I wonder how this will affect bob miller's business

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
news:1098482420.yy/[email protected]
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

--

It's vandalism all right. Your definition if antequated, it needs to be
updated.
Public messaging systems are broadcasting what you might consider
intellectual property.
The advertising that someone paid to have broadcast to an audience is
destroyed when
the broadcast device is intentionally and maliciously disabled.

"Ed T" wrote in message
...

"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.

Yes, works quite well between chapters....!

Ed T wrote:

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
news:1098482420.yy/[email protected]

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

--


It's vandalism all right. Your definition if antequated, it needs to be
updated.
Public messaging systems are broadcasting what you might consider
intellectual property.
The advertising that someone paid to have broadcast to an audience is
destroyed when
the broadcast device is intentionally and maliciously disabled.

That's the dictionary definition, not mine. If you don't like it, take
it up with the publishers. Are you saying that people with TIVO who skip
commercials on playback are vandals?

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

"Ed T" wrote:


"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
news:1098482420.yy/[email protected]
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

--

It's vandalism all right. Your definition if antequated, it needs to be
updated.
Public messaging systems are broadcasting what you might consider
intellectual property.

True.

The advertising that someone paid to have broadcast to an audience is
destroyed when
the broadcast device is intentionally and maliciously disabled.

Here I would disagree. If it were possible to prevent the audience
from hearing and seeing this advertising without affecting the
physical equipment used to produce it (say by shining a bright light
on the screen and employing some hypothetical technology similar to
noise cancelling headphones), I would not consider it vandalism.
Nobody has the right to sell the unwilling attention of others.
Owning intellectual property does not give one the right to force
others to see or hear it.

Their TV is their property. My attention is not.




joemooreaterolsdotcom

"Joe Moore" wrote in message
...
"Ed T" wrote:


"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
news:1098482420.yy/[email protected]
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

--

It's vandalism all right. Your definition if antequated, it needs to be
updated.
Public messaging systems are broadcasting what you might consider
intellectual property.

True.

The advertising that someone paid to have broadcast to an audience is
destroyed when
the broadcast device is intentionally and maliciously disabled.

Here I would disagree. If it were possible to prevent the audience
from hearing and seeing this advertising without affecting the
physical equipment used to produce it (say by shining a bright light
on the screen and employing some hypothetical technology similar to
noise cancelling headphones), I would not consider it vandalism.
Nobody has the right to sell the unwilling attention of others.
Owning intellectual property does not give one the right to force
others to see or hear it.

It does if the equipment is operating legally and the programming has been
sold and paid for legally.
When in our lives haven't we been forced to put up with obnoxious
advertising? My mail box is stuffed with it. Before the telemarketing
"don't call" list, my phone rang at all hours of the day.
I'm not happy about it but we always have the option to take it to make it
illegal if it becomes intolerable..

I agree with you, if you want to wear noise cancelling earphones, a Discman
with good music usually does the trick for me, you are within your rights,
that's not against the law. If someone wants to invent and market
eyeglasses that will filter out the advertising that's fine. But you don't
have the right to turn it off just because you find it annoying. There
might actually be some people out there who benefit from that advertising.
Who knows, they might be in a strange town looking for a hotel room or
restaurant or health club, drug store or chiropractor.

Finally, I find it hard to begrudge the airlines the few extra bucks they
make or save by running infomercials during flights. There aren't many
today not operating in bankruptcy.

Ed

Their TV is their property. My attention is not.




joemooreaterolsdotcom

"Ed T" wrote:


"Joe Moore" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed T" wrote:


"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
news:1098482420.yy/[email protected]
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

--

It's vandalism all right. Your definition if antequated, it needs to be
updated.
Public messaging systems are broadcasting what you might consider
intellectual property.

True.

The advertising that someone paid to have broadcast to an audience is
destroyed when
the broadcast device is intentionally and maliciously disabled.

Here I would disagree. If it were possible to prevent the audience
from hearing and seeing this advertising without affecting the
physical equipment used to produce it (say by shining a bright light
on the screen and employing some hypothetical technology similar to
noise cancelling headphones), I would not consider it vandalism.
Nobody has the right to sell the unwilling attention of others.
Owning intellectual property does not give one the right to force
others to see or hear it.

It does if the equipment is operating legally and the programming has been
sold and paid for legally.

You're kidding, right? The right to speak does not imply the right to
a captive audience any more than freedom of association implies a
right to kidnap. Someone's operation of a business plan requiring an
unwilling audience for advertising does not obligate every member of
the audience to operate in such a manner as to not interfere with
that advertising being seen or heard by others. Otherwise it would be
illegal to hold a conversation with a stranger in the presence of such
advertising lest it distract him from viewing some advertisers
intellectual property.

When in our lives haven't we been forced to put up with obnoxious
advertising? My mail box is stuffed with it. Before the telemarketing
"don't call" list, my phone rang at all hours of the day.

All the more reason to resist the ridiculous notion that everyone's
attention is a commodity to be sold without their consent 24 hours a
day seven days a week everywhere on the planet.

I'm not happy about it but we always have the option to take it to make it
illegal if it becomes intolerable..

Better to keep it from becoming intolerable before that becomes
necessary.

I agree with you, if you want to wear noise cancelling earphones, a Discman
with good music usually does the trick for me, you are within your rights,
that's not against the law. If someone wants to invent and market
eyeglasses that will filter out the advertising that's fine.

Thanks. Therefore everyone there has the right not to view the ads if
they don't want to.

But you don't
have the right to turn it off just because you find it annoying.

I don't have the right to physically affect the property which is
displaying the advertising because it isn't mine. I do have the right
to take actions which could cause others not to see or hear the
advertising if such actions don't physically affect someone else's
property. Like a bright light aimed at the screen and (so far
theoretical) noise cancelling loudspeakers. Suppose I take a poll and
make it disappear if the majority present find it annoying?

There
might actually be some people out there who benefit from that advertising.
Who knows, they might be in a strange town looking for a hotel room or
restaurant or health club, drug store or chiropractor.

Any such folks who are not idiots can find such items without the
necessity of each possibility being endlessly promoted to hundreds of
others who don't have the slightest interest.

Finally, I find it hard to begrudge the airlines the few extra bucks they
make or save by running infomercials during flights. There aren't many
today not operating in bankruptcy.

That could just as easily justify all kinds of abusive behavior by
airlines from selling passengers' travel plans and addresses to
potential burglars to selling the contents of the luggage to the
highest bidders. Selling the passengers' unwilling attention is a
lesser abuse, but still an abuse.

However, this is getting pretty far from the topic of HDTV.


joemooreaterolsdotcom

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:50:16 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
wrote:

Ed T wrote:

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
news:1098482420.yy/[email protected]

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

--


It's vandalism all right. Your definition if antequated, it needs to be
updated.
Public messaging systems are broadcasting what you might consider
intellectual property.
The advertising that someone paid to have broadcast to an audience is
destroyed when
the broadcast device is intentionally and maliciously disabled.

That's the dictionary definition, not mine. If you don't like it, take
it up with the publishers. Are you saying that people with TIVO who skip
commercials on playback are vandals?


Let's put it this wat. If too many people had Tivos Commercial tv
would not exist as we know it.
Thumper
Matthew

To reply drop XYZ in address

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:12:58 -0800, "Ed T"
wrote:


"Joe Moore" wrote in message
.. .
"Ed T" wrote:


"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
news:1098482420.yy/[email protected]
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

--

It's vandalism all right. Your definition if antequated, it needs to be
updated.
Public messaging systems are broadcasting what you might consider
intellectual property.

True.

The advertising that someone paid to have broadcast to an audience is
destroyed when
the broadcast device is intentionally and maliciously disabled.

Here I would disagree. If it were possible to prevent the audience
from hearing and seeing this advertising without affecting the
physical equipment used to produce it (say by shining a bright light
on the screen and employing some hypothetical technology similar to
noise cancelling headphones), I would not consider it vandalism.
Nobody has the right to sell the unwilling attention of others.
Owning intellectual property does not give one the right to force
others to see or hear it.

It does if the equipment is operating legally and the programming has been
sold and paid for legally.
When in our lives haven't we been forced to put up with obnoxious
advertising? My mail box is stuffed with it. Before the telemarketing
"don't call" list, my phone rang at all hours of the day.
I'm not happy about it but we always have the option to take it to make it
illegal if it becomes intolerable..

I agree with you, if you want to wear noise cancelling earphones, a Discman
with good music usually does the trick for me, you are within your rights,
that's not against the law. If someone wants to invent and market
eyeglasses that will filter out the advertising that's fine. But you don't
have the right to turn it off just because you find it annoying. There
might actually be some people out there who benefit from that advertising.



Who knows, they might be in a strange town looking for a hotel room or
restaurant or health club, drug store or chiropractor.

Finally, I find it hard to begrudge the airlines the few extra bucks they
make or save by running infomercials during flights. There aren't many
today not operating in bankruptcy.


This reminds me of a time I was in a greasy spoon diner and the middle
aged guy in the next booth ranted a raved at the waitress because his
$2.99 Bacon and eggs actually were a little too done for him. He
really made a fool of himself trying to impress the girl he had with
him who was young enough to be his daughter. What the hell did he
expect with a $2.99 special?

That's how I feel about the airlines. I fly today for approximately
the same price as 35 years ago. Let them have their advertising if it
keeps the prices down.

One place I would welcome advertising is on a screen on hand dryers in
public rest rooms. Every time I dry my hands I read the same message
about how sanitary it is and how it saves trees.
Thumper
Ed

Their TV is their property. My attention is not.




joemooreaterolsdotcom






To reply drop XYZ in address

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:59:39 GMT, Joe Moore
wrote:

"Ed T" wrote:


"Joe Moore" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed T" wrote:


"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
news:1098482420.yy/[email protected]
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

--

It's vandalism all right. Your definition if antequated, it needs to be
updated.
Public messaging systems are broadcasting what you might consider
intellectual property.

True.

The advertising that someone paid to have broadcast to an audience is
destroyed when
the broadcast device is intentionally and maliciously disabled.

Here I would disagree. If it were possible to prevent the audience
from hearing and seeing this advertising without affecting the
physical equipment used to produce it (say by shining a bright light
on the screen and employing some hypothetical technology similar to
noise cancelling headphones), I would not consider it vandalism.
Nobody has the right to sell the unwilling attention of others.
Owning intellectual property does not give one the right to force
others to see or hear it.

It does if the equipment is operating legally and the programming has been
sold and paid for legally.

You're kidding, right? The right to speak does not imply the right to
a captive audience any more than freedom of association implies a
right to kidnap. Someone's operation of a business plan requiring an
unwilling audience for advertising does not obligate every member of
the audience to operate in such a manner as to not interfere with
that advertising being seen or heard by others. Otherwise it would be
illegal to hold a conversation with a stranger in the presence of such
advertising lest it distract him from viewing some advertisers
intellectual property.

When in our lives haven't we been forced to put up with obnoxious
advertising? My mail box is stuffed with it. Before the telemarketing
"don't call" list, my phone rang at all hours of the day.

All the more reason to resist the ridiculous notion that everyone's
attention is a commodity to be sold without their consent 24 hours a
day seven days a week everywhere on the planet.

I'm not happy about it but we always have the option to take it to make it
illegal if it becomes intolerable..

Better to keep it from becoming intolerable before that becomes
necessary.

I agree with you, if you want to wear noise cancelling earphones, a Discman
with good music usually does the trick for me, you are within your rights,
that's not against the law. If someone wants to invent and market
eyeglasses that will filter out the advertising that's fine.

Thanks. Therefore everyone there has the right not to view the ads if
they don't want to.

But you don't
have the right to turn it off just because you find it annoying.

I don't have the right to physically affect the property which is
displaying the advertising because it isn't mine. I do have the right
to take actions which could cause others not to see or hear the
advertising if such actions don't physically affect someone else's
property.

You are wrong. You can put cotton in your ears but you cannot
interfere with someone else's listening.


Like a bright light aimed at the screen and (so far
theoretical) noise cancelling loudspeakers. Suppose I take a poll and
make it disappear if the majority present find it annoying?


You are really being silly.
Thumper
There
might actually be some people out there who benefit from that advertising.
Who knows, they might be in a strange town looking for a hotel room or
restaurant or health club, drug store or chiropractor.

Any such folks who are not idiots can find such items without the
necessity of each possibility being endlessly promoted to hundreds of
others who don't have the slightest interest.

Finally, I find it hard to begrudge the airlines the few extra bucks they
make or save by running infomercials during flights. There aren't many
today not operating in bankruptcy.

That could just as easily justify all kinds of abusive behavior by
airlines from selling passengers' travel plans and addresses to
potential burglars to selling the contents of the luggage to the
highest bidders. Selling the passengers' unwilling attention is a
lesser abuse, but still an abuse.

However, this is getting pretty far from the topic of HDTV.


joemooreaterolsdotcom

To reply drop XYZ in address