Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:It's an algorithm (Score 2) 349 349

But it is racist because the Republicans that run Google, like Republicans in general, use the term ape as a racist term. They're the ones that decided to do this. It was premeditated decades ago by their kind.

Living in the Southeast USA, I'm exposed to many Republicans. Basically my entire family, extended family, and at least half of my friends and co-workers are Republican. I have never heard any of them use the term "ape" to describe a black person. Some are mildly prejudiced, but none are bigots or racists. I've known a few bigots (likely what you think of as racists) in my life and they have invariably been Democrats, probably due to the lingering legacy of the Dixiecrats from decades ago. I'm not saying that all Democrats everywhere are bigots or that all racially motivated bigots are Democrats, because blanket statements like yours are rarely even remotely true.

Comment: Re: Get rid of the fucking adverts completely (Score 1) 194 194

Agreed, $100/mo would be really steep. GP said he pays $150/yr.

I'll throw in another fact. American sports like (hand egg) football, baseball, and basketball are all structured in a way that supports TV advertising. There are TV time outs and delays between innings or football plays. so even if you watch sports with no ads, you're going to be twiddling your thumbs a lot because there is always downtime to accomodate ads.

I actually said that I used to pay that, and would be willing to pay double for that specific service, but that service no longer exists. Take that, throw in the other major European leagues and all of the international competitions and friendlies commercial free, and that would be worth around $100/month to me. I just don't watch anything else "live". And frequently not even football, so I can just skip halftime. Football is set up beautifully for a commercial-free broadcast, but the American sports certainly aren't, unless you don't watch them live, and even then you'd be skipping quite a bit. When I used to watch hand-egg, I'd wait until the game was almost over to start it, then watch a play, hit 30-second skip (which coincided nicely with the beginning of the next play), skip any actual commercials, then repeat. Took about 20 minutes to watch a 3 hour game.

Comment: Re: Get rid of the fucking adverts completely (Score 2) 194 194

I don't see anybody offering to spend $100 per month to watch the Kardashians, or Survivor, or Real Housewives of ($cityname) for a commercial free feed.

Millions of people pay more than $100 per month to watch all of that crap with commercials .

Sports fan(atic)s are willing to go to absurd lengths for their personal fix.

Fan(atic)s are willing to go to absurd lengths for their personal fix.

That is one of the biggest drivers of ballooning cable TV costs

Bundling is the cause of cable TV prices increasing. End bundling and pay what you want.

... and sporting ticket costs, and the reason for public funding of private sports arenas

I'm all for ending subsidies to billionaires for arenas, and I will continue to vote against any politician who votes for them.

Comment: Re:Get rid of the fucking adverts completely (Score 1) 194 194

So tv is weaning itself from commercials?

Who claimed that? They are increasing, as I pointed out, above. Additional commercials during the content is hardly "weaning itself from commercials".

That's absurd, that people "aren't bothered by ads"

I know plenty of people who claim that ads don't bother them, and the increase in ads on TV seems to indicate that many more aren't bothered by them. I have disposable income and my time is valuable, so I would gladly pay to skip ads. Maybe if you're broke and/or don't care at all about your time, ads aren't so bad.

Comment: Re: Get rid of the fucking adverts completely (Score 1) 194 194

Why would you be willing to pay that much to watch a bunch of sweaty men running around hitting a rubber sphere with their feet? How can that be so entertaining you'd pay $100/month? I understand how sports can be fun for the players, I just don't get people paying money to watch others play them.

Why would you be willing to pay that much to watch a bunch of people/animals/real housewives running around talking to/mating with/assaulting each other? How can that be so entertaining you'd pay $100/month? I understand how TV dramas/wildlife programs/"reality" shows can be fun for the actors/animals/just awful human beings, I just don't get people paying money to watch others act in/be oblivious to/shamelessly mug for the camera in them.

To each his own?

Comment: Re:Get rid of the fucking adverts completely (Score 4, Interesting) 194 194

Like you were supposed to when you started charging for cable. Who knows, you could make more money by offering a better product.

I don't think that they could make more money by dropping ads because many many people just aren't bothered by ads, and that drives me almost as crazy as having to sit through ads. And everything in the U.S. has more ads now. As an example, I've been watching football (the real football, not American hand-egg) for about five years, in particular English football. For about three seasons, I paid a subscription fee of $150/year so that I could watch every Premier League game online commercial-free for up to one week after the game aired. This also included many FA Cup matches and some matches from other leagues and even sports like rugby. I would have gladly paid double for this kind of service. So when the EPL was rebid and NBC won the American rights, I was devastated because I knew what was coming, and I wasn't wrong. Now I can watch all matches online (for free if I have NBCSN on cable), but online there is a banner that sits above the viewing area for the game that is constant. And whether or not I watch online, there are ads every 4-5 minutes in the form of a video that plays in the upper left where the score is, and then the static logo of that advertiser displays until the next ad runs. And of course there are always things like "The Ben and Jerry's Stoppage Time." In addition, NBC only has the rights to the Premier League, so I can't watch any other competition on that channel. International football is now spread across at least five networks (NBC, Fox, ESPN, GolTV, BeIn), three of which are not included in basic cable, and all of them maximize ads (but not up to the standards of MLS on Fox, who actually shrinks the game area by about 40% every few minutes to show an ad along the entire right-side and lower-section of the screen - so I just never watch an MLS game on that network). I truly don't get why people pay for this crap. (I don't pay for cable.) I actually have a couple of modified pieces of black felt that I use to cover the top score/ad area and the bottom ticker, both of which are equally annoying. I would gladly pay around $100/month or probably even more if I could watch most matches around the world commercial free online, but I don't see that happening, ever. It seems like we're going towards more ads in the U.S., not fewer.

Comment: Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way (Score 1) 1032 1032

Exactly. If the government guaranteed all mortgages, house prices would skyrocket, too. College would be much cheaper if we ended the guarantee on student loans. Banks would then likely A) Test you to make sure you are likely to graduate college (much like a credit/employment check), and B) Make sure that you get a degree in a field that will likely pay enough for you to be able to repay the loan (much like asking for collateral).

Comment: Re:Niche? (Score 2) 194 194

Thank you for trying to counter a point that I wasn't trying to make, so that I could counter your point. 25M is 4M more than Sunday Night Football, the #1 show in all of prime time, averaged for the season. The game I referenced was in the group stage - not even an elimination game. If the US had reached the World Cup final, the numbers would have been much closer to Super Bowl numbers. And 114M is about a third of the US population, so the US at large doesn't give a shit about that, either.

Comment: Niche? (Score 1) 194 194

US Soccer lost a bid. The US at large doesn't give a shit, and would on the balance prefer to not have their regular traffic/TV coverage messed with over a niche sport only played in the suburbs by children. I'm perhaps exaggerating, but not by much.

You are exaggerating by "much". 25 million people in the US watched the USA-Portugal match last summer. No fewer than four sports network families available on cable show soccer matches from around the world (and NBC paid $250 million for the rights to just one foreign league for three seasons). And perhaps you've never heard of the MLS? Two expansion teams this year, and three more confirmed in the next three years, and the franchise fees are approaching $100 million for each. I get that most people still watch the other four team sports more than football, but it's hardly, "a niche sport only played in the suburbs by children".

Comment: Re:Exactly. (Score 1) 318 318

I was always under the impression that the release weekend was like 90%+ royalty to the studios.

When I managed a theater (20ish years ago so it may have changed), some of the bigger movies got a 70/90 release. 70% of the box office up to a certain number ($10,000, for example), went to the distributor, and then 90% of anything above $10,000 also went to the distributor. This lasted for 1-4 weeks, depending on how big the release was. After that it dropped every week or two, eventually hitting 35%, where it stayed for the rest of the run. And if the movie did really poorly at 35%, you still owed the distributor a minimum, which I think was $150. Again, this was a while ago, so some of this may have changed, but I doubt that there's been a radical overhaul.

Comment: Actually, it was brilliant. (Score 1) 318 318

Then you also remember when TBS/TNT started their programs at :05 and :35. Which meant that when you changed channels to any other station, you missed the first 5 minutes of that program.

Turner did this solely because it gave the channel its own entry in TV Guide (which people paid for!).

Comment: Re:Out of curiosity (Score 2) 321 321

Those of you who block ads but still consume the services of sites that run them without paying into any subscription fee, why do you freeload?

If you like something you support it, right?

I still have not figured out the bizarre-o world of the internet where some people want something for free, block any attempt to pay for it via ads, refuse to pay subscriptions, won't buy the T-shirt, etc., but still want it to be there tomorrow for them when they wake up.

I'm addressing now folks who do that - who do you think pays the bills on sites? Who do you think puts the work in? Do you get paid for doing YOUR job?

Questions ever unanswered..

Those of you who fast forward over ads but still watch the TV shows, why do you freeload?

I am the wandering glitch -- catch me if you can.

Working...