Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Superbowling 428

An assortment of Super Bowl tidbits: Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money - also a Reuters story. Infinitus writes "The NFL's legal firm has a PDF up that outlines the NFL's intellectual property rights to words like 'Super Bowl' and 'NFL'. Including a neat little chart that tells you what you can and can't say..." VeggiePossum23 writes "Panthers Upset Patriots, 29 to 21... at least in the Sony Sponsored '989 Sports Game Before the Game' played on NFL Gameday 2004 on the PS2 Console. This annual event, held Wednesday night in Houston, has a perfect 8-year track record of picking the winner of the Super Bowl. Carolina Panthers Wide Receiver Steve Smith controlled the Panthers, winning an upset victory against New England Patriots' Wide Out Troy Brown, also controlling his own team." lordbyron writes "CBS is doing a SuperBowl of commercials that will include a vote for the best commercial in history. You can watch the top 10 now and make sure that you vote at 9pm on Sunday 1/31. It includes some classics like the Apple commercial and the exploding mosquitos from Tabasco."Wing Bowl.--->
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.


Comments Filter:
  • by OS24Ever ( 245667 ) * <> on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:19PM (#8144703) Homepage Journal
    Pretty potent/A. non-sex non-beer ad with only one statement in it. []

    Pretty effective ad no matter what you US Political viewpoint is.
    • For the record, CBS's reason for not accepting that ad is because they don't accept any debatable political issue issue ads. They would have accepted ads from candidates because they have to, but none came forward with the money to do so.
    • by kermyt ( 99494 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:25PM (#8144761) Homepage
      Quoted from

      The CBS networks still refuses to run our winning ad in the Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest during the Super Bowl. The non-partisan campaign to get CBS to air issue ads continues, but we're not going to let CBS's censorship stop us
      in the mean time. That's why we're spending over $1 million to air the ad in our swing states and nation-wide on other
      channels -- starting with two spots on CNN that will air during the Super Bowl half time.

      This Sunday, during the Super Bowl half time show, join us in changing channels on CBS. At 8:10pm and 8:35pm EST, switch
      over to CNN to watch "Child's Pay" on a channel which doesn't censor its ads. We'd like to keep a tally of the number of
      people who participate -- you can sign up here: 2293-33 48214-6QjmVnR6_TwkZW4t8xOELQ

      The number of groups, individuals, and newspapers that have called on CBS to run our ad is remarkable. The National
      Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union have asked their own members to call CBS. Senator Dick Durbin
      (D-IL) gave a powerful speech about CBS on the floor of the Senate, saying, "Maybe network executives at CBS are so afraid
      of political pressure from the right wing and their business advertisers who are in league with the right wing politics of
      America that they are afraid to put anything on the air that might in fact make things uncomfortable. If that is the case,
      it is time for CBS to announce the name of their network is the 'Conservative Broadcasting System' and come clean with
      American viewers."

      28 members of the House of Representatives wrote a letter to CBS which stated, "The choice not to run this paid
      advertisement appears to be part of a disturbing pattern on CBS's part to bow to the wishes of the Republican National
      Committee. We remember well CBS's remarkable decision this fall to self-censor at the direction of GOP pressure. The network
      shamefully cancelled a broadcast about former President Ronald Reagan which Republican partisans considered insufficiently
      flattering." Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote a separate letter to CBS urging them to reconsider their decision.

      Today, the L.A. Times printed an Op-Ed piece of ours which lays out the case against CBS's censorship. That's attached
      below. But the editorial pages of the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, and many other papers came out in our favor as
      well. As the Globe wrote, "'s 30-second ad, which has aired on CNN, is a gentle yet powerful depiction of how hard
      today's children will have to work to pay off the country's mounting deficit. That's a vital message that might get lost in
      a year of campaign rhetoric, and it deserves a response from the White House in its own 30 seconds of imagery. America,
      sitting on the couch, junk food in hand, just might sit up and want to know more."

      Luckily, there are still some networks that do allow the free exchange of ideas. Please join the one-minute boycott: at
      Super Bowl halftime, switch to CNN and watch "Child's Pay," and let us know at: 93-33 48214-6QjmVnR6_TwkZW4t8xOELQ
      • by finkployd ( 12902 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:32PM (#8144811) Homepage
        It is amazing how many people do not understand what censorship actually means.

        Sad really

        I guess it is now censorship when a corporation decided not to play an ad that would piss off the majority of the country

        Just like it is censorship when the public decides to not boycott a movie/tv show because the ignorant actor/actress made some boneheaded statements about their assinine political views.

        Oh, and we cannot forget book publishers not publishing books that contain views they don't like. Obviously this is censorship, and not a business decision.

        • by damiam ( 409504 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:51PM (#8144954)
          A corporation not playing an ad because of its political viewpoints is censorship. It's their right, and it's perfectly legal (unless you want to get into some argument about the "public" airwaves), but it's still censorship. Besides nothing in that ad is at all controversial - the deficit estimate is even a bit low, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If they're gonna air ads from the White House (containing some very shaky statements about drugs and terrorism), they should air this ad (which doesn't even promote a candidate).
          • they should air this ad (which doesn't even promote a candidate).

            Actually, if any of the democratic candidates were willing to pay for the ad from campaign funds (and as required, appear in the ad and indicate their approval) then CBS would be required to either accept the ad or reject all campaign ads for that election cycle. The lack of a candidate or ballot issue actually does this ad in...
        • It is amazing how many people do not understand what censorship actually means.

          Yes, apparently even you. I was under the impression that censoring [] simply meant to screen and edit out any material found to be objectionable.

          This ad, was, apparently, objectionable as far as CBS was concerned in terms of their goals: To keep and maintain as many viewers as possible to maximise their advertising revenue.

          A book publisher not publishing a book that he finds objectionable is censorship too.

          Of course, most

      • ...CNN to watch "Child's Pay" on a channel which doesn't censor its ads

        Try running an add on CNN featuring full frontal nudity and see if they don't "censor" it. I think what the zealots mean is "...a channel that didn't decline to run *our* ad."

        Every media outlet practices this kind of "censorship" (the quotes because actual censorship requires government involvement). Moveon is right to vote with their wallet and even to encourage a CBS boycott. They are wrong, however, to characterize CBS's refus

      • " non-partisan campaign"

        you're kidding right? move on is almost a wing of the democratic party. go look at their site. There is no need to inject politics into something people just want to enjoy. I think CBS made the right decision. give it a rest.
    • by Heisenbug ( 122836 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:34PM (#8144823)
      A few notes on this ... if you haven't seen the MoveOn Child's Pay ad, it's not exactly incendiary rhetoric. Even Bill O'Reilly said he was surprised they refused to play it.

      CBS defends the policy by saying that if they allowed issue ads, large corporations could buy time to push their favorite issues and it would disenfranchise us folks with smaller ad budgets. Eli Pariser of MoveOn responded by pointing out that this creates an awfully friendly environment for the status quo, and those same corporations. We have oil company ads but no anti-oil ads, shoe company ads but no sweatshop ads, drug war ads but no decriminalization ads.

      What we're really getting here is a one-sided agenda, and, yes, censorship, in the guise of fairness.
    • by Schlemphfer ( 556732 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:42PM (#8144882) Homepage
      The real hypocrisy is in how the network is handling an ad PETA wanted to run. They won't accept anti-meat ads, even though they will accept ads from fast food companies. So much for their excuse of not wanting to air only one side of a controversial issue. Here's a great article [] on the subject.

      Now watch this post get marked down as a troll because somebody with mod points eats meat, and thinks information like this shouldn't receive attention.

      • I wouldn't mod you as a troll for posting that, but I would mod you as 'miguided' or 'goofy' ;)

        Seriously though. How can you consider PETA's statement about impotency accurate? They come up with all sorts of crazy things trying to stop people from eating meat, or using animals for some byproduct like milk that people drink, etc.

        I for one could not make it on eating stuff grown in the back yard. I'm allergic to most soy products and to most artificial sweetners. It's not that I don't like them, it
    • by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:46PM (#8144926) Homepage
      Actually having CBS not air the commercial has allowed more people to see the ad. MoveOn should be jumping for joy that CBS denied the ad buy. It has brought more attention to their message and allowed them to air the ad for free on various news shows. You are even helping out MoveOn by publicizing the ad here on Slashdot.

      CBS is making a smart business decision not to air this ad. Why should CBS want to bring in unneeded controversy into the Super Bowl that would distract from the game? Since it has a product that is in high demand for advertisers, CBS can pick and choose which advertisers it wants to fill in those 30 second gaps between plays. Also, if you are spending $2 million an ad as advertiser would you want your commercial message to be drowned out by adjacent partisan political message? Heck no! This would make it hard for CBS to sell the ad space next to the MoveOn ad.

      This isn't political censorship, its smart business on the part of CBS.

  • Radio Contests (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordArathres ( 244483 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:20PM (#8144712) Homepage
    Here in Los Angeles, KROQ is doing a "Super Bowl" contest where they send someone to the "Super Bowl" game, but they cannot call it the "Super Bowl" becuase of the NFL restriction. So they are referring to it as the "Big Game". It would cost them an insane amount of money to call it the "Super Bowl Contests" and its ridiculous. This whole trademark BS is so stupid sometimes. How can we live in a age where you cant refer to something by its official name without paying money??? I read slashdot all the time and I am so disgusted by the crap going on around us, what IS this world coming to?


    • Re:Radio Contests (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:24PM (#8144747)
      What's even further ironic is that KROQ is owned by Infinity Radio, the radio arm of Viacom whose CBS network will be airing the Super Bowl this year...
    • That's not all... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MisanthropicProggram ( 597526 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:48PM (#8144939)
      Outside of Atlanta, in Gwinett County, the Falcons have a proactice camp. This is an important detail - with no fence around their compound. Nearby, there's a hill with a McDonald's on top wih a view of the Falcon's practice field. There's big sign on the border of their properties border with the Falcon's field that says, "No Looking!"
      The Falcon's compound is also used for coporate meeting and classes. I was their for one. During my lunch break I went outside to get some fresh air and eat. I happend to be looking at the Falcons standing around talking - it was about fifty yards away, no fences or anything else to obstruct my view - when a police cruiser pulls up. The cop then told me that there's no looking. I responded with something along the lines of, if it's that important to be secret, why don't they put a fence up? The cop told me that it's "NFL RULES." and I have to move along. He says he has to tell people who are on McDonald's property the same thing.

      So, I guess NFL's rules supercede our civil rights.

  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:20PM (#8144713)
    intellectual property rights to words like 'Super Bowl' and 'NFL'.

    Funny, I never thought I'd see "intellectual", "SuperBowl" and "NFL" in the same sentence ...
    • Re:Football IP? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by aiken_d ( 127097 ) <> on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:31PM (#8144800) Homepage

      Sure, laugh at how not intellectual football is. Heck, it's as simple as:

      Your fast OT slams him inside (This is why he's FAST) and your FB still runs "B" gap. Your QB reads the DE - the first defender outside "B"(Almost 100% guaranteed you'll get a handoff read). If QB gets a "keep" read, he options "W". The "slow" left guard takes "M" unless the NG is in playside "A". In that case both the center and the slow guard drive the NG back and the slow guard looks for a chance to zone block to "M". SE blocks F (deepest, nearest safety) and slot has corner. On backside, "slow" guard picks off anyone upfield trying to follow wing's motion while fast tackle shoeshines the DT.

      From Youth Football knowledge base []

      Simple, right?


      • Yes. It is, mostly because I know what all of those mean (I watch football on occassion). You can do the same thing with technical terms (IP, TCP/IP, GNU, SCO, PS/2, USB, 802.11b, etc) and it will be just as confusing if the person doesn't know what they mean.
      • Just because it has its own jargon doesn't make it intellectual. Car salesmen and McDonald's burger-flippers too have their own jargon you'd be hard-pressed to understand if you're not in the know.
        • Re:Football IP? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by aiken_d ( 127097 )
          So you didn't see any need for the (remember, youth) players to make relatively complex split-second decisions in that? Nevermind the jargon, look at the decision making and then tell me it's just a bunch of dumb guys knocking each other down.

          You can think what you want, you're just wrong in this case. There *are* dumb football players, but they're in the minority and are never the stars. It's an amazingly complex game, though it certainly is easy to miss that, especially if you base opinions on stereoty
          • I'm not a big football player, but I can say that, while most sports do involve amazingly complex strategy, it's not something you really think about. I play soccer, which as a complicated a game as any, and I don't really think about what I'm going to do - I just instinctively do it. While I'm sure there are many smart football players, it's not an intellectual game on the same level as something like chess.
            • Re:Football IP? (Score:2, Insightful)

              by aiken_d ( 127097 )
              I partly agree. Football is unique in the sports world, though, because of it's play-by-play dynamic (you could argue the point for baseball, but the "plays" in baseball are much, much simpler). Coaches have an amazingly complex job of deciding, for each play, which players to put on the field and what play to call. Players, too, need to read the opposition and adjust not just athletically but also who to cover and whatnot.

              There's certainly a run-time (har!) atheltic component, but there is also a very
      • Ok, I've started a mini-debate with that post. A quick Google turns up some evidence in my favor [].

        According to the article, in an abbreviated IQ test (50 questions) the average for football player's score is the same as the average for other professions. Of course, you'll note that the average for programmers is higher than the average for any particular position on the football field. But I wasn't asserting that football players are geniuses, just that the game requires a reasonable level of intelligenc

  • The company I work for, CityNet [], is providing free internet access during the superbowl, and it has been going on for the past week. Hopefully this will provide us with some (plug)exposure to the public(/plug), since we need all the publicity that we can get :)
  • protection money... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cedric C. Girouard ( 21203 ) <> on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:26PM (#8144766)
    Does it just strike me as very stupid from the extorter ?

    I will not say that most gambling site are operated by/for criminals, but say that a good percentage of it are the operations of some legitimate business mans ?

    My experience in this domain is that they will be able to get their hands on some money, but that said money will be delivered by Vito and Guido, and they'll be made an offer that they cannot refuse.

    Maybe spammers should start spamming the mob too. Kill two birds with the same stone ?

    • by interiot ( 50685 )
      The gambling sites are in a legal grey area, in that often what they're doing would be illegal in the countries of the participants, but the organization is outside the jurisdiction of the united states/europe/whatever. So in that sense, the extorters may also be working in a legal grey area where they won't see much investigation or pressure from the western world to stop their extortion.
    • The extorters [] *are* the mob. One set of criminals ripping off other ones.
  • Those are the top ten commercials?

    Apple? Coke? Of course.

    But what about the monkey ad? What about the Bud Bowl? (The commercial with about eight sequels) Who voted for these?

  • What plugin do i need to watch those ads? Firebird and IE don't sem to know what do do with the video.
  • pregame (Score:2, Funny)

    by Wiggin ( 97119 )
    i remember when the pregame show was just an hour before the game started. then it grew to two. and soon it had reached six. that was starting to seem a little excessive. but this year, i think the pregame show started on wednesday. when is enough, enough?
  • by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:32PM (#8144807) Homepage
    Sure there is events that "predicts" superbowl with amazing accuracy. If you don't believe me just send a message to your 1024 closest friends and tell half that the A team will win and other B team.

    Do this for 8 years and four of your friends thinks you are a genius and the remaining 1020 have forgotten the whole thing.

    This works with stock tips and is a scam that has been used for ages.

  • by MaximumBob ( 97339 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:32PM (#8144809)
    I'm a little surprised the story didn't mention CBS's censorship [] of an ad by []. The ad reflects a negative view of the Bush administration. CBS, which has donated massive amounts of money to Bush, as well as received favors from the administration and Congress, has decided they won't show "controversial" ads. Which is to say, political speech is apparently unacceptable. Odd, given that they're showing an ad from the White House.
    • Ooooh you are right, it is total censorship that CBS wouldn't run an add during the superbowl that would piss off the majority of their viewers. They should be forced too.

      How would you feel about them not running a KKK ad on principal? Would that also be censorship?

  • (0.5)^8 = 0.0039 = 0.39%.

    In other words, there's a 0.9961 that if you flip a coint 8 times, you're not going to predict the superbowl right all 8 times. However, that means that you only have to repeat your 8-coin flip experiment 1000 times to make it 98% likely that in one of those 1000 8-coin-flips, you're going to predict the winner correctly each time.
    • Lies, damn lies, and statistics....

      A prediction mechanism that succeeds despite a 99.61% chance of failure is usually considered a reliable in most scientific fields. Calling 8 consecutive coin flips correctly usually indicates some better-than-flat-chance prediction going on.

      Of course, this could be the one year that the video game prediction indicator goes bust. Video games tend to accent star players, and that clearly happened in this year's "Game before the game" when the same player for the Panthers
  • One Thing That Won't Be Tackled on Sunday: Issues
    By Eli Pariser
    Campaigns Director, Voter Fund

    When the Super Bowl is beamed into living rooms around the world Sunday, you can expect to see TV spots hyping cars, beer, razor blades, three different erectile dysfunction cures, toilet paper and snack foods.

    The ads will be slick and clever, lavishly produced, brilliant in their marketing. Some, no doubt, will be sexually suggestive or violent. Most will cost $2 million to $
  • by sabNetwork ( 416076 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:36PM (#8144840)

    I'd love to see this stuff hold up in court. Has it before? I doubt it.

    It is perfectly legal (and EXPLICITLY legal) to use trademarks in news and mention as long as they don't cause brand confusion.

    Also, the use of copyrights to protect news is not legal. No one is allowed to rebroadcast the the coverage of the game verbatim, but nothing prevents someone from relaying the general events from the game. This is in the First Amendment, and there are no exceptions.

    • Trademarks can be used in news coverage, but it cannot be used to market news coverage, or anything else for that matter. That's why newspapers can write about the events of the Super Bowl, but they can't publish a "Super Bowl section" unless they buy the rights to the name.
  • At least... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bagels ( 676159 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:42PM (#8144881)
    At least their legal team seems to realize how ridiculous some of this IP stuff is. From the chart of dos and don'ts mentioned in the post:

    - You *can* make fun of the fact that you cannot say the phrase "Super Bowl" (e.g. by beeping it out).
  • 0441238&mode=thread&tid=127&tid=186&tid=21 2 [] I guess one two out of three originals ain't bad for slashdot!
  • Super what?
  • by Teach ( 29386 ) * <graham@grahamm i t c h e l l . c om> on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:50PM (#8144950) Homepage

    Any of you folks running linux may not have the best RealPlayer integration in your browsers, so here are the direct links to each of the RealMedia files, with a brief synopsis of each commercial (but no "spoilers").

    Slashcode will probably embed spaces in these URLs, so you may have to manually remove them.

    I quit watching television about seven or eight years ago. However, I try to catch the Super Bowl every year, if only for the commercials. In fact, I've always told folks that if there was a channel that just played commercials all day, I'd probably tune in to it.

    I imagine it could be like VH-1 Classic, with an hour for commercials from the 50s, another from the 60s, etc. Maybe a "groundbreaking" commercials hour. Maybe one with ads from various countries.

    I'd tune in, anyway.

  • What are they smoking? One of the best superbowl commercials ever is "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker." I even like it better than the Apple one. I don't know where the original one is, but you can watch some sequels (also really funny) here []. You'll probably have to log in:

    password: password

    I have the original commercial on my drive, but I don't think my server can handle a slashdotting - if anyone wants to host it, I'll send it to them.
  • Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money

    I visualize Joe Pesci sitting in the kitchen of an Italian restaurant, hacking in VBScript.

  • Many Houstonians are already becoming adverse to the Super Bowl. The advertisements are extremely ubiquitous, littering even the communities that possess no affiliation with the municipality of Houston. Enormous billboards and banners attached to streetlamps emphasize the "importance" of the incipient Super Bowl.

    As you're probably aware, the local government has also installed a multi-million dollar light rail system that many speculate is intended specifically to transport passengers from downtown to Reliant Stadium. Metro has removed one lane from streets traversed by the light rail system; commuters are "warned" of oncoming traffic by a single light encouraging them not to cross the track. Ten serious traffic accidents have already been attributed [] to this implementation, which is reportedly being scrutinized by citizens and Metro engineers alike.

    This event is an exhibition of corporately funded "sports," pop stars endorsed by the RIAA, and the "best" television commercials. It astonishes me that the Slashdot community is so ravenously infatuated. With the possible exception of SCO, this encompasses everything that you are supposedly adverse to.
    • I fact checked and read those stories. Almost all were caused by driver error.Here's a rundown:

      10. Person made an illegal left turn and hit a train head on.
      9. (Couldn't find article referencing the 9th accident.. it goes from 8th to 10th)
      8. Union Pacific (railroad!) workers manually lift a warning gate and drive under. However, the warning gate was functioning properly and a train was coming, which struck the vehicle.
      7. (same as 9)
      6. Same circumstances as #10, different intersection.
      5. No article
      4. No ar
  • by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:59PM (#8145004) Journal
    from the PDF:

    The first rule of Super Bowl: You do not talk about 'Super Bowl'

    The second rule of Super Bowl: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT SUPER BOWL

    The third rule of Super Bowl: The words: Super Bowl, Super Sunday, NFL, AFC and NFC are all trade marks of the National Football League. If you utter or taint them we WILL kick your fucking head in! OK?
  • and once again, like every year, canadian viewers will be blocked out of the the american ads and will be force-fed canadian ads. it'll most probably be the same ad talking about canadian heros and canadian stars making it down in the US.. the same ads they've been brainwashing people with daily.

    with ad critic charging for money, hopefully there'll be a place to download (or bittorrent) the ads after the game - like we did last year!
  • by doormat ( 63648 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @02:18PM (#8145177) Homepage Journal
    First the NFL says NO [] to ads for Las Vegas during the superbowl. Then CBS says NO [] to ads against Bush during the game. The NFL says NO [] WAY [] to Casinos in las vegas showing the game on anything bigger than a 55" TV. They say its copyright law, but last I checked copyright law didnt say anything about TV Size. Its just the NFL's arbitrary size. The Palms [] was planning to show it on their huge movie theater screens. Oh well, I guess the NFL doesnt like its superbowl party being upstaged by Vegas. Now they're just taking their ball and going back to Houston. Paul Tagliabue caused lots of casinos to lose lots of money because of the NFL's childlike behavior. Hello, only so many people can go to the game! What are the rest supposed to do, wait outside and be happy they're near the game?? Paul also threatened the players with fines or possibly suspensions for "excessive celebration" during the Superbowl.

    The NFL is definately the No Fun League.
    • by ktakki ( 64573 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @03:30PM (#8145706) Homepage Journal
      The NFL says NO WAY to Casinos in las vegas showing the game on anything bigger than a 55" TV. They say its copyright law, but last I checked copyright law didnt say anything about TV Size.

      Perhaps you should check again. From 17 USC 110:
      (II) if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room,
      and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space;

      I've been involved with copyright issues for over 25 years and I've seen the Copyright Act go from a fairly straightforward document to one that's filled with exemptions and intentional loopholes, some that actually benefit the consumer at the expense of corporate interests. Those are the minority, to be sure, but they're in there [].


  • by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @02:25PM (#8145243)
    Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money - also a Reuters story.

    Finally, a viable business model for Slashdot.

  • Trademarks! (Score:3, Funny)

    by payndz ( 589033 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @03:33PM (#8145721)
    Super Bowl! Super Sunday! NFL! AFC! NFC! Buccaneers! Bucs!

    Well, I said all these things without permission from the National Football League (oops, there's another one). Come on then, lawyers! Come after me for using these trademarked words without permission!

    This is legal bullshit taken to the extreme. So if there's a Black Sunday scenario tomorrow, the news networks aren't allowed to say "There was a terrorist attack at the Super Bowl" but have to say "There was a terrorist attack at the Big Game in Houston"? Madness.

    Super Bowl! Super Bowl! Super Bowl!

  • what words? (Score:5, Funny)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @04:13PM (#8145982) Homepage Journal
    The Super Bowl is happening on Super Sunday. The National Football League(NFL), American Football Conference(AFC) and National Football Conference (NFC) will hold this contrived event to determine who is the best Football team in the world. Of course the rest of the world in not invited.

    In this contest, between Carolina Panthers and New England Patriots, extremely wealthy men will forgo their normal environment and put on many pounds of gear to play whimped down version of Rugby. The winner of the game will be the champion.

    Of course, this is entertainment so the true relevance is the demographic that it delivers to the advertisers. In this sense, the Super Bowl will once again fulfill it's primary mission.

    One also suspects that many Americans, for the first time, will know the existence and location of Carolina.

    Questionable Industries welcomes all Super Bowl guests to Houston. We will be scalping tickets on the corner of Fannin and Holly Hall. We will also be offering certified disease free hookers along Holly Hall and Murworth, conveniently grouped by age. The 18 year olds will be in the Excalades, the 19-21 year olds will be in the Explorers, and 21-25 will be in the Durangos. Hookers over this age will be conveniently located in their normal environment of the Holly Hall apartments. The males will be in the blue cars and females in the pink cars. Please do not be racist and expect certain ethnic types. We are a class operation!

    A limited number of 12-18 year olds will be available in the customized vans. Younger hookers are available with 24 hours request, as they must be brought in from Mexico.

  • by Heem ( 448667 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @05:02PM (#8146251) Homepage Journal
    What the heck is this Superb Owl I keep hearing about. Whats so great about it? Does it know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

I've got a bad feeling about this.