No, actually it's quite apt to the subject. Nobody wants to be tracked by RFID, facial recognition, etc. Yet, these venues are incorporating them into their "products". They hide these policies in fine print wrapped in legalese for a reason. They're tracking you and harvesting every bit of information they can get so it can be sold to the highest bidder. Submitting to such practices makes us their product. That you don't particularly care about that fact is a moot point. And your ad hominem attack about 1984 was immature. Let's hear a real argument.
Information on your preferences. We may collect information about events you like or products you buy or enquire about (e.g. as part of a survey or from your review of an event). We may also hold information on interests and demographic categories inferred from your interactions with us in order to provide you a better service and to provide you with more focused information. For example, if you buy tickets to a certain show and lots of people who went to that show also bought tickets for a different concert, we might send you information about that concert.
Cashless payment wristband usage information. If you use a cashless payment wristband during one of our events, we may collect information relating to your use of the wristband such as check-in information and the purchases you make with your cashless payment wristband (i.e. purchase of products and merchandises).
Understand that you are NOT the customer here. You're the product.
There is a dearth of people who can produce good documentation
So be a part of the solution. Start producing quality documentation for stuff that you're good at and provide it to the public at no charge.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or trying to one-up me here. The point is, once you've bought something, the seller has no right to dictate how you consume it.
Say a concert venue offers me VIP tickets at a price that is normally lower than what I'd pay for a nosebleed seat. I buy them, but then only stay for the opening act. Is that a better analogy for you? I mean, this isn't a difficult concept!
If you buy a dozen apples from a farmer, does she have the right to dictate how you consume the apples? Can she sue you for telling others where and from whom you bought the apples?
You're a fucking airline. You're going where I need to go and I bought a ticket. If I'm not on the plane for the second half of the trip, you've saved that much on fuel. Fuck off.
While this may be an issue, I'm not sure it's a significant one.
I disagree. The restaurant lobby is immesely influential. We're all smart enough here at
Where I see an issue is minors, who can't buy the overpriced booze at the show/concert/game/whatever, wanting some way to sneak some alcohol in.
I'm just curious if that includes the entire swath of the adult population who is 18-21 years-old. Because they're doing beer bongs in the parking lot instead of buying in the stadium. And, what difference does it make to you if someone brings a packet of this "Palcohol", or an airplane bottle of Captain Morgan's, or even a packet of Koolaid into a show/concert/game/whatever? You can't legislate morality, friend.
Infrastructure is "boring", but somebody's gotta build and maintain those old roads. Go Civil Engineering!
For the love of spaghetti, this! And for that matter, why not have a voting week?
According to Obama, "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups."
Well, guess what? That encompasses the entire working class of the USA. Most of whom do not have the means to take hours off on a tuesday. Sure, employers are required by law to allow their employees to vote, but the employers are under no obligation to pay folks for that time off.
But mostly, what I came here to say is that I'm really disappointed in what a pussy Obama has turned out to be. It's like he's campaigning for hope and change all over again. He's had 6 years to do the right thing!
Injuries and sometimes death do occur in all sports. I've torn my ACL twice on the field and had to have surgery to repair it. It fucking hurt, but I would hardly call that violent, insofar as it wasn't torn by some guy trying to rip my leg off. You can't possibly watch UFC and declare that those two aren't trying to annihilate each other by any means necessary (yes, within the rules). That's what it takes to win right?
It's not my intention to gloss over anything, and I realize how hard those fighters train and how much skill they possess. There are varying degrees of skill, and the UFC fighters are the best in the world. However, it's still violent. I simply don't understand why fans can't admit that they're into violence. You seem to enjoy the tactics, which I can respect. Much like some (American) football fans actually pay attention to the plays and formations. But I think that far more fans tune in simply to watch somebody get slammed. If either sport were all about tactics, then wouldn't flag football and wrestling be at least marginally more popular sports to watch?
I can also agree that there is probably less long term brain damage done to a MMA fighter than a boxer, simply because he's not getting smacked in the temple thousands of times. Again, that doesn't make the sport any less (or more) violent than cage fighting. Perhaps statistically safer which may indeed be more to your point.
Anyway, I think we've reached an impasse on the point. I'm not advocating a ban on anything. To each, their own. I appreciate your elaboration and best of luck to you!
Those are all completely irrelevant, and I won't get into them. You're sliding off onto tangents.
It's a touch of cruelty to watch two boxers beat the shit out of each other, which is likely why this sport should be considered the one the audience should be moving on from.
That's what you said. And I countered with this:
The only difference I observe from boxing is that it's two barbarians trying to kill each other on the ground, vs standing up.
Case closed, friend! I think my point was quite clear. If you're trying to convince me that cage-fighting has any virtue besides feeding the gambling industry, then bring some verifiable facts to the conversation. Your pontificating on the inherent dangers of life in general says nothing about cage-fighting being unnecessarily violent and barbaric.
Ah, but that's a red herring. I've already stated my point.
Well, technically if there is no blood shed, then I suppose I can't call it a "blood sport".
But is hitting somebody else with a stick puerile violence? Fuck yea it is.
I've seen that movie. I've also seen Sidekicks with Chuck Norris, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, MacGyver, and the Power Rangers Movie. All of which revolve around the same trope -- the wise martial artist, who only uses his skills for self-defense, which conveniently occurs every 15-20 minutes.
Thing is, that's just not what cage-fighting or boxing are about. Those sports are about going on the offensive and pummeling your opponent as hard as you can until he goes limp. And when he does go limp, you never see the "winner" on the ground offering first aid. Nope, he's jumping around the ring in celebration for his victory, while the crowd goes wild.
the UFC most often is an exposition of valuable martial arts techniques.
Yes -- valuable to the gambling industry. Martial arts might have virtue in that they can teach discipline and even self-defense. But the UFC is about making money from pure violence.