I found this gem in a little store in Boone, NC

NGeX · 5 days

Bob is still there? He had a long white beard when I went to App. I'm 36. That guy is 349 years old. Or maybe I'm thinking of another white-bearded hippie in Boone. I was on a lot of drugs back then. I miss that place every day of my life.

Kittenwithbeer · 5 days

It has a number scale along the Y axis. I assume those are the rough numbers. It shows about 250 approve votes while disapprove has about 50 as of now. At least you can get a rough estimate.

nascentt · 25 days

I strangely just found this before I came here, why is head is transparent? Ghost head?

Oneireus · 1 month

WHAT? I'm really tired, but did you just say that a cop killed Trayon? Please tell me I'm just misinterpreting your comment.

kaydub88 · 2 months

I think a lot of people have missed the point, the argument isn't whether or not he committed a crime, it's whether or not the cops did their due diligence in figuring out if he did or not. And I think with DOJ getting involved, the sheriff stepping down, and a grand jury being convened, it's pretty obvious they didn't. I agree that people feel strongly about this case, but if you have a common citizen with a gun on his hip following a kid around just because he THINKS the kid's a criminal, based on absolutely nothing, then the kid is dead by that gun moments later, I mean, I'm no rocket scientist, but that should raise some feelings, and some questions, I don't care how big the kid is. What's always left out in all of this is that Zimmerman WAS stalking the kid, in his truck and on foot. My question is, if Trayvon had called the cops and told them that a 30 something male was following him around his neighborhood in his truck, then got out of his truck and starting following him on foot, and he thought he saw a gun on the guy's hip and was scared for his life, would you think Zimmerman was guilty of something? Do you think the cops would have gone to Z's house and arrested him for stalking? I'm not sure, I'm no lawyer, but leave the actual shooting out and it sounds like Z was breaking a law to me. If your kid came home and told you some guy followed him all the way home, and when he ran away the guy chased after him and he had a gun on his hip, would you call the cops and expect something done? My point is, Z did commit a crime, enough of one to have been arrested for something and held until they could sort this thing out properly.

kaydub88 · 2 months

You're a funny guy. Telling someone that they are misjudging their own height. My nephew is 6'2" and about 145, he's 30. He has always been that skinny. His father is 60, about an inch shorter than my nephew, and weighs about 155, with his old man gut. Some people are just really skinny man, even football players. There are plenty of tall skinny receivers who only weigh about 180 and they lift weights every day. I think you're misjudging what skinny is.

reverandgreen · 2 months

Maybe, I hadn't thought of it like that before. Rodney Mullen could be proof of time travel.

EthicalReasoning · 2 months

Working on it, I went on an Iraq/Afghanistan documentary spree about 2 months ago, gotta find the right one. Stand by.

reverandgreen · 2 months

When people first saw this guy skating, I bet it was like if we went back to 1930 with an iPad. WTF is THAT?

EthicalReasoning · 2 months

I wouldn't be so quick to take the hive-mind's word. I saw a documentary recently about bases in Iraq during the war. The guy (a soldier) was talking about the food they offered, I think his example was a Burger King they had on base. Of course, the soldiers paid nothing for the food (like prisoners), but he went into detail about how Haliburton, who provided the lunch trays, the napkins, the silverware, the trailer the Burger King operated out of, etc... charged the Government exorbitant amounts of money for this stuff, and so having a BK combo came out to an astronomical amount (I believe $40).The soldier was complaining mightily about U.S. government's ridiculous wasteful spending. So, some company is providing these things and this food to prisons, or the state, so I wouldn't be shocked if they rape the state for everyday items (napkins, plastic forks..). It would not be surprising to me at all if a prison meal cost a lot more than what we would pay for the same thing. Keep in mind as well that due to prisoner's rights, the food has to pass certain standards, and I'm not sure that these $3 meals everyone is talking about would pass those standards (people, except college students, can't live off of Ramen alone). I doubt it's $10 a meal, but I wouldn't be shocked if you did the math for what it takes to make those meals happen that you would be far off. This is exactly the kind of math they are using to calculate the cost of prisoners (cost of buildings, staff, tables, beds, linens, floor wax, sewer and water, electricity and so on.). One more thing, your estimate is most assuredly closer to what prisons SAY each meal costs when they go to budget meetings with the state each year. So hold your head high, here's an upvote, and if you're interested I'll find that documentary for you.

templar01 · 2 months

I was really impressed by your knowledge of the piece. I laughed a little too.

5b3ll · 2 months

Of course it's true, IF someone walks into a restaurant, or convenient store, or walks up to your door. Geraldo just said "Unless it's raining... don't wear a hoodie.". It WAS raining Geraldo, you fucking moron.

monabona · 2 months

That is true, I misspoke, sort of. He obviously gave a story on the spot, and that story, I assume, was the same at the station. Either way, it seems to me that someone who shoots and kills someone, and there is any question to the legitimacy of the shooting, they should be detained more than for a few hours. Maybe his story was completely air tight and they just couldn't hold him. It's just hard to believe. All of my comments today are just emotional responses really, I've had too much coffee. It may be time for a beer and a nap.

monabona · 2 months

As far as arrest goes, this talk of who's voice it was is nonsense. If you can't tell for certain who's voice it is, then it might be either person's voice, so it might be Trayvon's, in which case Zimmerman should at least be be charged for suspicion of committing murder. So if there is a question that it might be Z's voice, the cops can't arrest him, so therefor let's ignore the fact that, by that logic, it could be Trayvon's voice, and not arrest him? He wasn't arrested, after the cops heard the 911 tapes. It's ludicrous. Another thing that's being overlooked is that Z was ALREADY following Trayvon when he called the cops. I think people are assuming that he was in his house, he wasn't, he was following the boy in his truck, then got out of his truck and started following on foot during the 911 call. When the dispatcher tells him not to follow, he never says he's going to stop, he simply says he's going back to his truck. Again, this goes to arresting Zimmerman, if for nothing else than stalking, harassment, something. It's impossible to think that the cops bought his story completely, on the spot, and let him go.

monabona · 2 months

The real question in all of this is why the guy wasn't arrested. These threads tend to always degrade into arguments over whether or not the guy will get convicted in a court of law. That's not what people are angry about, or what people are questioning. The question right now is ONLY how this guy could shoot and kill someone, and with the evidence at hand on scene (skittles vs. gun, 230 pound man vs. 140 pound teen, etc..) this guy should have been arrested and questioned at LENGTH. I can't believe that a line of questioning from a competent detective in this case would not lead to at least some sort of charge against Zimmerman, even if it was a much lesser charge than murder. Are there not laws on the books about intent to cause bodily harm? After hearing the 911 tapes, the conclusion must be made that this guy was on the hunt for this kid. That alone should be enough for an arrest at this point. Maybe the cops hadn't heard the 911 call at the time, but they have now. So the cop at the scene believes Zimmerman's story about being attacked by the kid, and they make no arrest, fine. As soon as they heard his 911 call, he should have been arrested, no question. And they heard it long before any of us. "So, you say you were just driving around, not followiing the boy, but 2 minutes prior to this you were on the phone with police, and admitted that you were following the boy, then 2 minutes later you just happen to stumble upon the same person, by coincidence? Sounds a bit fishy, doesn't it Mr. Zimmerman?"." "When did you arm yourself Mr. Z?". Another thing I read today is that in Z's statement to the police he said he got out of his car to check the name of the street he was on, when he got attacked from behind by Trayvon. I've seen the photos, heard the calls, and the incident took place on a cement pathway that clearly runs behind two building, looks to be nowhere near the road, and surely nowhere near Z's car. Ok, the ensuing scuffle could have taken them away from the road, sure, but based on his statement to the police, the story does not hold up. Again, I'm not talking about whether or not this guy will be found guilty of murder in a court of law, I'm asking how in the world this guy is still, STILL, on the streets. I could get pulled over by a cop tonight because he thinks I'm drunk, pass the sobriety test, and he could still arrest me if he simply still THINKS I'm intoxicated based on suspicion. In Florida, even if I passed the breathalyzer at the station and my case gets tossed, I would still have to spend a minimum of 12 hours in jail. Tell me that out of all the cops on this case none of them had reasonable suspicion to charge this guy with something and keep him in jail. I mean COME ON!!!

makerofrages · 2 months

Yes, that metaphor is completely useless. If you're an atheist, in this context, there is no tv, so the off channel does not exist. The problem with the entire thing is trying to compare things that exist (a tv) to things that don't (gods). That just simply doesn't work. If you truly believe that something doesn't exist, then comparing it to things that do is completely illogical. Because of the way we are all raised, every atheist is told while they are young that god does exist. It usually takes a decision by the atheist to renounce that belief. So in most of our minds, god was at one time a real thing. It's easy to say "God doesn't exist, I'm now an atheist.". It's much harder to deprogram ourselves in order to get to the point where this belief is actually realized. It's very difficult for our minds to completely let go of something that it used to think was true. But if you truly believe that god does not exist, then it makes no sense to make metaphors that compare real things to god. If someone compares god to anything that is real in an argument for atheism, then their argument can be turned around, which is what happened here. A few sentences later in this article the author incorrectly states, "Atheism, on the other hand, is about God and proving such an overpostulated supernatural being does not exist.". This is where the wheels come off. Just like in religion, there are atheists who are aggressive and come off just as zealous, and religious, as bible thumpers. If she had qualified her statement with something like that, ok. But that wasn't her statement. She stated that "atheism" is about disproving god, and that is complete nonsense. Atheism is not believing in god or gods, plain and simple. There is absolutely no reason for me to disprove something that does not exist in the first place. In fact, that would be the very definition of insanity. So, if she came up to me on the street and posed this tv argument, I would, without hesitation, tell her that tv's do not exist and walk away.

subentendido · 2 months

Cadbury over the last few years have made some incredible commercials that make great examples of what I'm talking about. You seem to leaving out (perhaps because you don't get it?) that every scene in the 4G spot have a direct correlation to the product. Speed being the main theme, global connectivity being another. At first even I had an issue with the naked couple making out until I realized that this could easily be extrapolated into watching porn on the internet, which about 1 billion people do every day. This spot is not a misfire, it's a great ad.

Ya know, I know a lot of people that would take your comment about commercials not being art and tell you to go f yourself. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm just saying that they take it that seriously. Commercials are art, plain and simple. Sure you can make one that has no artistic merit, like a lot of your local ads for lawyers or what not, but to say without question that commercials can not be art because they're selling a product is drivel. On so many levels commercial production is an art, I'm just not sure you have a real and full understanding of it.

All that's happening here between us, in regards to this particular ad, is a difference of opinion, which good art tends to create.

myhouseisgod · 2 months

No no, you are exactly right about the law and you phrased everything just fine. My tl;dr should have been: Advertisers will find a way around this using audio tricks because they are jerks.

fuckthemusics · 2 months

One real possibility which I'm sure is the next step, is that you could fold these screens, thus scaling them into any size/format you want. So tablets and phones and even a small t.v. could all be one device. So you fold it three times, you have a 4 inch smart phone screen, fold it twice and you have an 8 inch tablet, unfold it and you have an screen large enough to watch television on in your bedroom. I don't math, so don't judge me on the number of folds/sizes. On the commercial side, think New York city or Japan, where they like to cover buildings in moving images, now any surface is a potential space for moving adverts. All they need to work is wireless connectivity to a computer as all they will be is a display, the parts needed to accomplish are already very small and could be incorporated pretty easily into the screen. So like the other comment said, you could have a very small device in your pocket that does the work, the screen you could just slap on anything, like your wife's forehead when she's sleeping or your windshield for some good ol' perfectly safe Reddit-driving. The possibilities are staggering.

subentendido · 2 months

I'll bite. First of all, yes, every t.v. show and movie is a device formulated to generate revenue through manipulating the minds of consumers. It's extremely naive of you to think otherwise.

Secondly, OP didn't lay down any facts, they simply stated that this was beautiful advertising done right, and if it worked for OP, then it worked. It worked for me as well.

Third, and this goes more to Fuesiker, the comment about intellectual degradation is ridiculous. That's like saying abstract artists should always include an explanation of their work with every painting sold. This spot actually leaves it up to the viewer to seek out the product, find out what it's all about, and make a decision based on that research, rather than most ads that simply yell at us that their product is the best. I argue that the ad actually relies heavily on it's audience being rather intelligent. It treats the audience as if they know what 4g is, in which case they just got to see a bad ass commercial and now maybe they'll switch service, or if they don't it is still a very artistic way of making people curious.

Advertising is not nearly as clear cut as you two make it out to be. For instance, you didn't even know what you were watching for 1:25, and yet you still watched. The ad already works because it keeps your interest for that long. You held on to the end to see what the hell this was all about. There's nothing wrong with having a disconnect between the ad and what your selling. In fact, some of the best commercials have used that exact formula. I think you need to get your facts straight.

myhouseisgod · 2 months

This is all true, but there will still be a difference because there is a common trick used by production companies, and even local news stations wherein they "sweeten" the audio. This means that they apply specific EQ values to the mix to make certain parts really stand out. The most common is to jack up treble and mids to levels a network show or synidicated show would never have, so the commercial still seems louder, because they're blasting high frequencies at your face. The other, most commonly used trick is to have a "sting", be it musical or a sound effect, at the very beginning of the commercial, so it is perceived to be A LOT louder than the show you're watching. The truth is, with audio normalization and condensing filters at the front end (leaving your local station), in the middle of the line (the cable company filters audio for normalization also) and now at the tail end (your cable box does a little normalization), and even t.v.'s now do some of the work, most of what people complain about isn't that the commercials are WAY over of the decibel levels of the show, it's just a perceived difference because of simple audio tricks. So unfortunately, "same average sound level as the show" really won't make any difference. People will still complain about this for years to come.

mmclennan · 2 months

For me personally, it's not a matter of knowing, or even thinking I might know, it's putting my faith in the fact that I don't know. That really is my faith, not knowing and not pretending to know. I lump myself into the atheist category because I don't think anyone knows the big answers, so most religions are automatically out of the equation for me because they claim to know the answer to everything. I find that ridiculous. Humans are so new, infants, so for anyone to think that they have everything figured out is a farce. Religions make it even worse because they cause people to become apathetic about learning new things. Of course there are a lot of religious scientists and religious people who are curious in general, but I'm referring more to the masses giving in to faith rather than facing issues in life head on and learning from them. This makes some people feel better, but it can also stagnate their development, and in turn, in my belief, stagnate the development of the human race.

A quick example... I was talking to a co-worker, she's a devout christian who was brought up in a church where they speak in tongues and fall on the floor with the spirit. Not judging, just letting you know what kind of church it was. She told me a story about one of her youth ministers. The minister told her, along with a group of other kids, that she had an "experience" with a ouija board during which the board began flying around the room and then burst into flame. There were other details that I can't recall at the moment, but all insinuated that the devil had taken control of the board. The minister then told all the kids that demons lived in these boards and that if they owned one, it should be burned immediately. My coworker had one, and she burned it, with her parents in attendance. After she was done telling me the story, I told her that a ouija board is just a game made up by Mattel or Hasbro or whoever made it, that it had absolutely no ties to the occult whatsoever. She had no idea. This minister thought the board was some ancient demon conjuring device and perpetuated that thought in the minds of very young children. Now, to be clear, what I take offense to is an adult teaching children that there are board games they could play that could loose a demon into their homes, and using that as a tool to teach children about Christianity. She immediately said, "Ya know, I never researched ouija boards, or anything, I just took the lady's word for it.". This girl is 23 years old now and until a few days ago believed everything that minister told her. That is how powerful religious teaching can be in influencing young minds. So if you teach children that god created everything and there is no reason to look elsewhere for answers, some of those children will do just that, and that to me is mind control, and a horrible thing to do to the wondrous mind of a child.

That is one pretty extreme example as to why I am an atheist. And that is why I stick to my "I don't know" faith. I have no idea where all this stuff came from, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to continually look for the answers, or be really interested when other people look for the answers. I just have faith that none of us know, and we're all just trying our best to figure it out.

Don_Tkilla · 2 months

My doubt isn't really about the hospital/dad thing, or the vice-grip vagina thing, it's the combination of the two in one story that makes me go... hmmmmmm.... nah.

disconnectivity

TROPHY CASE

disconnectivity

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login