I wonder how this will affect bob miller's business

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/21/tvbgone041021.html

From the sounds of it, I think bob should start selling pencils out of
a tin cup.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/21/tvbgone041021.html

Nothing a small piece of black electrical tape over the IR receiver
won't fix. Eventually they'll have a switch on the tvs to turn off the
remote receiver. Will there now be an arms race with encrypted remote
codes, hardened tv's which temporarily disable their own remote codes
when they sense too many invalid IR codes, etc.?

Too bad it's come to the point that advertising is so pervasive that
a vandal's tool like this seems like a public service. Meanwhile
someone makes a bunch of money by making other folks' lives a little
more difficult. Kind of like spammers.


joemooreaterolsdotcom

Joe Moore wrote:
Too bad it's come to the point that advertising is so pervasive that
a vandal's tool like this seems like a public service.

This is part of a free economy, and related to supply and demand.

Please explain to me, the consumer, how I have any control/say over advertising
blitzes?

Name one person in the entire world that likes product placement advertisements
in movies. The consumer has no control over that, must bear it, and the only
ones that benefit are the producers (more money in their pocket) and the
advertisers (by coercive suggestion of their product(s)).

Julie wrote:

Joe Moore wrote:

Too bad it's come to the point that advertising is so pervasive that
a vandal's tool like this seems like a public service.


This is part of a free economy, and related to supply and demand.

Please explain to me, the consumer, how I have any control/say over advertising
blitzes?

Name one person in the entire world that likes product placement advertisements
in movies. The consumer has no control over that, must bear it, and the only
ones that benefit are the producers (more money in their pocket) and the
advertisers (by coercive suggestion of their product(s)).

As the consumer, you have a great deal of control! You can simply not
'consume' the product advertised or take part in paying for advertising.

I don't go out to the movies anymore simply because they play ads now.
They raised ticket prices *and* put in ads. Absolutely a slap in
the face, and I won't take it.

Start by thinking of yourself as a 'customer' and not a 'consumer'.

Julie wrote:

Joe Moore wrote:
Too bad it's come to the point that advertising is so pervasive that
a vandal's tool like this seems like a public service.

This is part of a free economy, and related to supply and demand.

A demand by person A for a product which abuses person B's property
doesn't make the use of that product right. Just like a demand by
advertisers for spyware and spam doesn't make the use of spyware or
spam right.

Please explain to me, the consumer, how I have any control/say over advertising
blitzes?

Believe me, I understand how you feel. I've been tempted to commit
vandalism myself after having to listen to crummy music and ads over
a cheap tinny loudspeaker while filling up my gas tank. But the right
thing to do is not to patronize services which abuse their customers
like that. And refuse to buy products which are advertised in an
abusive manner.

Name one person in the entire world that likes product placement advertisements
in movies.

Theater owners, movie producers, advertisers, and a few members of the
audience who are too stupid to realize that they're being cheated.

The consumer has no control over that, must bear it, and the only
ones that benefit are the producers (more money in their pocket) and the
advertisers (by coercive suggestion of their product(s)).

I agree that it's an abuse of the audience.

But, surely you wouldn't suggest that if somebody started selling a
product that shut off movie projectors at the whim of individual
audience members, that it would be a public service, would you?


joemooreaterolsdotcom

Joe Moore wrote:


Too bad it's come to the point that advertising is so pervasive that
a vandal's tool like this seems like a public service.

Since a vandal is "someone who willfully destroys or defaces property"
(you can look it up), how is this device a "vandal's tool"? It does no
damage to anyone's property.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

Joe Moore wrote:


Too bad it's come to the point that advertising is so pervasive that
a vandal's tool like this seems like a public service.

Since a vandal is "someone who willfully destroys or defaces property"
(you can look it up), how is this device a "vandal's tool"? It does no
damage to anyone's property.

That remains to be seen. Turning a tv off more often than the owner
wishes may actually damage it. But I admit that that's a stretch.
Changing a TV from a device which is on when the owner wants it on
into a device which turns off for reasons which have nothing to do
with the wishes of the owner reduces the value of the tv to the owner
and thus could be called damage. Turning a TV off definitely changes
it's appearance which could be called a defacement if only a temporary
one. Another stretch.

Nevertheless, anyone who uses such a device is displaying a vandal's
disrespect for the property of others even if he isn't technically
committing vandalism.


joemooreaterolsdotcom

"Michael J. Sherman" wrote in message
...
Julie wrote:

Joe Moore wrote:

Too bad it's come to the point that advertising is so pervasive that
a vandal's tool like this seems like a public service.


This is part of a free economy, and related to supply and demand.

Please explain to me, the consumer, how I have any control/say over
advertising
blitzes?

Name one person in the entire world that likes product placement
advertisements
in movies. The consumer has no control over that, must bear it, and the
only
ones that benefit are the producers (more money in their pocket) and the
advertisers (by coercive suggestion of their product(s)).

As the consumer, you have a great deal of control! You can simply not
'consume' the product advertised or take part in paying for advertising.

I don't go out to the movies anymore simply because they play ads now.
They raised ticket prices *and* put in ads. Absolutely a slap in the
face, and I won't take it.

Start by thinking of yourself as a 'customer' and not a 'consumer'.

On the other hand, I remember taking a long flight across the country (for
which the ticket price was not cheap). After they showed a brief movie, for
the duration of the flight, at least another hour or two, they showed
commercials. I felt imposed upon and I complained to the flight attendants,
to no avail.

Unless I was willing to keep my head lowered so as not to see all of the TV
screens in the airplane, I had no control over this forced feeding of
commercial tripe. Had I the ability to turn of those TVs, I certainly would
have.

Neil
Salem, MA USA

Neil wrote:
"Michael J. Sherman" wrote in message
...
Julie wrote:

Joe Moore wrote:

Too bad it's come to the point that advertising is so pervasive
that a vandal's tool like this seems like a public service.


This is part of a free economy, and related to supply and demand.

Please explain to me, the consumer, how I have any control/say over
advertising
blitzes?

Name one person in the entire world that likes product placement
advertisements
in movies. The consumer has no control over that, must bear it,
and the only
ones that benefit are the producers (more money in their pocket)
and the advertisers (by coercive suggestion of their product(s)).

As the consumer, you have a great deal of control! You can simply
not 'consume' the product advertised or take part in paying for
advertising. I don't go out to the movies anymore simply because they
play ads
now. They raised ticket prices *and* put in ads. Absolutely a slap
in the face, and I won't take it.

Start by thinking of yourself as a 'customer' and not a 'consumer'.

On the other hand, I remember taking a long flight across the country
(for which the ticket price was not cheap). After they showed a
brief movie, for the duration of the flight, at least another hour or
two, they showed commercials. I felt imposed upon and I complained
to the flight attendants, to no avail.

Unless I was willing to keep my head lowered so as not to see all of
the TV screens in the airplane, I had no control over this forced
feeding of commercial tripe. Had I the ability to turn of those TVs,
I certainly would have.

Neil
Salem, MA USA

A good book will usually take one's attention away from the screens. I
travel frequently, and will always carry a book or two.

"L Alpert" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s54...
Neil wrote:
"Michael J. Sherman" wrote in message
...
Julie wrote:

Joe Moore wrote:

Too bad it's come to the point that advertising is so pervasive
that a vandal's tool like this seems like a public service.


This is part of a free economy, and related to supply and demand.

Please explain to me, the consumer, how I have any control/say over
advertising
blitzes?

Name one person in the entire world that likes product placement
advertisements
in movies. The consumer has no control over that, must bear it,
and the only
ones that benefit are the producers (more money in their pocket)
and the advertisers (by coercive suggestion of their product(s)).

As the consumer, you have a great deal of control! You can simply
not 'consume' the product advertised or take part in paying for
advertising. I don't go out to the movies anymore simply because they
play ads
now. They raised ticket prices *and* put in ads. Absolutely a slap
in the face, and I won't take it.

Start by thinking of yourself as a 'customer' and not a 'consumer'.

On the other hand, I remember taking a long flight across the country
(for which the ticket price was not cheap). After they showed a
brief movie, for the duration of the flight, at least another hour or
two, they showed commercials. I felt imposed upon and I complained
to the flight attendants, to no avail.

Unless I was willing to keep my head lowered so as not to see all of
the TV screens in the airplane, I had no control over this forced
feeding of commercial tripe. Had I the ability to turn of those TVs,
I certainly would have.

Neil
Salem, MA USA

A good book will usually take one's attention away from the screens. I
travel frequently, and will always carry a book or two.

And another thing I've found you can do is close your eyes and snooze for a
while.
Makes the flight go by a lot faster too.