PLEASE don't have such invasive advertising... I don't mean to be rude but I just got a goddamn McDonald's snack wrap or whatever it's called shoved in my face all over my screen without me even doing anything.
Sorry, just... god I hate ads like that... I'm never going to McDonald's again now. Excluding when
But wait, all Apple products are shiny and HAPPY, which does not fit into the BDSM arena. I wonder what Jonathan Ive has got up his sleeve? Inside a Braun oven?
@LindsayJoy's MBP is into S+M: Living on a horse farm, we get many animal supply catalogs. I sometimes stare at the prods, and wonder how much trouble I would get into if I wrote "Prod of Progress" on it and used it to motivate people out of my way.
@LindsayJoy's MBP is into S+M: we are moving away from white plastic to metal, black plastic and glass. I think the BDSM has been a long time coming actually.
@SpaceBat_GitEmSteveDave: You can always get a shock baton and be a little more discrete, that is, until it makes that rachachacha shocker noise when you fire it up :P
I'd love to have a Mac tablet and integrate it into my music/live performance . It would probably be a cheaper than buying a Lemur, well ... hopefully.
@bosskev: Or is requesting you to have a real thought too much to ask of yet another "cut to the head of the commenting line" Facebooker?
Come on, Giz. Something needs to be done about all this incredibly stupid commenting of late. All the non-Facebook commenters have had to earn the right to be able to comment by first demonstrating they had something at least slightly clever to say. What happened to that? Now with Facebookers being allowed to automatically flood the comments without being screended and without regard to commenting ability, Giz is becoming (has become) a graveyard for dullard dronings.
@bosskev: hm, facebookers are really annoying sometimes, yes.
but then with their existence we can point out their wrongs and show we're generally more correct, less snobby and less annoying (and have a general dislike for) them, in a nice way without violating banhammer rules, of course.
it's like, a segregation between gizmodians and facebookers, almost.
--
anyway.
iProd?
Maybe it's a iPod in the shape and form of a prodding stick. An extra long ipod shuffle perhaps? We might even see a button!
I actually LOVE Facebook, have my own account and am using it to network with filmmakers/photographers. Indeed, I actually welcome Facebookers to Gizmodo; more readers can only be a good thing.
BUT.
Where I am deeply troubled is by the apparent fact that Facebookers arrive in Giz with the ability to comment automatically enabled. So, where some FBrs will have actual fun or insightful things to say, others will be just...well...stupid.
Prior to this new arrangement, AFAIK, for years Gizmodo had it set up that your comments would not appear until you had first been approved by someone in Giz. While not a failsafe way to prevent lameness (and it could also inadvertently block/delay otherwise good/interesting commenters--I know this from firsthand experience) it at least kept the quality of comment up at a much higher level. (Well, sometimes.)
Now, without pre-screening, it's a free-for-all of banality.
your first few comments are normally not posted until a moderator reads em and gives you the thumbs up. they sit in comment limbo. since most jackasses cant resist being dumbshits on the first comment, it's a reasonably good filter.
@nutbastard (Everyone come to snowmodo!!!): Apparently they've since abandoned that model. Not only is there not significant manpower to handle the "approval" process, but it also cuts down on the click-throughs. Since they are largely dependant upon ad revenue, it behooves them to allow idiots, to a certain extent, to troll. The trolling increases the potential that people willre-read an article and see the ads again.
That means more $$ for Giz, hence the propensity toward inflamatory articles and less policing on the commenters. A while back, when times weren't so lean, they could afford to seperate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Now that chaff, though it chafes us, means more potential income for them, and so they tolerate it (with only extreme exceptions).
Note that there hasn't been much disemvowelling or banhammering lately, despite the rampant idiocy. Banning people increases the likelihood that they'll descrease their readership. Especially with Facebook, where the friend-of-a-friend model alters the way Giz gets new click throughs.
03/19/09
WHERE THE HELL IS 2,1?
03/19/09
03/19/09
PLEASE don't have such invasive advertising... I don't mean to be rude but I just got a goddamn McDonald's snack wrap or whatever it's called shoved in my face all over my screen without me even doing anything.
Sorry, just... god I hate ads like that... I'm never going to McDonald's again now. Excluding when
I get the munchies. Damn you BongModo...
03/19/09
dude, it's called adblockplus. google it.
03/19/09
Like a cattle prod?
iBDSM! Woo-hoo!
But wait, all Apple products are shiny and HAPPY, which does not fit into the BDSM arena. I wonder what Jonathan Ive has got up his sleeve? Inside a Braun oven?
03/19/09
03/19/09
03/19/09
03/19/09
03/19/09
03/19/09
03/19/09
03/19/09
[www.pbsanimalhealth.com]
OR "The Red One Sable-Six!
[www.pbsanimalhealth.com]
03/19/09
03/19/09
why would he come before he has sex with you?
03/19/09
03/19/09
03/19/09
03/19/09
or
New iPhone with integrated electrical zapper to herd cows or torture British classmates with.
03/19/09
03/19/09
03/19/09
ban.
03/19/09
Yes, your comment was.
Maybe next time (if you get a next time) try actually putting some thought/content into your comment?
03/19/09
Come on, Giz. Something needs to be done about all this incredibly stupid commenting of late. All the non-Facebook commenters have had to earn the right to be able to comment by first demonstrating they had something at least slightly clever to say. What happened to that? Now with Facebookers being allowed to automatically flood the comments without being screended and without regard to commenting ability, Giz is becoming (has become) a graveyard for dullard dronings.
03/19/09
but then with their existence we can point out their wrongs and show we're generally more correct, less snobby and less annoying (and have a general dislike for) them, in a nice way without violating banhammer rules, of course.
it's like, a segregation between gizmodians and facebookers, almost.
--
anyway.
iProd?
Maybe it's a iPod in the shape and form of a prodding stick. An extra long ipod shuffle perhaps? We might even see a button!
03/19/09
I actually LOVE Facebook, have my own account and am using it to network with filmmakers/photographers. Indeed, I actually welcome Facebookers to Gizmodo; more readers can only be a good thing.
BUT.
Where I am deeply troubled is by the apparent fact that Facebookers arrive in Giz with the ability to comment automatically enabled. So, where some FBrs will have actual fun or insightful things to say, others will be just...well...stupid.
Prior to this new arrangement, AFAIK, for years Gizmodo had it set up that your comments would not appear until you had first been approved by someone in Giz. While not a failsafe way to prevent lameness (and it could also inadvertently block/delay otherwise good/interesting commenters--I know this from firsthand experience) it at least kept the quality of comment up at a much higher level. (Well, sometimes.)
Now, without pre-screening, it's a free-for-all of banality.
03/19/09
I haven't been a member for that long either, although I remember how there was no commenting feature for years, so I guess I'm too old school.
Now get off mah lawn, all of you!
03/19/09
your first few comments are normally not posted until a moderator reads em and gives you the thumbs up. they sit in comment limbo. since most jackasses cant resist being dumbshits on the first comment, it's a reasonably good filter.
03/19/09
That means more $$ for Giz, hence the propensity toward inflamatory articles and less policing on the commenters. A while back, when times weren't so lean, they could afford to seperate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Now that chaff, though it chafes us, means more potential income for them, and so they tolerate it (with only extreme exceptions).
Note that there hasn't been much disemvowelling or banhammering lately, despite the rampant idiocy. Banning people increases the likelihood that they'll descrease their readership. Especially with Facebook, where the friend-of-a-friend model alters the way Giz gets new click throughs.