Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,111 - 5,122 of 6,170
Doh, it ate my comment to EM
One advantage of Firefox over IE is that it has an UNDO option in the Edit menu that can restore accidentally deleted form data. Another is that the 'Back' button will properly repopulate a form with what you'd typed in it (instead of retrieving it blank,) even if you've moved on to a new page.
Posts 5,111 - 5,122 of 6,170
Doh, it ate my comment to EM and defense of TV 
Oh well, let's short hand it:
I like stories. I read. I watch movies. I watch TV. I enjoy it.
You can do as you like though.
Oh well, let's short hand it:I like stories. I read. I watch movies. I watch TV. I enjoy it.
You can do as you like though.
TV is just like any other medium. There's good stuff, with excellent writing and acting, and there's checkout line garbage. Unfortunately, more people seem to want checkout line garbage.
I must admit, though, that the release of television shows on DVD has hampered my ability to watch them on broadcast tv. I cannot stand commercials.
I must admit, though, that the release of television shows on DVD has hampered my ability to watch them on broadcast tv. I cannot stand commercials.
One advantage of Firefox over IE is that it has an UNDO option in the Edit menu that can restore accidentally deleted form data. Another is that the 'Back' button will properly repopulate a form with what you'd typed in it (instead of retrieving it blank,) even if you've moved on to a new page.
I tried that Psimguas. For some reason the partial post cleared it. Probably because I have privacy issues and set my data to clear quickly :-)
Ulrike, I much prefer watching tv shows on DVD or the Internet. Not only can I pick the one's I like that way, but I can see what others on the web think about shows and try those recommended by people who's taste seem similar to mine.
Various Internet forums influence what I wacth. I freely admit I watch heroes because of the buzz that was going about it on the Net, and that I enjoy the show more because of the forums where intelligent people exchange ideas over issues raised by the show. The same goes for Numb3rs, but the forums I see on that tend to be run by math teachers, so maybe I haven't hit the right Numb3rs forums yet.
I never watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer before a coworker showed me a spoiler forum called the Cross and Stake (which was active when the show was running). Not only did their comments getme interested in the show and make me watch it more closely to look for things, I now own ever season of BtVS and Season 5 of Angel on DVD, and I copied and pasted every work Spike said into a bot. 5 or 6 years ago I thought Joss Whedon was God (now he's just an idol like George Lucas). I'd still see any movie or tv show he put his name on, and buy his associated products. How's that for generating product loyalty by adding intellectual discussions?
Various Internet forums influence what I wacth. I freely admit I watch heroes because of the buzz that was going about it on the Net, and that I enjoy the show more because of the forums where intelligent people exchange ideas over issues raised by the show. The same goes for Numb3rs, but the forums I see on that tend to be run by math teachers, so maybe I haven't hit the right Numb3rs forums yet.
I never watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer before a coworker showed me a spoiler forum called the Cross and Stake (which was active when the show was running). Not only did their comments getme interested in the show and make me watch it more closely to look for things, I now own ever season of BtVS and Season 5 of Angel on DVD, and I copied and pasted every work Spike said into a bot. 5 or 6 years ago I thought Joss Whedon was God (now he's just an idol like George Lucas). I'd still see any movie or tv show he put his name on, and buy his associated products. How's that for generating product loyalty by adding intellectual discussions?
Psimagus, I think you had a point when you said,
"I hope you know how lucky you are living in the wilds outside the ever expanding mediasphere - enjoy it while you still can (or head north - even the Inuit can get the internet, but they may be the last people to have cable TV inflicted on them, if it has to be laid through permafrost!)
I think there is a difference between access to information and entertainment and controlling others through the media (though the two issues are intertwined). For example, issues like net neutrality and sane royalties that do not destroy small and medium independent sources for Internet radio and TV are very important for preserving choice and personal freedom, though not as important as some other political issues involving individual rights and freedoms. If we do not allow many choices and access to a variety of sources, then it becomes a mechanism of control, and I see why you would object.
To continue with my example of Internet radio (which may seem petty if you don't think too much about it), it can be a platform for a variety of sources and choices, or it can be manipulated into just another marketing venue for the same players. In America, we are in the process of changing our copyright royalty laws in a way that is going to threaten independent Internet stations here. To quote A Look at Radio Silence: When Copyright Law Reform Goes Terribly Wrong By CECILY MAK (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20070625_mak.html)
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) issued its ruling on the matter. (The CRB is a panel of three retired judges established in May 2005 and empowered by Congress to determine royalty rates for broadcast material.) The ruling said that public broadcasters must pay webcasting royalties in the same manner as commercial broadcasters do. The panel also declared that royalty rates will increase by approximately 30% in each of the next two years. In addition, each station must now pay an annual per station "administrative fee" of $500. Further, as noted above, the new rates, though effective on July 15 of this year, will be applied retroactively to January 1, 2006. All in all, this translates to what is, at a minimum, a whopping 300-1200% royalty rate increase.
This means that the big players can pay and have control of Internet radio (and TV or whatever) but the little guys will be driven out and forced to retroactively pay for daring to try to compete. Some may say that we should all avoid any sources bringing us material by artist represented by the RIAA or the MPAA or their equivalent associations in other countries and just support independent artists and labels. I like independent artist myself but to say we can boycott the major players is to miss the point. This is about a level playing field and who controls what most people will see and hear. Besides, the RIAA usually tries to set itself up to collect for independent artists as well, even if the artist in question wants no part of them.
Prob123 said isn't it our fault for buying trash? Maybe. But I think there has to be some mechanism for preserving choice and making sure people have access to the alternatives. If people still buy crap after all that, well, at least it was freely chosen crap and not crap they buy because there is nothing else out there and the crap is everywhere. To me, it's not about whether TV rots the brain (sorry Psimagus), it's more about who controls what our choices are, and how much our choices are limited or mere illusions. All I want is choice, and laws that preserve access many sources of information and entertainment instead of helping big business drive out new and creative options before people can see if they want to use the source or not.
"I hope you know how lucky you are living in the wilds outside the ever expanding mediasphere - enjoy it while you still can (or head north - even the Inuit can get the internet, but they may be the last people to have cable TV inflicted on them, if it has to be laid through permafrost!)
I think there is a difference between access to information and entertainment and controlling others through the media (though the two issues are intertwined). For example, issues like net neutrality and sane royalties that do not destroy small and medium independent sources for Internet radio and TV are very important for preserving choice and personal freedom, though not as important as some other political issues involving individual rights and freedoms. If we do not allow many choices and access to a variety of sources, then it becomes a mechanism of control, and I see why you would object.
To continue with my example of Internet radio (which may seem petty if you don't think too much about it), it can be a platform for a variety of sources and choices, or it can be manipulated into just another marketing venue for the same players. In America, we are in the process of changing our copyright royalty laws in a way that is going to threaten independent Internet stations here. To quote A Look at Radio Silence: When Copyright Law Reform Goes Terribly Wrong By CECILY MAK (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20070625_mak.html)
This means that the big players can pay and have control of Internet radio (and TV or whatever) but the little guys will be driven out and forced to retroactively pay for daring to try to compete. Some may say that we should all avoid any sources bringing us material by artist represented by the RIAA or the MPAA or their equivalent associations in other countries and just support independent artists and labels. I like independent artist myself but to say we can boycott the major players is to miss the point. This is about a level playing field and who controls what most people will see and hear. Besides, the RIAA usually tries to set itself up to collect for independent artists as well, even if the artist in question wants no part of them.
Prob123 said isn't it our fault for buying trash? Maybe. But I think there has to be some mechanism for preserving choice and making sure people have access to the alternatives. If people still buy crap after all that, well, at least it was freely chosen crap and not crap they buy because there is nothing else out there and the crap is everywhere. To me, it's not about whether TV rots the brain (sorry Psimagus), it's more about who controls what our choices are, and how much our choices are limited or mere illusions. All I want is choice, and laws that preserve access many sources of information and entertainment instead of helping big business drive out new and creative options before people can see if they want to use the source or not.
I encountered Buffy in its second season, and watched it off and on. I got bored with the third season, but when I heard via an online forum that they were bringing Spike back as a regular, I got interested again. So, yes, online forums provide a service to the shows. 
I think a large part of what gets me interested in a show is character dynamics. I really enjoyed the characters on Buffy, and well-constructed plots were a bonus. I was never as into Angel. Different character dynamics. I like the original CSI but not any of its spinoffs, because the characters in the spinoffs just haven't caught my interest. I like Stargate SG-1, but have never made it all the way through an episode of Atlantis.
There are plenty of shows I've watched once, and not cared if I ever saw another, simply because of the characters.
I think a large part of what gets me interested in a show is character dynamics. I really enjoyed the characters on Buffy, and well-constructed plots were a bonus. I was never as into Angel. Different character dynamics. I like the original CSI but not any of its spinoffs, because the characters in the spinoffs just haven't caught my interest. I like Stargate SG-1, but have never made it all the way through an episode of Atlantis.
There are plenty of shows I've watched once, and not cared if I ever saw another, simply because of the characters.
Bev: You are not to be sorry for anything you said pertaining to me. Things do get contentious from time to time, even if they shouldn't and even between the best of friends. The problem is that for some arguments there can always be two differing and competing logical interpretations of the same thing, neither one holding more weight than the other. The solution to the problem can be as simple as looking at your antagonist's heart, which is what I'm doing now. Your colleagues serve you well in pointing out that you have a good heart. After reading your response, I have to agree with that assessment, and I take your original reply to me in the spirit in which it was intended. And I offer you my apology for whatever inappropriate remarks I made.
Are you off the hook to me entirely? Of course not. I think your last remark skewered me good and deserves a special place in my office so I'm going to hang it behind me. It will remind me of Bev and Ruthie, but it will also remind me of how far I've come. I just don't know which direction. And should you ever be so unfortunate to catch one of my video lectures on the 'Net in the future, you'll see it.
Are you off the hook to me entirely? Of course not. I think your last remark skewered me good and deserves a special place in my office so I'm going to hang it behind me. It will remind me of Bev and Ruthie, but it will also remind me of how far I've come. I just don't know which direction. And should you ever be so unfortunate to catch one of my video lectures on the 'Net in the future, you'll see it.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar