Best suggestion yet. Yes, in theory adding random dots would introduce noise into the signal and potentially degrade it to the points it's no longer useful, but only if you can interfere with the pattern. Put another way, unless you know the location of the dot codes, to reach the level of noise necessary to obscure you'd have to cover the page; there would be so many random yellow dots so as to be perceptible.
Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figures
on
The $54 Million Laptop
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Yeah $54,000,000 sounds absurd. But did she have any original content on that computer? Photos, songs, stories, spreadsheets, etc.? If she created it, she owns the copyright. I ask because, if the courts allow the MPAA to sue kids for tens of thousands PER SONG for simply sharing a copywritten work, then why not let her sue for tens of thousands for each of HER original works? After all, her damages are much WORSE than those claimed by the music industry -- her content has been permanently destroyed/lost, while the music industry still has their content and can continue to sell it.
(Frankly, I don't think either case deserves what they're asking. Reimburse market price or some small multiple of *actual market price* as a punitive measure -- $1100 for the laptop lady. $.99 per song for the music company.)
Yes, so I read. But that doesn't answer my original question.
"Can anyone who has installed this confirm that the Parental Controls bug is fixed? "
Because it wouldn't be the first time in history that a patch which claims to fix something, doesn't. So have you installed the patch and does it fix this problem?
Can anyone who has installed this confirm that the Parental Controls bug is fixed? (Enable parental controls on one account and Dashboard widgets are broken on all accounts). Spent a couple hours trying to get it working again, without success. On the upside, TimeMachine did let me roll back to a hour before I enabled Parental Controls so nothing lost, other than an evening and some confidence in Apple's software testing methodology. (which is why I'm asking here... I want somebody else to "go first" on this update!)
Not without money they won't -- Congress is only interested in being bribed... uh, I mean "lobbied" by those with bags of money, especially around re-election time. In their death throes (which is fast approaching) they'll certainly lobby for more bad laws. That's inevitable, but once the industry bottoms out, they'll be reduced to having as much influence as the average voter. That is to say, none.
The solution is simple: Just don't play^H^H^H^H^Hbuy ANYTHING unless it passes the DRM check (e.g. "is it DRM-free?") I think it's the only way to end this nonsense. Defang the industry by striking at what gives them power -- profit. When the money dries up, the investors will force the company to change or it will perish. Or, they'll behave like the newspaper industry, deciding to favour biased political viewpoints over profit and they watch their subscriber base drop %20 year-after-year until they are no longer relevant. Any of these is an acceptable outcome.
"if people are creating their own music they're just stealing from the music industry anyway."
That's pretty funny! But it's also very, very close to the totalitarian ideas of the ex-Soviet Union (a Worker's Paradise, dontchaknow?) The State owns everything, and controls the means of production, including the people. We saw how well that worked out.
>>And, taking that further, since they think images of people are wrong, they should ban TV.
I know you say that in jest, but in classrooms across Europe, art teachers are instructed not to draw pictures of ANY persons (not just mohammed) so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the ultra-radical Muslim students who may or may not be in the classroom. Obviously this affects all students. And textbook publishers are busy stripping out images of people from their textbooks to make them more "acceptable" to the small, minority radical population.
As for the greater question of television, simply look at the Taliban (translates to "the students" or "study"): they prohibited all music, television, dancing, playing cards, etc. and used violence frequently to enforce their will. It's the same argument used to keep the population ignorant and illiterate. Let the Imams (religious teachers, analogous to preachers) do the reading and the thinking and let them tell the ignorant masses what to think. It's the reason there's always a spike in violence on Fridays across the middle-east -- right after Friday prayers when everyone's had their dose of the Two-Minute-Hate, sans telescreen, of course.
Now you have the Archbishop of Canterbury saying that Sha'ria (Islamic law) is "inevitable" and the West must simply accept it. It's called regression, the slow, gentle, backwards slide of a civilization wherein progress and freedom is surrendered. It's happening now under the guise of "multiculturalism" and will continue until the West stands up to this barbaric nonsense.
Ah, but the point of religion isn't just to control me, but also to control you.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's my experience as a religious person that you couldn't be more incorrect; I must take objection to that blanket statement!
At the Christian churches I've attended (three different denominations) the focus *is* on the individual -- developing oneself to be closer to the ideal and serving as a role model for others while pursuing a closer relationship with God. At our bible study classes, during sermons, and during casual conversation there is disdain and disgust for a lot of what is present in society, and it's not uncommon to have conversations about ways to influence others, but I've never once heard a sermon or conversation that speaks of controlling or forcing others to bend to our will. Obviously, we won't allow ourselves to be doormats or victims of crime, but we realize and accept that each person's life must be their own and we expect the same in return.
Why bother if it can't do both?
In fact, that would run contrary to the very basic idea of my religion -- that religion is the relationship between the individual and God and the foundation of that is forgiveness for our sins and an offer of salvation that must be PERSONALLY accepted, and cannot happen any other way. Life is one of constant struggle against temptation and self-development.
I do not know why you hold your anti-religious bias, but I hope that with greater life experience you will someday change your mind.
Not just leading, but real "softball" questions. I'm surprised they didn't ask if he likes puppies. I'm pleased to learn he believes in providing direct answers to direct questions and I'd like some answers to questions such as:
Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration? Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration? In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy? Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting? What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support? Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein? How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil? Is healthcare a right? Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues). etc.
Frankly, I'd like answers to those questions from ALL politicians. It would be a step forward, instead of the current internecine squabbling : the "he said/she said/you made the girl cry" pandering Soap Opera.
Why force buyers to purchase two? Customer satisfaction, that's why! Because, when that keyboard pisses you off for the last time, merely throwing one Noahpad across the room might not be enough to soothe your rage.
Think about it. Wouldn't the *crunch* or that thing hitting a masonry wall at 40MPH with all those little *$(@#$# keys spilling onto the floor be really satisfying? You know it!
So, when this extortion racket, uh, I mean "organization" successfully sues someone or they settle out of court... how much of that money goes back to the artists they supposedly represent? Has any artist received a dividend cheque?
Cut him some slack. He said "maybe half" which technically means you're not allowed to pin that down to an actual number. After all, this is the internet -- the magical place where, in lieu of hard facts, you can just make shit up.
Even better idea: Every new phone is described on the box as "unassembled/assembly required before use." Each phone ships with a dropper of superglue and a flyer which instructs the owner to superglue the media card in place before use.
Now if the owner chooses not to blatently disregard the assembly instructions that's not the manufacturer's fault, is it?
It's pretty clear I didn't a poor job of making my point. Let me try this a different way: I was trying to say that, given all the various design pressures such as pushback and negotiation from the cell companies (an ENORMOUS acheivement for Apple, I will add!), estimated manufacturing costs, supplier contracts, ramp-up issues, marketing issues, engineering hurdles (hardware and software AND network), boardroom discussions, etc. this is the product that resulted. It is the product of its inputs. Without being one of the principals involved, it's impossible to know how many decisions were compromises made for the good of the project in order to see that it not stall in development and go to market. (e.g. "Real artists ship")
For that reason, it's easy to stand back and say "well, I would/could/should..." without being subjected to those pressures or being involved in the dynamics and unknowns. It doesn't make his critique any less valid. However, many a great product has died during R&D due to a loss of momentum. For that reason, it's important to move quickly before the market moves past you. Even more important if you have an external partner company because that company's internal politics can see the rise or fall of a necessary sponsor/ally. Shipping any product on this scale is a hell of an achievement.
Edward Tufte's comments are valuable and by no means do I wish to minimize the value of his contributions, but all desire for a perfect 1.0 product from any company should be considered in the context of a product pipeline. All things considered the iPhone is a very well-executed bit of kit. Now that the product has launched and is successful, it is time to look at implementing the improvements, the "wish list."
Sure, it's easy to say, with 20/20 hindsight, would could be better or different, but unless he's privy to all the design trade-offs which were invariably made, then I'd say the product is probably as good as it could have been, given the various pressures. Besides, it's always easier to critique someone else's work than create something novel yourself.
Chinese saying -- step too far, fall on face. A little more familiar is the phrase "perfect is the enemy of good". Attempting to release a 1.0 product that has everything absolutely perfect and without compromise is the surest way to never ship.
Perhaps iPhone2 will address some of these issues?
Because when I replied earlier, I was viewing with IE5 which gets royally confused about formatting since the addition of slashdot's new keybinding, causing several overlapping panels. I hit the wrong reply link. So sue me. Maybe/. needs to use that new microsoft "render this VERY accurately" tag being discussed on the front page? (or else the library needs to upgrade.)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Excellent points about the price of production vs. retail price. It's sometimes about perceived value.
>>they see how many people are willing to pay for it at x, y, z and then pick the price that gives them the most money I don't think they do. Consider this scenario for a moment: You want to buy a shirt. You can buy a $5 shirt, or a $500 shirt. There's an enormous variety of prices and styles available to you. Some are made of cheap materials (cotton, crudely cut & stitched) while others may be of fine silk or linen, hand tailored. Which makes the differences in price at least understandable.
So where's the variety in music pricing? Occasionally I see a $3.00 CD bin in the corner of the music store, but the VAST majority of music is selling for a price that smells like it's set by collusion among the big lablels -- For the most part, you have the $10 CD and the $17 CD and really little else to be found. That doesn't make sense. When Michael Jackson or Madonna or some other overhyped act spends millions and millions of dollars over a span of years in a studio to produce an album, shouldn't it cost proportionately more than the local garage band/one-hit-wonder that put the whole album together in their basement for $1,000 and is living in a hollowed out 15-seat bus eating ramen noodles between shows? But both act's albums are selling for nearly the same price. That leads me to believe that either the small bands are subsidizing the costs of the big-name "artists", or there's some very disturbing accounting happening at the label. And consider too that based on how most music contracts are structured with fees for "promotion" and "advertising" and "advances" and "management considerations", a small band can tour for a year, selling hundreds of thousands of albums (and making TONS of money for the label!) yet end the day in debt. That's just not right.
I think we can both agree it's a filthy business run by too many layers of less than upstanding characters. Like you said, not smart business men at all.
The CURRENT music industry will crumble. As it should; It's built on a 100-year-old business model of scarcity and limited distribution which screws both the artists (lousy contracts, "breakage") and the customers (CDs costs pennies to manufacture but cost much more, 30-year-old titles selling for more than new releases, etc.) and frankly the industry just doesn't add any value. Its not efficient, it doesn't discover or develop substantial new talent, etc. The gig is up. The CURRENT industry is turning out bland pop stars and the public is finally tired of the mediocre "product", the lack of value, and are moving on. However, there's a new music industry that is forming. It doesn't rely on brick stores and (so-called) talent scouts to "sign" and "develop" talent. You might have heard of it. It's called the Internet. The internet allows musicians to reach the public directly, at low cost, and high convenience. IOW, it provides value at a lower cost. The music cartels do not. Capitalism is working here -- it's weeding out inefficiencies. Cartels lose.
Some sort of music industry will exist simply because people enjoy being entertained with music and are willing to pay for that, however the current model is well past being feasable.
Competition -- wean thyself from the video teat
on
Will the Web Replace TV?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In most places, a library card is still free. Why not start there?
If you must be entertained, then I suggest you start with borrowing some videos. DVDs/VHS... it doesn't really matter. Reaquaint yourself with the classics -- choose anything from the AFI top 100 list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies_(10th_Anniversary_Edition))
Once you've gotten that out of your system, try some books on tape. Turn that hour-a-day commute time into something more productive than enduring the Morning Show Morons laughing at how drunk they got the night before or making ill-informed comments about the news of the day.
After a few weeks of books on tape, try reading a book. I know, I know -- you don't have time. Try it anyway. Read it during your lunch break. You'll eat more slowly and may lose a few pounds as a result. Spend an hour at night. If you take a train or bus, read it then. You'll be surprised at how quickly the time passes! If you're not sure what to read, choose anything which has won a Nebula Award which should appeal to the/. crowd.
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a television writer's stike and no-one noticed? After this exercise I suspect you'll find that your appetite for television entertainment has decreased. That's a good thing... it indicates you're more alive and using your mind actively rather than being passively entertained. There's life outside of television. Go find it.
Now's as good a time as any to check for browser type. If IE, redirect to the "You are using an non-standard browser" page with a link to GetFirefox.com
Slashdot Mirror
Best suggestion yet.
Yes, in theory adding random dots would introduce noise into the signal and potentially degrade it to the points it's no longer useful, but only if you can interfere with the pattern. Put another way, unless you know the location of the dot codes, to reach the level of noise necessary to obscure you'd have to cover the page; there would be so many random yellow dots so as to be perceptible.
I present to you, the state of Alabama.
Yeah $54,000,000 sounds absurd. But did she have any original content on that computer? Photos, songs, stories, spreadsheets, etc.? If she created it, she owns the copyright.
I ask because, if the courts allow the MPAA to sue kids for tens of thousands PER SONG for simply sharing a copywritten work, then why not let her sue for tens of thousands for each of HER original works? After all, her damages are much WORSE than those claimed by the music industry -- her content has been permanently destroyed/lost, while the music industry still has their content and can continue to sell it.
(Frankly, I don't think either case deserves what they're asking. Reimburse market price or some small multiple of *actual market price* as a punitive measure -- $1100 for the laptop lady. $.99 per song for the music company.)
"Dummies. We click, so you don't have to."
Can anyone who has installed this confirm that the Parental Controls bug is fixed? (Enable parental controls on one account and Dashboard widgets are broken on all accounts). Spent a couple hours trying to get it working again, without success. On the upside, TimeMachine did let me roll back to a hour before I enabled Parental Controls so nothing lost, other than an evening and some confidence in Apple's software testing methodology. (which is why I'm asking here... I want somebody else to "go first" on this update!)
Not without money they won't -- Congress is only interested in being bribed... uh, I mean "lobbied" by those with bags of money, especially around re-election time. In their death throes (which is fast approaching) they'll certainly lobby for more bad laws. That's inevitable, but once the industry bottoms out, they'll be reduced to having as much influence as the average voter. That is to say, none.
I think it's the only way to end this nonsense. Defang the industry by striking at what gives them power -- profit. When the money dries up, the investors will force the company to change or it will perish. Or, they'll behave like the newspaper industry, deciding to favour biased political viewpoints over profit and they watch their subscriber base drop %20 year-after-year until they are no longer relevant. Any of these is an acceptable outcome.
That's pretty funny! But it's also very, very close to the totalitarian ideas of the ex-Soviet Union (a Worker's Paradise, dontchaknow?) The State owns everything, and controls the means of production, including the people. We saw how well that worked out.
>>And, taking that further, since they think images of people are wrong, they should ban TV.
I know you say that in jest, but in classrooms across Europe, art teachers are instructed not to draw pictures of ANY persons (not just mohammed) so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the ultra-radical Muslim students who may or may not be in the classroom. Obviously this affects all students. And textbook publishers are busy stripping out images of people from their textbooks to make them more "acceptable" to the small, minority radical population.
As for the greater question of television, simply look at the Taliban (translates to "the students" or "study"): they prohibited all music, television, dancing, playing cards, etc. and used violence frequently to enforce their will. It's the same argument used to keep the population ignorant and illiterate. Let the Imams (religious teachers, analogous to preachers) do the reading and the thinking and let them tell the ignorant masses what to think. It's the reason there's always a spike in violence on Fridays across the middle-east -- right after Friday prayers when everyone's had their dose of the Two-Minute-Hate, sans telescreen, of course.
Now you have the Archbishop of Canterbury saying that Sha'ria (Islamic law) is "inevitable" and the West must simply accept it. It's called regression, the slow, gentle, backwards slide of a civilization wherein progress and freedom is surrendered. It's happening now under the guise of "multiculturalism" and will continue until the West stands up to this barbaric nonsense.
At the Christian churches I've attended (three different denominations) the focus *is* on the individual -- developing oneself to be closer to the ideal and serving as a role model for others while pursuing a closer relationship with God. At our bible study classes, during sermons, and during casual conversation there is disdain and disgust for a lot of what is present in society, and it's not uncommon to have conversations about ways to influence others, but I've never once heard a sermon or conversation that speaks of controlling or forcing others to bend to our will. Obviously, we won't allow ourselves to be doormats or victims of crime, but we realize and accept that each person's life must be their own and we expect the same in return. In fact, that would run contrary to the very basic idea of my religion -- that religion is the relationship between the individual and God and the foundation of that is forgiveness for our sins and an offer of salvation that must be PERSONALLY accepted, and cannot happen any other way. Life is one of constant struggle against temptation and self-development.
I do not know why you hold your anti-religious bias, but I hope that with greater life experience you will someday change your mind.
Thank you, Emrys! That was very informative.
Not just leading, but real "softball" questions. I'm surprised they didn't ask if he likes puppies. I'm pleased to learn he believes in providing direct answers to direct questions and I'd like some answers to questions such as:
Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?
Is healthcare a right?
Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues).
etc.
Frankly, I'd like answers to those questions from ALL politicians. It would be a step forward, instead of the current internecine squabbling : the "he said/she said/you made the girl cry" pandering Soap Opera.
Why force buyers to purchase two? Customer satisfaction, that's why! Because, when that keyboard pisses you off for the last time, merely throwing one Noahpad across the room might not be enough to soothe your rage.
Think about it. Wouldn't the *crunch* or that thing hitting a masonry wall at 40MPH with all those little *$(@#$# keys spilling onto the floor be really satisfying? You know it!
Thanks, E-Lead, for putting the customer first!
Q: Want to know how to make a small fortune in the stock market?
A: Start with a large fortune.
thankyouverymuch. Don't forget to tip the waiter. No stock tips, please.
So, when this extortion racket, uh, I mean "organization" successfully sues someone or they settle out of court... how much of that money goes back to the artists they supposedly represent? Has any artist received a dividend cheque?
Colour me skeptical.
Cut him some slack. He said "maybe half" which technically means you're not allowed to pin that down to an actual number. After all, this is the internet -- the magical place where, in lieu of hard facts, you can just make shit up.
Even better idea: Every new phone is described on the box as "unassembled/assembly required before use."
Each phone ships with a dropper of superglue and a flyer which instructs the owner to superglue the media card in place before use.
Now if the owner chooses not to blatently disregard the assembly instructions that's not the manufacturer's fault, is it?
It's pretty clear I didn't a poor job of making my point. Let me try this a different way:
I was trying to say that, given all the various design pressures such as pushback and negotiation from the cell companies (an ENORMOUS acheivement for Apple, I will add!), estimated manufacturing costs, supplier contracts, ramp-up issues, marketing issues, engineering hurdles (hardware and software AND network), boardroom discussions, etc. this is the product that resulted. It is the product of its inputs. Without being one of the principals involved, it's impossible to know how many decisions were compromises made for the good of the project in order to see that it not stall in development and go to market. (e.g. "Real artists ship")
For that reason, it's easy to stand back and say "well, I would/could/should..." without being subjected to those pressures or being involved in the dynamics and unknowns. It doesn't make his critique any less valid. However, many a great product has died during R&D due to a loss of momentum. For that reason, it's important to move quickly before the market moves past you. Even more important if you have an external partner company because that company's internal politics can see the rise or fall of a necessary sponsor/ally. Shipping any product on this scale is a hell of an achievement.
Edward Tufte's comments are valuable and by no means do I wish to minimize the value of his contributions, but all desire for a perfect 1.0 product from any company should be considered in the context of a product pipeline. All things considered the iPhone is a very well-executed bit of kit. Now that the product has launched and is successful, it is time to look at implementing the improvements, the "wish list."
Update kit consists of one drop of superglue, which you apply to the flash card. Presto -- no removable storage.
Who's laughing now, Mr. Patent Troll?
Sure, it's easy to say, with 20/20 hindsight, would could be better or different, but unless he's privy to all the design trade-offs which were invariably made, then I'd say the product is probably as good as it could have been, given the various pressures. Besides, it's always easier to critique someone else's work than create something novel yourself.
Chinese saying -- step too far, fall on face. A little more familiar is the phrase "perfect is the enemy of good". Attempting to release a 1.0 product that has everything absolutely perfect and without compromise is the surest way to never ship.
Perhaps iPhone2 will address some of these issues?
Because when I replied earlier, I was viewing with IE5 which gets royally confused about formatting since the addition of slashdot's new keybinding, causing several overlapping panels. I hit the wrong reply link. So sue me. Maybe /. needs to use that new microsoft "render this VERY accurately" tag being discussed on the front page? (or else the library needs to upgrade.)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Excellent points about the price of production vs. retail price. It's sometimes about perceived value.
>>they see how many people are willing to pay for it at x, y, z and then pick the price that gives them the most money
I don't think they do. Consider this scenario for a moment: You want to buy a shirt. You can buy a $5 shirt, or a $500 shirt. There's an enormous variety of prices and styles available to you. Some are made of cheap materials (cotton, crudely cut & stitched) while others may be of fine silk or linen, hand tailored. Which makes the differences in price at least understandable.
So where's the variety in music pricing? Occasionally I see a $3.00 CD bin in the corner of the music store, but the VAST majority of music is selling for a price that smells like it's set by collusion among the big lablels -- For the most part, you have the $10 CD and the $17 CD and really little else to be found. That doesn't make sense.
When Michael Jackson or Madonna or some other overhyped act spends millions and millions of dollars over a span of years in a studio to produce an album, shouldn't it cost proportionately more than the local garage band/one-hit-wonder that put the whole album together in their basement for $1,000 and is living in a hollowed out 15-seat bus eating ramen noodles between shows? But both act's albums are selling for nearly the same price. That leads me to believe that either the small bands are subsidizing the costs of the big-name "artists", or there's some very disturbing accounting happening at the label. And consider too that based on how most music contracts are structured with fees for "promotion" and "advertising" and "advances" and "management considerations", a small band can tour for a year, selling hundreds of thousands of albums (and making TONS of money for the label!) yet end the day in debt. That's just not right.
I think we can both agree it's a filthy business run by too many layers of less than upstanding characters. Like you said, not smart business men at all.
>the music industry will continue to crumble
You say that as if it's a bad thing!
The CURRENT music industry will crumble. As it should; It's built on a 100-year-old business model of scarcity and limited distribution which screws both the artists (lousy contracts, "breakage") and the customers (CDs costs pennies to manufacture but cost much more, 30-year-old titles selling for more than new releases, etc.) and frankly the industry just doesn't add any value. Its not efficient, it doesn't discover or develop substantial new talent, etc. The gig is up. The CURRENT industry is turning out bland pop stars and the public is finally tired of the mediocre "product", the lack of value, and are moving on.
However, there's a new music industry that is forming. It doesn't rely on brick stores and (so-called) talent scouts to "sign" and "develop" talent. You might have heard of it. It's called the Internet. The internet allows musicians to reach the public directly, at low cost, and high convenience. IOW, it provides value at a lower cost. The music cartels do not. Capitalism is working here -- it's weeding out inefficiencies. Cartels lose.
Some sort of music industry will exist simply because people enjoy being entertained with music and are willing to pay for that, however the current model is well past being feasable.
In most places, a library card is still free. Why not start there?
/. crowd.
If you must be entertained, then I suggest you start with borrowing some videos. DVDs/VHS... it doesn't really matter. Reaquaint yourself with the classics -- choose anything from the AFI top 100 list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies_(10th_Anniversary_Edition))
Once you've gotten that out of your system, try some books on tape. Turn that hour-a-day commute time into something more productive than enduring the Morning Show Morons laughing at how drunk they got the night before or making ill-informed comments about the news of the day.
After a few weeks of books on tape, try reading a book. I know, I know -- you don't have time. Try it anyway. Read it during your lunch break. You'll eat more slowly and may lose a few pounds as a result. Spend an hour at night. If you take a train or bus, read it then. You'll be surprised at how quickly the time passes! If you're not sure what to read, choose anything which has won a Nebula Award which should appeal to the
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a television writer's stike and no-one noticed? After this exercise I suspect you'll find that your appetite for television entertainment has decreased. That's a good thing... it indicates you're more alive and using your mind actively rather than being passively entertained. There's life outside of television. Go find it.
Now's as good a time as any to check for browser type. If IE, redirect to the "You are using an non-standard browser" page with a link to GetFirefox.com