it's only existed for 59 years and its destruction is always and has always been imminent. The universe stops existing for people every single day. Nobody has a vested interest in the universe's existance; we're only visitors here. Nobody stays forever.
Remember back in the day when you could trust ads to be unobtrusive?
No, and I'll be 60 this April. Ads have always been as obtrusive as the advertisers could make them. Print advertisers do their damndest to stand out; notice that when newspapers first started using colored ink, at first the only color pictures were one photo on the front page, the comics section, and ads? TV commercials have always been so loud they wake the neighbors up when you can't hear the dialog in the show.
The internet just made obtrusive ads easier. Now there are obtrusive roadside signs!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!! . . . . (goddamned lameness filter. Hard as hell to tell some jokes around here. I wonder how much offtopic shit I'll have to post for the lameness filter to let me post that stupid Wrath of Khan joke?)
I don't know, I've never had a weight problem but from what I've seen in others, there is no correlation between weight and intelligence. There are a lot of factors that come to play in obesity, inlcuding how fast or slow one's metabolism is. Me, I eat what I want, all that I want, get little exersize and still don't gain weight. OTOH I know people who are always on a diet and always exersizing and are still chuby to fat. One's genes have a lot to do with it.
Depends on how many trains and how long they are. Tons are made of micrograms, just lots and lots of micrograms.
You could probably grind cocaine up enough to ship microgram quantities, but good luck transporting micrograms of pot (or at least, selling it to anyone after it's shipped).
Bowing down to powerful thieves. Did you not read the summary? The big media companies are STEALING the public domain. To use their own flawed rhetoric, It's as if you hopped into a police car, drove it off, and claimed it was your own.
WE, THE PEOPLE own these videos that the media moguls are claiming ownership to. Claiming ownership to something you have no right to is theft.
Covering up a crime is a crime. You still think it's ethical?
What's the worst is that you can add something important, like the CrystaLens eye implant that was FDA-approved, and they delete it. Happened to me after my eye surgey in 2006. I got the new lens, which unlike older IOLs allows one to focus.
I gave up after three times. Someone from wikipedial finally got it in there about 2008 or so after I bitched about it on slashdot.
Edit again? No fucking way. I'll look stuff up out of curiosity (it's great for track titles on sampled LPs the CDDB won't find), but edit? Nope, not me.
Slashdot Mirror
I not only don't have a problem with product placement, I think it makes the show more realistic. Look at "My Name Is Earl" and the phony beer. IMO it would have been a lot better if they'd have used the redneck beer of choice, Bud Light. Made-up brands detract from a show, product placement adds to it.
The true tragedy of the commons is that the commons were used by commoners for hundreds of years with no negatives whatever; they took care of it because their livlihoods depended on it. Then nobility came up with the "tragedy of the commons" -- "if we let the commoners use this land they'll ruin it" and then took it by force to keep them from ruining what had been used without being ruined for hundreds of years.
THAT was the tragedy of the commons -- the nobility stole it with a lie called "the tragedy of the commons".
The "one hand on the wheel" isn't what makes phones dangerous. The danger is when you're talking on the phone, all you're thinking about is the telephone conversation. It's how the brain is wired.
Do you really think you need two hands on the wheel of a car with power steering? Hell, back when I was a kid 75% of drivers only had one hand on the (non-power steering) wheel, because a cigarette was in the other hand.
I can put something like this together in a month from code w better nav aond colors prolly
Maybe, but you'd need to write it so people could actually read it. A bright six year old could have posed a more literate comment.
You (and the folks responding with "yeah, and...") haven't glanced at the data, have you? Talking on a cell phone is NOT like talking to a passenger or listening to the radio or thinking about food. When you're on the phone you're less aware of your surroundings than if you were shitfaced drunk (again, look at the studies).
If you get poor cell phone reception in your office building you've seen the mindless dolts with phones to their ears walking into you, completely oblivious to everything around them. Well, they're affected even more badly when driving.
If you're on the interstate and there's no traffic, yeah, answer your phone, say "I'm driving, what do you want?" and make it short. In town and in traffic? That call will wait; when you park, just call whoever wanted to talk back. There's no excuse for you to threaten my life because you're too god damned impatient to wait five minutes for a phone call.
Odd how an anti-science comment like yours gets a "1, insightful" at a nerd site. The studies say you're not only wrong, but stupidly wrong.
Since there's no way of telling who is blocking your ads and why, how can advertisers, site owners, and web designers make good choices about what ads are acceptable to their users and which ones aren't?
Find someone who isn't mentally retarded to look at the site? I swear, I think most folks publishing on the internet are learning-disabled. What kind of idiot thinks that a flashing blinking distracting ad, let alone twenty of them, isn't obtrusive? What kind of idiot puts twenty obtrusive ads on a one paragraph page (twenty pages long) and expects anyone with an IQ of over 50 to ever visit the site again?
I'm not sure I agree that blocking ads is "stealing content".
I'm not sure how anybody could be stupid enough to believe that changing the station in the car when a commercial comes on, or taking a piss when a TV commercial comes on, or using an ad blocker is "stealing content?" People must be incredibly dense for these idiotic ideas to take hold.
You must use IE! =)
That said, I was amazed Sunday when one of the Fox guys actually made a Republican sweat! He was asking about Obama's pointing out that Republicans are ok for raising middle class taxes (payroll tax) but not rich taxes (Bush tax cuts).
It was amazing, I thought I was in Bizarro World.
As to MSNBC, it has MS in it, which makes it lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned. Fox's reporting is what makes its credibility practically zero. But NPR? bashing NPR pegs you as an illiterate who probably didn't graduate high school and probably went there on a short bus.
*Sigh* I wouldn't have had to post this if you hadn't responded to an AC sitting at -1, so please stop it. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
"SyFy" is a rather gay trademark for a really bad "science fiction" TV network that has little science fiction at all, let alone good science fiction.
Giant cockroaches aren't sci-fi, even if Colm Meaney's in that awful movie (hey, he was in Die Hard II, too, and it wasn't sci-fi. And, why does he seem to die in every non-Star Trek movie he's in?)
As you pointed out, elves and trolls aren't sci-fi, either.
Problem: Copyright applies to the recordings, not to the score. Hence why many copies of Bach or Chopin are still under copyright
Incorrect. You can and always have been able to copyright a score; the score for Rhapsody In Blue (George Gershwin) is still under copyright. However, a recorded performance of the out-of-copyright Bach can be copyrighted, but that doesn't transfer copyright of the score, only the recorded performance.
Wrong. PC isn't a brand name, it's an acronym for "personal computer". The brand name was IBM-PC, its successor was IBM-XT. IBM never trademarked "PC" or Compaq wouldn't have been able to call their personal computers "PCs".
Bullshit. I ran three sites for over five years without a single ad or a single penny profit. My web host charged fifteen bucks per year. YEAR! And my sites had no ads whatever. Back then, few sites did have ads; almost the entire internet was completely ad-free and open. IMO it was a lot better back then, even if there was no streaming.
Um, your experience doesn't mirror mine at all. FF crashes on both Linux and Win 7, but only when Flash is running. Open your task list in XP, open TWO (you don't need any more) tabs with Yahoo News and your memory useage is pegged at WAY over a GB; we have IE7 on XP at work and three open yahoo news tabs locks the computer up.
And you know what? I don't believe you're running IE7 because slashdot is almost completely hosed in IE7. Go to slashdot.org/journal.pl?op=list&uid=[your user ID] ande play "catch the moving link". Annoying as hell, it doesn't do that at home. And slashdot isn't the only site with the "hit the moving link" game, buut it's only in IE 7. IE 7 clearly does NOT follow standards (but of course Microsoft thinks it sets the standards).
Konqueror has always been a joke. I'd run IE 6 before I ran Konqueror, that is IMO the suckiest browser out there, and in fact is one of the very few things I dislike about KDE.
Advertisement is a waste of money
Tell that to the bar owner who puts an ad in the paper touting the band that's playing there Friday on Saturday when he's counting record reciepts. The fact is advertising does usually work. I can't buy your product if I don't know you're in business. Hell, George Ranks just reopened, I'd never know it if there wasn't a big sign out front advertising the fact.
Conversely, if they're told they're in great danger they'll believe that, too, which is how the TSA got started. It's the reason so much is spent on security theater in the airports and so little on highway safety.
And then there's the moral issue. If everyone adblocks then websites don't make money, and there's less of a compelling reason to create good content.
Bullshit. There was plenty of good content before the internet was monetized, and a HELL of a lot less dreck. Back in the nineties the most advertising you ever saw was a banner, and people complained about them. Now you have one fucking paragraph with twenty flashy, screaming ads distracting you before you click to the next page full of flashy annoying ads. Perhaps you meant "If everyone adblocks then websites don't make money, and there's less of a compelling reason to create commercial content." You must be one of those folks who think free means worthless.
I'd trade today's internet for 1997's any day, and that even includes having to dial up on 33.3.
If the Universe were to spontaneously disintegrate, that would be Bad.
No, I don't think anyone would complain. You have to die from something, the universe spontaneously ceasing to exist probably wouldn't be a bad way to go considering the alternatives (fire, drowning, cancer...)
Or really for anyone who has a vested interest in the Universe continuing to exist.
From my perspective it's only existed for 59 years and its destruction is always and has always been imminent. The universe stops existing for people every single day. Nobody has a vested interest in the universe's existance; we're only visitors here. Nobody stays forever.
Or the GUY who puts the POINTLESS sayings at the BOTTOM of SLASHDOT.
Remember back in the day when you could trust ads to be unobtrusive?
No, and I'll be 60 this April. Ads have always been as obtrusive as the advertisers could make them. Print advertisers do their damndest to stand out; notice that when newspapers first started using colored ink, at first the only color pictures were one photo on the front page, the comics section, and ads? TV commercials have always been so loud they wake the neighbors up when you can't hear the dialog in the show.
The internet just made obtrusive ads easier. Now there are obtrusive roadside signs!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!
.
.
.
.
(goddamned lameness filter. Hard as hell to tell some jokes around here. I wonder how much offtopic shit I'll have to post for the lameness filter to let me post that stupid Wrath of Khan joke?)
I don't know, I've never had a weight problem but from what I've seen in others, there is no correlation between weight and intelligence. There are a lot of factors that come to play in obesity, inlcuding how fast or slow one's metabolism is. Me, I eat what I want, all that I want, get little exersize and still don't gain weight. OTOH I know people who are always on a diet and always exersizing and are still chuby to fat. One's genes have a lot to do with it.
Depends on how many trains and how long they are. Tons are made of micrograms, just lots and lots of micrograms.
You could probably grind cocaine up enough to ship microgram quantities, but good luck transporting micrograms of pot (or at least, selling it to anyone after it's shipped).
"Low risk intelligence" is NOT the same as "low intelligence". You use IE, don't you?
Well, since the war is over it won't be long before they find the Higgs.
What is unethical about it?
Bowing down to powerful thieves. Did you not read the summary? The big media companies are STEALING the public domain. To use their own flawed rhetoric, It's as if you hopped into a police car, drove it off, and claimed it was your own.
WE, THE PEOPLE own these videos that the media moguls are claiming ownership to. Claiming ownership to something you have no right to is theft.
Covering up a crime is a crime. You still think it's ethical?
What's the worst is that you can add something important, like the CrystaLens eye implant that was FDA-approved, and they delete it. Happened to me after my eye surgey in 2006. I got the new lens, which unlike older IOLs allows one to focus.
I gave up after three times. Someone from wikipedial finally got it in there about 2008 or so after I bitched about it on slashdot.
Edit again? No fucking way. I'll look stuff up out of curiosity (it's great for track titles on sampled LPs the CDDB won't find), but edit? Nope, not me.