Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:User friendly (Score 1) 306

Say what? 2000 called, and they want you stop trying to install their linuxes.

What a ridiculous rant, from someone who obviously has little to no experience with Ubuntu or any of the other more popular, modern distros.

I agree with you that GP is completely exaggerating, but "2000" is also an exaggeration. GP's rant would have been completely valid in 2005, and it's perfectly feasible that he still might be encountering stuff like that regularly ca. 2010.

But today? Not so much... and definitely not on any distro that's meant to be particularly user-friendly, like Mint.

In the past few years, I've installed Linux on old laptops for two family members after they became unusable due to "Windows rot." Both of these people are folks I'd hardly call "tech savvy," and they wouldn't know a command prompt to save their lives. One of them used this computer -- now "superpowered," as I was told, because it ran faster than it ever did with Windows -- as a primary computer for two more years... and I never got any tech support email queries from them over that time. (Contrast that with previously, when I was to the point of having a long phone conversation with the person every month or so trying to figure out why something in Windows had stopped working -- and then whether they had a virus, or installed an anti-virus program with the wrong settings that was causing their computer to slow to a crawl, or whether it was just Windows being Windows...)

Trust me -- I wouldn't hesitate to complain about Linux and have in the past. Even though I've used it as my primary OS for about a decade (and off-and-on on desktops before that back to 1999 or so), I spent many years frustrated by it. If you search through my comments over the years here, you'll probably find a couple similar rants from a few years back. No more, though -- Linux has made tremendous strides in the "just works" department for normal desktop use in the past 5 years or so.

Sure, if you're trying to do more "advanced" stuff, you may still need to do some command line configuration. But for the basic everyday desktop tasks, it's pretty darn stable and easy to use.

Comment Re:What is it that you say? (Score 1) 442

So it's illegal for me to give me co-worker a ride to work without paying this onerous tax?

So it's illegal to give a friend a ride somewhere without paying this onerous tax?

So it's illegal to give wome you just met a ride without paying this onerous tax?

No, no, and no. It's not illegal to give a ride to anyone.

Now, when you start charging money for rides, then it becomes a little more complicated. But again, there's a difference between your co-worker chipping in for gas to carpool vs. getting paid as to drive strangers for hours at a time.

These sorts of arguments are always amazing to me. Do you seriously think it's impossible to define a difference between a personal, informal transaction vs. a large-scale business??

If a friend comes over for dinner, I'm not running a restaurant. Even if the friend chips in some money for the ingredients and "for my trouble" in preparing it, I'm not a restaurant. When I have 100 strangers coming over for dinner per evening on a regular basis, I'm probably operating a restaurant and will need to be regulated as one.

If a friend asks me to hold some money for him at my house while he's out of town, I'm not a bank. If I hold money for 100 strangers at my house and start using their money to make a profit while I'm holding it, I'm probably a bank and will need to be regulated as one.

Etc., etc. And if I give someone a ride periodically and even charge someone for it, I'm not a taxi driver. But if I'm giving a few dozen strangers rides every day and charging for them, I'm probably a taxi driver.

Is there some sort of arbitrary dividing line there somewhere in each case? Sure. But the argument you're making here is just some weird variant of the ancient sorites paradox, or "paradox of the heap." Basically, the argument goes: a million grains of sand is a "heap" of sand, but taking away one grain from a "heap" can't make a distinction, so 999,999 grains is still a "heap." Keep going, and eventually you claim that 1 grain is a "heap," which is obviously nonsense. Or you can go the other way and start with 1 grain, which obviously isn't a "heap," and keep adding grains on the premise that 1 grain can't make the difference between a "heap" and a "non-heap," so you conclude that "heaps" of sand don't exist.

That's effectively what these arguments try to do. Giving one ride to a stranger obviously doesn't mean you're operating a taxi service, so therefore a company that organizes over a million such rides per day "isn't a taxi company." But I think any reasonable person can agree that what Uber is doing is a little bit different from periodically carpooling with your coworker.

(P.S. Obviously we can have arguments about whether this regulation and other regulations are necessary for businesses. But that's a separate discussion from whether Uber is actually operating a de facto taxi business... which it is.)

Comment Re:"Gig Economy" indeed! (Score 1) 109

If so, it just sounds like they're doing an experiment to see if hiring more people but working them less produces better results (Hint, it does in non-dysfunctional workplaces.)

Actually, at least to a point, hiring the same number of people but working them less produces better results.

That's how we got the 40-hour work-week to begin with. It's generally assumed that time working has decreased over the centuries, but that isn't quite true. Medieval farmers, laborers, and craftsmen did work long days (perhaps 9-12 hours), but winter conditions and lack of light with short days meant that these long days were only for short segments of the year. Yes, during planting and harvest, the farmers might work like crazy, but then they'd have a long winter of time to recuperate. This combination works well both physically and mentally, which is the reason studies tend to show that people who never take "vacations" (especially extended ones) tend to be less productive than those who do.

It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution and the migration of poor laborers to big factories, along with advances in tech, power, etc. that workers could be exploited with long hours essentially year-round. The average medieval or renaissance peasant or laborer probably worked around the number of hours a 40-hour/week worker works today. But by the 19th century, factory workers dramatically increased that -- often working 70+ hours most weeks, sometimes with 14-16 hour days. Factory owners mistakenly thought that working their laborers to death (often quite literally) would maximize profit. What instead happened was increased accidents, along with unhappy exhausted workers who would fall ill and need to be replaced with other untrained laborers. (Reforms (sometimes violent) eventually brought limitations down to 12 or even 10-hour days in some places during the 19th century. Unions fought a piecemeal battle to try to get the requirements lower.)

But the largest reform happened in the early 20th century, when Henry Ford actually experimented with shorter work-weeks (i.e., our standard 5-day, 40-hour week) and realized it (1) increased productivity (not just productivity per hour but productivity per worker), (2) decreased accidents and errors (which were a major cause of decreased productivity on assembly lines, since a major accident could shut down the line for a long time), and (3) increased retention for trained, skilled workers, and (4) also had the side benefit of increasing worker happiness. In many cases, the actual weekly output of the same amount of workers who decreased hours from 60 to 40 per week increased by 50%.

Most of the classic studies of productivity have been done on laborers, and they have generally shown productivity is maximized somewhere between 40 and 50 hours per week. But that's laborers, and those classic studies have been undermined by subsequent studies in Europe in the past couple decades which seem to show people doing even fewer (30-35 hours/week) often are more productive than the classic 40-50 hour folks. Also, the summary mentions "engineers and tech staff," whose "labor" is primarily mental. Productivity studies are harder to design for those sorts of jobs, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that for some jobs the maximum productivity occurs at quite a bit lower than 40 hours/week.

Here's the difference today, though -- Ford paid his workers well, in fact increasing his salaries when he decreased the hours, because he saw the productivity increases. His workers responded well and did better work, because they likely remembered grandpa coming home exhausted from the mines and dying from black lung at age 55 -- and the 40/hour week with decent salary was amazing. Fast forward 80-90 years, though, and executives are all about cutting salaries as much as possible, viewing workers as completely expendable, and our cut-throat consumerist culture has taught us that we "need" all sorts of "stuff" so we have to work harder and harder, with longer hours to keep up with the Joneses. Bye bye, 40-hour week... hello, 19th-century factory culture recreated for Amazon tech workers burning out doing 60+ hours/week.

Bottom line: At least in some cases, a policy like this might not only increase efficiency per hour but even lead to increased productivity per worker, even with fewer working hours. But a lot of that will probably depend on work culture, organization, and expectations. If the Amazon workers doing only 30 hours/week are treated exactly the same and given organized tasks in the same way the 60 hours/week folks are, there may be little productivity difference.

And thus the blanket salary decrease will ultimately undermine this, if it's actually an experiment. But it's really difficult to figure out a better way to run it -- because if you start providing salary incentives to people who "only work 30 hours" but are more productive, you'll end up with people punching in/out to look like they're only doing 30 hours, but ultimately are working more hours "off the clock." In our current culture, I'm not sure how to fix this, but I suppose it is at least be nice to see a large company trying to be more flexible.

Comment Re:Good chemists needed (Score 2) 180

Those MBA types keep thinking any jackass can be hired to do the job. Well, this is what happens when you hire a jackass to do chemistry. You get green pools to put out for the whole freaking world to see. And you end up looking cheap and stupid. Well, us chemists are laughing our asses off while we stand in the unemployment line.

While I agree with you about the plight of chemists in recent years (I have a friend in the field who was laid off recently), I also think that pool management doesn't really require complex chemistry. There are just a handful of common chemicals used in pools, and they all have very specific ways they should be used (and ways they should NOT be used, as in this instance). Idiot-proof testing strips, etc. are available to make sure you get concentrations right, etc.

Millions of people without degrees in chemistry somehow manage to keep their home pools clean and not green, and millions of other pools are serviced by people who don't have chemistry degrees.

Should the Olympics have a trained chemist available to test the water and make sure things are ready? Sure. In a high-profile situation like this where precision is required for an international competition, obviously you want somebody with adequate training to be checking water quality.

And maybe they did hire somebody, but the "trained chemist" was an idiot with a chemistry degree from the worst school but hired on the cheap by some corrupt government official. Or maybe the "trained chemist" wasn't paying attention to his/her job. Or maybe the "trained chemist" was circumvented when somebody else on the athletic management team had a "bright idea" to get the pool more "sparkling clean" and added hydrogen peroxide without consulting other people. There are lots of possible issues here.

Anyhow, while I agree with you that they should have had a good chemist (particularly given water quality issues in Rio in general), I also just want to point out that this error is something that doesn't require a degree in chemistry to spot. Anyone who knows anything about pool treatment (even some high-school dropout who's been working at a pool treatment company for a week) should have been able to point out the stupidity of what happened here.

Comment Re:I think I found the problem (Score 2) 120

People just don't want unbreakable security. They like the idea that if they forget the passcode or if they pass away, someone will be able to break in. They want things to be just secure enough to deter "criminals" but no further. (Sure, such a line is impossible to draw. It doesn't mean users don't want it both ways: impossible for the "bad guys" to break, possible for the "good guys" to break when necessary.)

This is true. People want "unbreakable phone security" as much as they want "unbreakable home locks" -- "unbreakable" sounds great until they accidentally get locked out and need to call a locksmith.

Same goes for phones. A small minority want unbreakable encryption. The rest of people have some small number of edge cases where they really would want to be able to call up someone and get the phone unlocked.

Comment Re:Years of neglect (Score 1) 465

I won't say it doesn't matter at all but it's not the place it once was. Perhaps the new management can fix that though I'm not holding my breath...

Indeed. Despite my relatively high ID, I first read Slashdot back around 1999 or 2000 for a while. I don't think I ever registered for an account then (and if I did, I've long since forgotten what I might have used as a log-on or password).

Anyhow, then I went away for a few years, but I started reading again about a decade ago. Then I registered and started posting. And that was after the heyday had already passed, but still somewhat better than now.

What I've seen so far of the new management is worse editing than ever before. (It was never great, but the number of actual typos even in headlines lately has just been egregious.) More ads, and the summaries/stories just aren't great.

I've been heading over the Soylent lately. It's a lot better than when I first checked in, and the community seems to be growing. If you hadn't been there lately, I'd suggest taking a look -- still seems to be a smaller community than here, but it may finally be time to get away from the corporate nonsense around here. They're just never going to find a way to make enough money off of us to satisfy some corporate conglomerate, and the site quality is therefore just going to degrade even more over time.

Comment Re:Free Speech Must Be Stopped!!! (Score 2) 465

Slashdot, or Twitter, or the comments section of Huffington Post, or wherever else doesn't have to let you say whatever you want. Most of those sites have rules or terms of service that you agree to when you create an account there. If you violate those terms of service, they are free to turf you.

That's true.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get a free venue to be an asshole. It means you can talk. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen, and it doesn't mean anyone has to give you a forum to spout your views from.

See, now you're talking about government protection of free speech (based on the First Amendment). I think you completely missed the point GP was trying to make.

A site doesn't have to allow "free speech," as you rightly point out, because they are a private business with their own rules or whatever. HOWEVER, they are still restricting free speech if they do so. They aren't infringing on your legal rights. But they are still saying you aren't allowed to speak freely through their service, etc.

So, it's still a "free speech" issue. Just not one having to do with the specific legal right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment.

In practice, most private businesses and indeed most people on their own property tend to restrict free speech. If you knock on my door and I invite you in, and then you start swearing at me and yelling random wacko stuff in front of my family and guests, I may very well ask you to leave. I am denying you the ability to speak freely at my house, which is my right as the owner of the property. But just because you have no legal recourse to sue me over it doesn't mean that I haven't restricted your "free speech."

The issue when we come to very big services like Twitter or Facebook or whatever these days is that they have become de facto public utilities, transmitting information and data for billions of people. So, there should be a legitimate dialogue about when and where it's appropriate for them to censor free speech. They may not have a legal obligation to transmit all speech, but there are moral reasons why censorship can still be wrong, even by private entities.

Comment Re:"Students between the ages of 18 and 30 ..." (Score 1) 187

it's not that a 50 year old can't work 70+ hours a week, it's that by the time you reach that age you have realized you DON'T WANT TO... nor should you have to.

Indeed. Sometimes I read comments that seem to think anyone over the age of 30 or 35 must be senile, confused, and ready to park in a recliner and nap all day. In reality, 50-year-olds may not be in top physical condition, but they are certainly capable of accomplishing mental tasks for long hours.

I'm not that old (yet), but as the years go by, I realize how crucial "free" time is. Not just for relaxation or family or whatever. Study after study shows that downtime increases productivity (up to a point). When I have a large block of uninterrupted free time with no other responsibilities, that's the time I'm most productive in terms of learning new things, exploring, doing stuff I'd never do otherwise, etc. And those sorts of experiences are just about being more "well-rounded," they're actually about increasing intelligence, adaptability, and skills to deal with novel situations.

"Cramming" is never good for long-term skill building or retention. One semester in college I got overrides to basically take a load that was over twice what was typical for a student. I don't think I remember a single thing from that semester. Sure, I did fine in the classes, but it was a pointless exercise except for the fact that it got me closer to a piece of paper a little faster. (Actually, it didn't -- because I ended up with more than one major in the end, so it just allowed me to get two pieces of paper in the same amount of time.)

At some point, in any activity, there are diminishing returns by trying to do too much at one time. An athlete -- even an Olympic one -- who tried to train a specific skill 70+ hours per week would end up exhausted and likely injured. Similarly, your brain just isn't going to absorb information effectively in the same area or set of coding skills working 70+ hours per week.

50-year-olds know this. They also have a broader perspective on life where they realize that -- ultimately -- all you have is time. Finding a balance between how you manage your time in life is essential for most people in being satisfied and happy long-term. The earlier you realize this, the less of your life you waste being on the edge of "burn-out" and being less productive and simultaneously less happy than you could otherwise be.

That said, there are a small minority of people who seem to thrive on being ALWAYS busy and working. If they're not doing that, they don't know what else they could ever do with their time. They're the folks who still insist on 12-hour days when they're 60 years old. I've occasionally met those people, and about 5% of them are the most brilliant people you'd ever meet, and the rest are generally just suffering some sort of mental disorder or are "afraid" of life, but aren't actually more competent or knowledgeable than the average person. Anyhow, all of these "workaholics" are outliers. The rest of humanity doesn't tend to maximize productivity at 70+ hours/week.

Comment Re:fostering a generation that cant cook. (Score 1) 148

My grandmother used to say "Betty Crocker didn't spend a million dollars developing a cake mix that makes shit cakes". I think her point was that it's easy and good enough, so why bother doing it "from scratch".

I guess it depends on what your standards for "good enough" are. Cake mixes are fine if you like what they taste like -- they tend to have a few distinctive textures (depending on type and flavor). But there's only so much you can do with a mix that you dump together in two steps and just add eggs and water (maybe oil). There are certain textures you can only get from creaming together butter and sugar for several minutes. There are certain textures you can only get by slowly adding eggs one-at-a-time while whipping, or by whipping egg whites separately or whatever. Certain flavors are fresher in cakes made with certain ingredients (rather than in a dry mix). Etc.

I'm NOT saying cake mixes are bad -- my favorite cake when I was a little kid was made from a box by my grandmother, who added some sliced strawberries and topped with Cool-Whip mixed with strawberries. But they are limited. Other techniques and ingredients open other possibilities... and it's also easier to tweak a "from scratch" recipe to get the exact results you want. (Perhaps more relevant to GP's point, making a variety of cakes from scratch also teaches you how to tweak a recipe to get what you want, whereas if you just have a packet or two of "stuff" to dump together with some water, it's much harder to imagine how to do things differently to "fix" your cake the way you want.)

Comment Re:fostering a generation that cant cook. (Score 1) 148

If I don't know how to cook something I can find a step-by-step video or article telling me exactly how. Thanks to the internet, this knowledge isn't lost forever even if the required skills are a bit rusty. If this generation isn't cooking, I think it's more because they don't want to, not because they can't.

While I agree with your sentiment in general, I also think we've seen a marked decrease in the value of learned and practiced skills in the past decade or so, particularly with the growth of the internet.

There's this sense that "I can always just look up X online" which leads us to think anything is possible, just a click away. On the other hand, a lot of stuff benefits from practice over time. I have a science background and know all sorts of stuff about how important measuring with care is, and precision of technique, etc., but I've been cooking for decades and still find myself falling short occasionally when I try a new recipe or cook a new food I haven't worked with before.

You can watch all the videos on Youtube that you want, but often I find it takes at least 3 or 4 times making a dish until I get it to the quality level I'm satisfied with... and I learn a lot along the way.

And this is from someone who cooks and bakes on a regular basis, so I have experience to troubleshoot and figure out a lot of stuff when things go wrong. When I first started baking bread (maybe 15 years ago), I was just "stumbling in the dark" for a long time. No one in my family had much experience with bread-baking. I read all I could find in books, searching the internet (which even back then had tons of resources and forums), etc. And with all of that, I'd say it probably took about 3 or 4 years of experimentation along with reading and re-reading various sources before I feel like I could make passable bread in lots of varieties (I have a pretty high standard) and troubleshoot problems efficiently.

If I were working with a master bread-baker, I have no doubt that I probably could pick all of that up in a few months instead. And that's the real loss here. Yes, we have information online that stores up knowledge, but there are all sorts of little details that go into developing skills that simply can't be explained in a 5-minute step-by-step video, particularly for people who don't have any cooking background to begin with. Years ago, you'd just work with your mother in the kitchen as you were growing up, and she'd just gradually correct those errors and hone your skills without you even realizing it, and magically you'd pick up all this implicit knowledge about cooking.

As with just about anything, basic cooking is pretty easy, and there are plenty of dishes that are "idiot-proof" to make. But there's a lot of stuff that goes into learning a skill over periods of time... and thus, yes, I'd say that more people today CAN'T cook in the sense that it would take them many years to get to a skill level of their grandmother or whatever. People also "don't want to" play the bassoon or the trombone, but they also CAN'T -- they might watch videos or step-by-step instructions online, but it will still take many months or years of practice to develop sufficient skills.

Comment Re:fostering a generation that cant cook. (Score 1) 148

Almost no one can start a fire with a flint nor build a workable bow or arrow tips anymore. Almost now one knows how weave their own fabric, nor preserve meats with salt, beneficial molds, fermentation or smoking. Almost no one can make antiseptics out of urine, bile and herbs.

And you know what, we are fine.

Well, yeah, "we are fine," except we have an unprecedented obesity epidemic which has significant social, economic, and environmental costs.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not some "natural foods" nutter. On the other hand, we are in fact literally "what we eat." Our bodies gain nutrition and rebuild themselves from the food we eat.

I'm NOT blaming the obesity epidemic just on "processed foods," though it's hard to believe that there aren't SOME aspects of them which contribute to it. Processed foods are often created to maximize certain flavor responses that trick our bodies and metabolisms in various ways. Companies that are driven by profit have little reason to "tone down" such tendencies, but they have significant motivation to try to get consumers to buy their stuff more. And thus we get excess sugar and fat and whatever added to more stuff which isn't really necessary, but some focus tasting group liked the stuff 2% more, which could generate more sales. Meanwhile, if you were baking the same product at home yourself, you might look at the recipe and say, "Huh... they want me to add HOW much oil!?!"

Obviously whenever obesity comes up we'll get a huge debate about personal responsibility, motivation, etc. And that's important. But bad eating habits are also a function of biological effects, cravings driven by various chemicals (which are in turn stimulated in different ways by the foods we consume), etc.

Is home cooking a "cure-all" for any of this? No. But it's one good place to start thinking about what could be done better. While the loss of other skills like your examples may have minor impacts, I'd wager to say that the loss of cooking knowledge combined with the trust we have in large-scale industrial food processing has the potential for a much greater impact on us (i.e., quite literally the stuff that makes up our bodies) than the other things you mention.

Comment Re:Marketing is a four-letter word (Score 2) 195

Is nothing sacred anymore?

In a word, "no".

It's funny -- when I read about this, my first thought was "This is appalling." But my second thought was, "Gee, is this really that bad compared to the amount of privacy invasion we're faced with almost continuously these days?"

Unless you run a half-dozen browser plug-ins (and few people do), your every move online is likely being tracked by dozens of companies. Unless you're careful to turn off various features on your phone, tablet, etc. your location is likely being tracked by dozens of apps.

In the grand scheme of things, this may be one of the most "private" acts, but it's also potentially one of the least worrying in terms of what companies could do with the data. The common cookies/trackers, apps, etc. that most users have running continuously are frankly much more worrying in terms of how much corporations could invade your life, use the data in nefarious ways, etc.

On the other hand -- it might take something like this to actually get consumers to wake up and realize the dangers of all of the more common tracking going on. Perhaps when some hacker manages to get into the data from these devices and publishes some Congresswoman's vibrator use data, there might finally be a public outcry to have a serious public discussion on privacy issues and tracking without a clear "opt-in".

Comment Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score 1) 260

If you run a TV commercial for a buffet restaurant and it shows a big pile of crab legs, but your buffet doesn't actually sell crab legs, you should rightly expect some legal trouble.

Depends. I imagine most such commercials will contain a disclaimer in the "fine print" that appears at some point saying "Actual availability of food items may vary by time and location" or something like that. After all, restaurants do run out of food sometimes, particularly at all-you-can-eat buffets. So unless the commercial identified the crab legs as a specific selling point, they may be in the clear.

But yeah, your point is taken. It really depends on expectations, though. If you were to believe dozens of beer commercials I've seen in the past few decades, drinking several brands of beer should cause bikini-clad women to just show up and form a party around you or something. Can beer companies be sued for false representation if that doesn't happen when I crack open a Miller Light??

Obviously a "reasonable person" would realize that such scenarios are not an implied part of the actual experience of drinking that brand of beer, unlike your buffet example where someone might understand that.

The question then becomes: what is "essential" to a movie trailer and what should a "reasonable person" expect in terms of how much a trailer and a movie should agree? The New York Times ran a story a few years back about how different the National Treasure sequel trailers were from the movie. That's a pretty extreme case. The trailer for the movie In Bruges implies that it's a hilarious comedy; it most certainly is NOT. (It's a very dark drama, which just happens to have a couple wisecracking characters, but the use of music and cutting in the trailer clearly implies a different genre.) A similar thing could probably be said for the trailer to Lost in Translation . And then there are trailers like the one for Comedian which doesn't represent the film at all.

Moreover, I think it's pretty common knowledge (or at least so it could be argued in court) that trailers are often cut long before the final edit of the film -- and frequently they are put together by people who have only a tangential relationship to the film. It's incredibly common for trailers to contain at least some minor scenes in editing that aren't in the final cut. So unless you could prove that there was deliberate misrepresentation going on (e.g., a memo from a studio exec saying, "I know the director doesn't want those Joker scenes in, but we should add the to the trailer anyway..."), I really doubt there's a serious case to be made here.

Comment Re:Whiny Fanboy... but he has a point (Score 1) 260

There could be legit reasons for it. Maybe those joker scenes were in the movie, but were edited out.

It's pretty common knowledge (at least I thought it was) that trailers are often released before the final cut of a film is necessarily finished. The "rough cut" of many films is often much longer than the final cut, as the director and editor work through how to make everything work the best. Then they do test screening and maybe edit some more, etc.

Thus, I have NEVER had the expectation that every single scene in a trailer is necessarily in the final product. And over the years I've noticed a number of times this has happened. Moreover, there are clearly elements of trailers which are NOT in the final cut -- for example, the music is often some sort of generic scoring for parts of the trailer, sometimes from an older movie even. And pacing/juxtaposition of scenes is often played with in cutting trailers to "up the drama" or to "play for laughs" in a comedy in ways that don't happen quite the same way in the final cut.

Again, I thought this was all fairly obvious. The trailer is an ADVERTISEMENT, not a literal excerpt from the final product

However if the deleted scenes are a key draw, it could still be valid depending on the case.

Maybe. Then again, whenever I drink a Coors or a Budweiser or whatever,** I'm waiting for the magical bikini-clad women with water running off of them and wind in their hair to appear too... but somehow the final experience of drinking the beer isn't quite like the commercial. I doubt I could win a lawsuit against a beer company for "false advertising" in this case.

Basically, I don't think there's any actual or implied promise in the marketing of trailers which guarantees that ALL of the content in the trailer WILL be in the final film. Hell, the trailer for The Sixth Sense implied that Bruce Willis was alive, and the trailer for The Village implied that I might be able to see a decent horror flick set in an isolated community in the 19th century or something... except... oh crap, SPOILER ALERT...

Yeah... trailers don't necessarily tell you what's in the final product. How many times have you seen a comedy trailer and thought "that's gonna be AWESOME!" only to show up and realize they packed the only funny 90 seconds from the film into the trailer. Is that "false advertising"? Frankly, I think even that would be a stronger argument than what's going on in this case.

[**Note: I don't think I've drunk either one of those beers in the past five years. Perhaps the bikini-clad women now DO magically appear??]

Comment Re:Not My Problem (Score 1) 534

I will actively fight anyone who thinks they have a right to put advertisements in front of me without my explicit permission.


If you don't want to see ads on Facebook, don't use Facebook. It's that simple. If you don't want to see ads in your newspaper, stop buying the newspaper. If you don't want to listen to somebody trying to give a free sample of cheese at a grocery store, stop shopping at that grocery store.

You don't have any "right" to use a service and demand that a company offer it on your terms. You can ask for them to obey your terms, but they are a private company who can determine their own business model. If you don't like it, stop using their service. That's your choice.

P.S. I hate ads with a passion and will do a lot to avoid them. But if a site or service insists on showing them to me (e.g., by setting up a block that won't show content if they detect an ad-blocker), the ethical decision is to leave, not try to gain access to their service by circumventing their explicit terms.

Slashdot Top Deals

Air pollution is really making us pay through the nose.