Squeeze — with ease!
Says it all, I think.
Sexy? It’s more like a scat-fetish video. Yuk.
This would never succeed since the toothpaste companies WANT you to waste their product.
I just HATE when something is left, thats why I cut toothpaste/cream containers after they are “empty”. Too bad you cant just cut glass Jam jars
The question is whether this added complication is actually more expensive than just “wasting” some toothpaste.
c.f. wasting transistors
Reminds me of the beginning of “Shrek” where he squeezes a couple of swap thingies for their creamy innards.
Technically, they’re being general, not just for toothpaste. But…
Give it a gentle squeeze, and a thick creamy substance spurts out, and the entity producing the stuff is telling us that it tastes good and we should put it in our mouth…?
I don’t see… Oh! there’s the sexuality. Kinda vague, but once you point it out… silly me.
i just watched that four times, got strangely very calm. think ill take a nap now…
Zan: I view it the other way.
All other things being equal, if a toothpaste company could get away with making zero waste, in return for slightly reducing the amount in the tube, they’d go for that: less paste means less cost.
It’s like people who grumble “my printer never uses the last drop of ink, it must be a conspiracy”, rather than thinking “the cartridge supplier must have had a REASON for adding more ink in than they absolutely had to, given that I buy cartridges based on the number of pages they claim they can print, not the volume of ink in the cartridge…”
I consider how much toothpaste one typically wastes.
I assume that the tube will not grow significantly if one of these were placed within it: the device will just displace toothpaste, so the consumer gets less.
The cost of the tube will go up, since it has Cool New Gizmo in it.
So, assuming the gizmo cost less to produce than (cost to produce the toothpaste it displaced) + (additional profit from increased retail price), this device will cause a profit for the toothpaste companies.
But I don’t see this ever actually benefiting the *buyer*.
Not sexual. Just efficient and I do have a dirty mind. So go ahead use the commercial. Who cares?
Please resubmit when Kate Beckinsale signs to be their spokesperson.
I don’t think this is unintentional. Sex sells, after all.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Twitter • Facebook
RSS • Email • TELEGRAM
Log in • Register
Tom the Dancing Bug
Advertise • Policies • Comment Policy
J/K to scroll posts • 100 latest comments
About Boing Boing
Art and Design
Boing Boing Video
Displays ads via FM Tech
RSS and Email
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Boing Boing is a trademark of Happy Mutants LLC in the
United States and other countries.