From Gregg Easterbrook’s over-the-top absurd column that essentially asserts that the Patriots’ season is indelibly tainted by “Spygate”–which is, in terms of its actual effect on competition in the leage, a complete non-event1:

Will the Victoria’s commercial be TV-14? Earlier this season, TMQ noted that NBC’s Sunday night football wrap show is rated TV-14 — I wondered whether I should let my 12-year-old watch it. Reader Rebecca Seidel of Monroe, Conn., writes, “Tell Spenser he shouldn’t watch the commercials. While the NFL itself keeps programming clean, not all of its sponsors feel the same way. Based on the assumption that mostly adult males will be the ones watching football past nine on a school night, the ads tend to get a little racy.” On the East Coast, half the Super Bowl will occur past 9 p.m., the hour when networks start allowing racy ads. Risqué is fine for adults, but should it occur in the context of the one show per year that every little kid in America is allowed to stay up late to watch? We’ll see how the commercials stack up this year.

Okay, so here’s my question. WHO CARES? I know, I know. Lots of people care. But I think it’s ridiculous. So what if a bunch of pre-teens see cleavage? What’s the worst case scenario? Youngsters all over America start humping their couches? Do you think there’s any way to prevent, or even slow, adolescents’ discovery of the human body, in all its sinfulness?

Continue reading »

 

I just read this article in Wired Magazine, and it is a great piece of journalism. It’s about “griefers,” who are basically internet dorks who spend all their time trying to piss off other internet dorks. Also known as “trolls,” these guys (and they’re just about all dudes) can be found in every forum thread, multiplayer game, and major blog’s comments, doing their best to ruin everyone else’s fun.

Continue reading »

 

What a bargain!

Um, yeah. Good luck with that, CVS.

 

This article about law students’ choice between public service and private practice made me feel very sad. It’s about a student at Georgetown Law, who had to decide between a high-paid job at a Chicago law firm and the pursuit of a job in the public interest sector.

Continue reading »

 

I was over at CVS buying some obscenely cheap post-Halloween candy today and I noticed this brochure over at the photo center. It’s not very interesting–mostly just a big ad for their photo restoration service (which I have no doubt is a great value!!!!). But wait a second. Restorations &… Makeovers? Color me intrigued! Fortunately, they provide a great example right there on the cover:

Well that’s interesting. Apparently you can bring them a photograph of yourself as you actually appear, and then they’ll “tweak” it so it looks like you, but BETTER.

Now let’s see what things CVS thinks people might find unsightly enough to have removed from their photos:

Continue reading »

 

What’s with all the complaining about the iPhone price cut? You knew it was $600 when you bought it. If you didn’t think that it was worth $600, you didn’t have to buy it. After you made that purchase, you had an iPhone and Apple had your money. You were okay with the universe at that point. So why does its availability to other people at a lower price point suddenly make it not okay for Apple to have sold it to you at a price you agreed to? Is your phone suddenly worth less now that other people can get it for less than you paid?

Apple knew it could get you to pay more. It set its price accordingly. Now it has lowered prices to make money off of other people who weren’t willing to pay before. That’s how business works, especially the high-margin business of consumer electronics.

You paid an extra $200 to have a cool toy a couple of months earlier than everyone else. Get over it.

 

My last post about ESPN Motion (linked by internet sports colossus Deadspin.com, I might self-promotionally add) addressed a problem that riddles the world wide web (and the real world, too, but let’s keep this simple): letting advertising dictate how content is presented. ESPN knows that video is difficult to ignore, and is a great way to serve up ads–for its own programming and for its sponsors. So it plasters a loud, garish, processing-heavy video window on its front page, forcing its users to a) put up with it; b) figure out and implement a fairly complicated workaround to block it; or c) go elsewhere for their sports news. I think this is pretty stupid. Here’s another example from the website I use the most: The Washington Post.

Continue reading »

 
  • First, you need to be using Firefox. Please, if you’re using a PC… just use Firefox. I’m willing to entertain arguments for Safari, but to be using Microsoft Internet Explorer at this point is just… wrong. Objectively wrong. Don’t do it.
  • Next, install the Adblock extension the Adblock Plus extension (which you should really be using anyway). Adblock, well, blocks ads online. It comes with a huge list of automatically-blocked ads, which is neat, but the great thing about it is that you can manually add other ads to the list. Like, I don’t know… the ESPN Motion video that starts whenever you visit ESPN.com.
  • Next (after you restart Firefox to activate the Adblock extension), click on “Tools” in the menu bar. Then click on “Add-ons.”
  • Highlight Adblock and click on the “Options” button.
  • In the “New Filter” box, enter this: http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/fpp/*
  • Click “Done.”

And that’s it. No more stupid videos advertising “Who’s Now” or WNBA broadcasts or Steven A. Smith’s newest show, “Spittin’ Mad With Steven A. (Brought to You by Cheetos)”. Enjoy.

* ESPN, you really need to find a way to turn this off by default. Everyone hates it. Most of us visit your site from work, you know? We can’t have this nonsense.

© 2011 Hello World Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha