Hello Stupid
by Scott Hardie on October 19, 2009
I don't know why car companies insist on calling their products "vehicles" now. Apparently "cars" became a dirty word and I missed it. But if you're going to change the term, consider your marketing messages carefully:
As a matter of fact, yes, I have heard about radar, sonar, and infared technology in vehicles, such as submarines, aircraft carriers, and helicopters. You just showed some to me. If Lexus set out to create the dumbest commercials of the year, hello success.
Three Replies to Hello Stupid
Jackie Mason | October 20, 2009
[hidden by author request]
Amy Austin | October 20, 2009
Bill Engvall ain't European. I can only assume that's who they hired to be the ad wizard behind this one.
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
Day 178
People have been asking me how the diet is going. I'm still at it, although I cheat much more often than I'd like, so the daily caloric average is now 1500-1800. However, I've been stuck on one seriously cruel plateau. Go »My Hot Thanksgiving
It may have been a cold Thanksgiving up north, but it wasn't in my mother's apartment yesterday, where the air conditioning was broken and it was 80°. And that was before we turned the oven on for an hour to heat the food. We've ordered pre-made meals before from various businesses like Boston Market and Publix, but this year the only source we could find was Zoës Kitchen, a Middle Eastern chain restaurant. Go »Bad for Business
CNN Money published an interesting look at the 101 Dumbest Moments in Business in the year 2006. Go »Like That Smash Mouth Song
Dramatic photo of a shuttle docking with the International Space Station, set against the sun: (link) Thanks, Aaron W. Go »All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy
I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »
Amy Austin | October 19, 2009
Yep.